US presidential election 2020:Winner?

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Have Obama or Boris been accused of crimes? Have they actively tried to prevent those crimes from being investigated? Have they previously been taken to Court 1600 times? If it walks like a weasel and talks like a weasel it's usually Donald Trump.

Your hypocrisy and double standards do you no credit.

As your disregard for due process and willingness to send someone to the gallows based upon your opinion is disturbing.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

It's an interesting philosophical question; Can somebody who actively supports a proven liar, a fraud, a bankrupt, a criminal, somebody with the most suspect of moral values, consider themselves to be "decent"?


ETA I'm sure the answer is going to be "Obama". it usually is.

You really are a bit overboard in your hate revealing. Can you please keep that on the Trump thread with the rest of the muck raking? There is a long process to select a Dem candidate and is the logical progression to this thread. I realize you are desperate to expand your disdain beyond that thread and find more people to backslap with you but please, not on this thread yet.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

You say “Trump is unpopular with decent people”, therefore implying that all who support Trump are indecent. I assure you that is not so. I of course should not need to point that out.

It's an interesting philosophical question; Can somebody who actively supports a proven liar, a fraud, a bankrupt, a criminal, somebody with the most suspect of moral values, consider themselves to be "decent"?

Then again, voting for some political Party doesn't mean you "actively support" the leader personally. This is the same type of mistake that Democrats made the last time around, attacking Trump for his personal failings. That was easy given the target...how did it turn out? Unless changes are made, sit back and watch it happen again.

At the last UK election I suspect a significant number of voters were forced into a choice between two Parties when they didn't support either Party's leader 'personally'.

[Jimbeaux]

turbobloke said:

Then again, voting for some politically doesn't mean you "actively support" the leader personally.

TB, I have said this until blue in the face. Either they choose to ignore it or simply don’t get it.

[turbobloke]

Jimbeaux said:

turbobloke said:

Then again, voting for some political Party doesn't mean you "actively support" the leader personally.

TB, I have said this until blue in the face. Either they choose to ignore it or simply don’t get it. Then again, it is the Trump thread and a bit myopic for contrary views.

Any chance to take a pop at Trump and Boris will be taken, in a way it's fair enough with politicians, but pops at PHers aka playing the person not the ball lacks anything of value and is merely a reminder of where the Democrats went wrong last time. Trump is attacked as being so godawful, and yet the Democrats couldn't find a candidate to beat him, and here we go again unless a step change takes place.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

turbobloke said:

Then again, voting for some politically doesn't mean you "actively support" the leader personally.

TB, I have said this until blue in the face. Either they choose to ignore it or simply don’t get it.

Defending him, perpetually making excuses for his behaviour, dissimulating, indulging in "Oh but Obama" usually does suggest a level of support.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

You really are a bit overboard in your hate revealing. Can you please keep that on the Trump thread with the rest of the muck raking? There is a long process to select a Dem candidate and is the logical progression to this thread. I realize you are desperate to expand your disdain beyond that thread and find more people to backslap with you but please, not on this thread yet.

If you make a point on this thread, I'll respond to it on this thread.

HTH

[turbobloke]

No step change has emerged in the odds as yet.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/u...

The ineffectiveness of personal attacks is persisting.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

As your disregard for due process and willingness to send someone to the gallows based upon your opinion is disturbing.

"Due process" would mean not obstructing the Authorities at every turn. To do so, especially given his past behaviour, implies a certain level of guilt.

[ZX10R NIN]

The DNC may be wishing for Bloomberg but they're going to get Bernie, they keep personally attacking (even then it's slim pickings) him but they can't really attack his policies as he just has too many receipts.

The other problem with Bloomberg/Buttigieg & Biden is that none have actually released any policies that can be scrutinised which really isn't helping them right now, two of the three have enough political land mines to render them incapacitated.

Which for me means that it'll be Biden & Bernie that'll be fighting it out for the nomination.

[unrepentant]

turbobloke said:

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

You say “Trump is unpopular with decent people”, therefore implying that all who support Trump are indecent. I assure you that is not so. I of course should not need to point that out.

It's an interesting philosophical question; Can somebody who actively supports a proven liar, a fraud, a bankrupt, a criminal, somebody with the most suspect of moral values, consider themselves to be "decent"?

Then again, voting for some political Party doesn't mean you "actively support" the leader personally. This is the same type of mistake that Democrats made the last time around, attacking Trump for his personal failings. That was easy given the target...how did it turn out? Unless changes are made, sit back and watch it happen again.

At the last UK election I suspect a significant number of voters were forced into a choice between two Parties when they didn't support either Party's leader 'personally'.

In the USA you directly vote for the president as opposed to the UK where you vote for the local MP. Also Trump IS now the Republican Party, with very few exceptions the decent sensible congressional republicans have gone and we’re left with the likes of McConnell, Gaetz, Nunes, Meadows, Jordan and all the other enablers.

No decent person can blindly and unquestionably support Trump. The man is utterly amoral, a lying racist sociopath and if you support him you are accepting his values. I have nothing but contempt for those who attempt to normalize him and his actions by dissembling and deflecting.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Defending him, perpetually making excuses for his behaviour, dissimulating, indulging in "Oh but Obama" usually does suggest a level of support.

However you prefer to spin it CD, if it makes you feel good.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

"Due process" would mean not obstructing the Authorities at every turn. To do so, especially given his past behaviour, implies a certain level of guilt.

Any obstruction is one afforded by the law and the before mentioned due process. Win or go home, the Dems are learning this the hard way.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 23 February 18:38

[Jimbeaux]

ZX10R NIN said:

The DNC may be wishing for Bloomberg but they're going to get Bernie, they keep personally attacking (even then it's slim pickings) him but they can't really attack his policies as he just has too many receipts.

The other problem with Bloomberg/Buttigieg & Biden is that none have actually released any policies that can be scrutinised which really isn't helping them right now, two of the three have enough political land mines to render them incapacitated.

Which for me means that it'll be Biden & Bernie that'll be fighting it out for the nomination.

You make sound logic here. However, human emotion and political leanings may be powerful here. As Unrepentent said this morning, don’t rule Bloomberg out. Let’s see how Super Tuesday goes. You are probably still correct imo but don’t wager just yet.

[Carl_Manchester]

Bannon did an interview regarding the 2020 election with Gzero media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m37VD0_f3K0

[ZX10R NIN]

No wager's here I like keeping my cash (although I did bet on Fury to win last night) in my pocket

[Down and out]

unrepentant said:

In the USA you directly vote for the president as opposed to the UK where you vote for the local MP. Also Trump IS now the Republican Party, with very few exceptions the decent sensible congressional republicans have gone and we’re left with the likes of McConnell, Gaetz, Nunes, Meadows, Jordan and all the other enablers.

No decent person can blindly and unquestionably support Trump. The man is utterly amoral, a lying racist sociopath and if you support him you are accepting his values. I have nothing but contempt for those who attempt to normalize him and his actions by dissembling and deflecting.

I think I'll still sleep tonight.

You're in for a few more years of the man, it's really not good to harbour such deep hatred, I find a lot of leaders valueless but it's not something worth getting worked up about.

[hidetheelephants]

turbobloke said:

Jimbeaux said:

Bernie said that he was briefed on the Russian meddling on his behalf a month ago. Reporters asked why it just came out publicly a day before the Nevada caucus. He said the WAPO released it the day before because the Dems and their media does not want him to win. I suppose he has a reason to worry about that after what they did to him in 2016.
I understand why the Dems do not want him to. He honeymooned in Moscow, he praises a form of government that is currently destroying Venezuela. He defended Castro, etc. These are easily beatable stances in a general election; therefore, it is obvious the Dems might want him to lose the nomination. This will be interesting.

While many countries including Colombia and Brazil - and other leading Democrat candidates - no longer recognise Maduro as Venezuela’s 'Socialists United' president, Sanders does, while also opposing economic sanctions. He's called Maduro a name or two but stops there. When it's said that middle class Venezuelans live off the dollar while the poor live off Maduro's left-wing slogans and declining handouts, with more than a million escaping (1 million+ in Colombia alone) what can Sanders possibly see as the gain from his isolated position?

Bernie called him a vicious tyrant and thinks that a free election with international supervision should be held as soon as possible, I don't think he exchanges christmas cards with Maduro. Not blithely copying the president's reckless stoking of the movement for regime change via non-democratic means apparently makes Bernie a terrible person and probably a communist. Thanks for cutting and pasting though, perhaps put it in a quote box next time and cite the source?

Jimbeaux said:

kowalski655 said:

And Trump is Putin's bh

You may ride on Hidetheelephant’s post but he is mistaken, as Turbobloke has pointed out.

Gosh, what a well-argued riposte. I'm convinced now that Trump isn't a corrupt, nepotistic kleptocrat.

[Jimbeaux]

ZX10R NIN said:

No wager's here I like keeping my cash (although I did bet on Fury to win last night) in my pocket

Good on you! I was pulling for him myself. That fellow is hard not to like.

[Jimbeaux]

hidetheelephants said:

osh, what a well-argued riposte. I'm convinced now that Trump isn't a corrupt, nepotistic kleptocrat.

Awesome, now you can concern yourself with post Brexit and E.U. Negotiations, the Labour Party, etc.