Biden 2020

TreeFrogTrader said:
I stay with what I have stated earlier which is that I concede right from the get-go that the proliferation of mail in ballots is a MAJOR advantage for the dems which is why they are pushing it so hard and it works against the Republicans bigtime. Not saying that it cannot be overcome but it is a factor that will have to be overcome by grunt work or strategy.

One of the problems is that when it comes to dems, they are like cockroaches and there are lots and lots of them. They are noisy but fortunately when it comes voting time most of them are busy thinking about sex, going to the mall, hanging out on Facebook, in jail, or too high on drugs to show up. But with mail in ballots you usually also get a very, very long voting window pereriod. This allows all the "community organizer" types to do their Acorn-thing - handing out cigarettes to people to register, working the phone banks and telling them the van will be by to pick up their ballot so fill it out and so on. Soros will fund an entire army to do that.

Of course the republicans get to do that as well but the benefit from a process where you have to show up to vote. That eliminates lots of dems right there. Mail-in changes that. And of course if you are a dem and you have not filled out your ballot because you are have been busy watching tv, you can just give your ballot to the guy in the dem van and he will fill it out for you and mail it in.

Yeh, the states control the voting process, as long as it complies with all the constitutional case law related to issues that have come up over the years.

And yes, mail-in ballots work to the advantage of dems bigtime. The binary thinkers here will hear me saying that it cannot be overcome. I did not say that at all. Just saying I concede that that is a problem and the pubs would be well advised to have a plan.

Dems have their problems too. Bigtime. Bigtime on steroids.
More...
Yeah I realize all of the above... what I am wondering is 1) will all of the points you made be enough impetus to be brought to and fought out in Federal Court regarding the integrity of the upcoming ballot current case law standing... and 2) Will there be a battle post-election if Trump refuses to accept the results based on everything you said above? What then? What if massive fraud is exposed? Because it will be.

I foresee a big mess on the horizon.
 
vanzandt said:
Yeah I realize all of the above... what I am wondering is 1) will all of the points you made be enough impetus to be brought to and fought out in Federal Court regarding the integrity of the upcoming ballot current case law standing... and 2) Will there be a battle post-election if Trump refuses to accept the results based on everything you said above? What then? What if massive fraud is exposed? Because it will be.

I foresee a big mess on the horizon.
More...

There will be some running to the supreme court right after the election. Probably by both sides and the court will in fact hear those cases on an expedited basis or refuse to hear them and let the appeals court decision- which was also expedited stand. So if Trump's "refusing to accept" is in the form of running to the supreme court (or the dems refusing to accept) then that is his right.

In regard to Trump's trying to maintain power even if the court rules against him or something like that- to get into that would be to feed into some bogus lefty media narrative about that happening. There is no evidence that Trump would attempt to do that. There will be issues, some will go up to the court, and they will be decided there and then the electoral college vote will occur and the president will be inaugurated right on schedule as required by the constitution.

The dems do need to watch their arse about adopting mail-in on an emergency basis by governor/executive decree though. The states have power under the constitution to set their voting process but the Court has the right to review whether they abused their own powers to arrive there. If we start to come out of lockdowns and kids are back at school in the fall and people are down at Pizza Hut for the luncheon special a state better not be modifying its existing election laws by emergency powers alone. That might have worked in the primaries a month ago when things were scary and moving fast and there was not time for the legislatures to act. Not going to fly with the court for the nov elections.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
There will be some running to the supreme court right after the election. Probably by both sides and the court will in fact hear those cases on an expedited basis or refuse to hear them and let the appeals court decision- which was also expedited stand. So if Trump's "refusing to accept" is in the form of running to the supreme court (or the dems refusing to accept) then that is his right.

In regard to Trump's trying to maintain power even if the court rules against him or something like that- to get into that would be to feed into some bogus lefty media narrative about that happening. There is no evidence that Trump would attempt to do that. There will be issues, some will go up to the court, and they will be decided there and then the electoral college vote will occur and the president will be inaugurated right on schedule as required by the constitution.

The dems do need to watch their arse about adopting mail-in on an emergency basis by governor/executive decree though. The states have power under the constitution to set their voting process but the Court has the right to review whether they abused their own powers to arrive there. If we start to come out of lockdowns and kids are back at school in the fall and people are down at Pizza Hut for the luncheon special a state better not be modifying its existing election laws by emergency powers alone. That might have worked in the primaries a month ago when things were scary and moving fast and there was not time for the legislatures to act. Not going to fly with the court for the nov elections.
More...
There's no doubt in my mind Trump will gladly step down if told to by SCOTUS. No doubt whatsoever.
I just see huge issues with mail-in ballots, issues that are going to make it extremely difficult for the courts to make an informed ruling on.
Oh well.... the powers that be have their work cut out for them in the next 5 months. I think its gonna turn into a heated clusterfuck both before and after Nov 3rd.... unless Biden wins by a landslide in the big swing states.
 
Biden has one and only one chance to win and that chance is based solely on his VP pick. Should he and his DNC puppet master be smart enough to choose a Tulsi Gabbard or similar person, then he stands a better than average chance of winning. If he stupidly selects a laughable Stacey type or radical left loon like Kamala then he loses. Simple as that.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Biden has one and only one chance to win and that chance is based solely on his VP pick. Should he and his DNC puppet master be smart enough to choose a Tulsi Gabbard or similar person, then he stands a better than average chance of winning. If he stupidly selects a laughable Stacey type or radical left loon like Kamala then he loses. Simple as that.
More...


Just like Romney would win in 2012 and it wouldnt matter if Biden got the most black votes in the primary.
 
Joe's handlers/campaign staff defend Joe by saying that he has spent his entire life to help women's causes. womp......womp.........womp.

Well, so did Ted Kennedy if you just look at legislation he supported. But if you look at his personal behavior you have to overlook the fact that he killed one woman and sexually assaulted many, many more. Ditto for Bill Clinton, minus Chappaquiddick.

Biden accuser Tara Reade 'lost total respect' for CNN's Anderson Cooper for not asking former VP about assault claim

Tara Reade, a former staffer for then-Sen. Biden, told her story about the former vice president over a month ago with progressive podcast host Katie Halper. Since then, Biden has done nearly a dozen TV interviews with news anchors including NBC News' Chuck Todd, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, and twice with Cooper -- all of whom failed to ask Biden about her public claim.

"I think it's shocking that this much time has passed and that he is an actual nominee for president and they're not asking the questions," Reade told Fox News. "He's been on 'Anderson Cooper' at least twice where he was not asked."

"I guess my question is, if this were Donald Trump, would they treat it the same way? If this were Brett Kavanaugh, did they treat it the same way?" Reade said. "In other words, it's politics and political agenda playing a role in objective reporting and asking the question."

Reade believes that the news anchors who have interviewed Biden "don't want to ask him" about her assault allegation.


"He greeted me, he remembered my name, and then we were alone. It was the strangest thing," Reade told Halper. "There was no like, exchange really. He just had me up against the wall."

Reade said that she was wearing “a business skirt,” but “wasn’t wearing stockings — it was a hot day.”

She continued: “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and he went down my skirt and then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers and he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying some things to me.”

Reade claimed Biden first asked if she wanted “to go somewhere else.”

“I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing,” Reade said. “He said: ‘Come on, man. I heard you liked me.’”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden...-for-not-asking-former-vp-about-assault-claim
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Joe's handlers/campaign staff defend Joe by saying that he has spent his entire life to help women's causes. womp......womp.........womp.

Well, so did Ted Kennedy if you just look at legislation he supported. But if you look at his personal behavior you have to overlook the fact that he killed one woman and sexually assaulted many, many more. Ditto for Bill Clinton, minus Chappaquiddick.

Biden accuser Tara Reade 'lost total respect' for CNN's Anderson Cooper for not asking former VP about assault claim

Tara Reade, a former staffer for then-Sen. Biden, told her story about the former vice president over a month ago with progressive podcast host Katie Halper. Since then, Biden has done nearly a dozen TV interviews with news anchors including NBC News' Chuck Todd, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, and twice with Cooper -- all of whom failed to ask Biden about her public claim.

"I think it's shocking that this much time has passed and that he is an actual nominee for president and they're not asking the questions," Reade told Fox News. "He's been on 'Anderson Cooper' at least twice where he was not asked."

"I guess my question is, if this were Donald Trump, would they treat it the same way? If this were Brett Kavanaugh, did they treat it the same way?" Reade said. "In other words, it's politics and political agenda playing a role in objective reporting and asking the question."

Reade believes that the news anchors who have interviewed Biden "don't want to ask him" about her assault allegation.


"He greeted me, he remembered my name, and then we were alone. It was the strangest thing," Reade told Halper. "There was no like, exchange really. He just had me up against the wall."

Reade said that she was wearing “a business skirt,” but “wasn’t wearing stockings — it was a hot day.”

She continued: “His hands were on me and underneath my clothes, and he went down my skirt and then up inside it and he penetrated me with his fingers and he was kissing me at the same time and he was saying some things to me.”

Reade claimed Biden first asked if she wanted “to go somewhere else.”

“I pulled away, he got finished doing what he was doing,” Reade said. “He said: ‘Come on, man. I heard you liked me.’”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden...-for-not-asking-former-vp-about-assault-claim
More...


Thats her 2nd story.Her first story was he only rubbed her shoulders and prior to that she praised him for his actions in helping stop sexual assaults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top