View Full Version : Odds on ol' Joe.
Quite the unprecedented election, Vegas odds for Joe Biden to have the nomination have dropped to 4/5 (dropping over 10% in just a handful of days), and nobodies even running against him. I foresee a concerted effort by the left to give him the boot, with less to due over the allegations (when has that ever mattered to either party?) and more to do with him being out of sight for a couple months, seemingly barely peeking out from the crack of his door.. and generally a weak candidate to begin with. I'm even seeing some MSM news on the allegations, which makes you go hmmm.
Might upset the market even more if his status is in question.
ETA: What I mean by "both parties" is not Kavanaugh, or derogatory, I mean when a party has invested time in their POTUS candidate, they normally aren't overly concerned about late-game skeletons. Just like the left probably thought they had a big "gotcha" with the off mic audio of Trump. Nobody who likes Trump cared about skeletons. An absence of skeletons was never Trump's selling point - and it's never been Biden's either. That's why this seems in some ways, a "get out of Biden" card that the left wants to take advantage of, where they wouldn't if it was any viable candidate in the exact same circumstance.
Great-Kazoo
04-30-2020, 22:16
Not until more left of leftist demand an inquiry. The LAT OPED is calling for one Not looking good.
https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-tara-reades-allegation-joe-224332871.html
Of course when people defended Kavanaugh over something someone may have done, but not sure when or where. They were attacked by the #BELIEVE EVERY WOMAN. Crowd.
No that it's happening to uncle joe. The same crowd is saying Well that happened so many years ago. And no one remembers,so i doubt her story.
Susan Sarandon is supporting Tara too. Even AOC suggest "we" look in to it.
Just saw he's going to address the allegations tomorrow on "morning joe" whatever that is. We need to start a betting pool on that being a prince-Andrew level of disaster. I'm not sure what those odds would be, but there's... potential is definitely there for him to cluster-f$%k it to all get out.
Lefty fake news - PMSNBC. They'll handle him with kid gloves. Nothing tough.
Joe painted himself into a corner with Kavanaugh. I almost fainted when Juan Williams on Fox News couldn't come up with any excuses for Joe.
There's no way Biden can debate Trump.
He will be out before the convention.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-biden-this-is-an-open-book-there-is-nothing-for-me-to-hide-82865221937
11:58 - 13:20
Hate to link to that, but it gets amusing. Some serious LOL moments right in there. Glad he cleared up that e.g. there's nobody that's aware that's aware of anybody that's aware of awareness about nobody whose aware.
blacklabel
05-01-2020, 11:53
I don't think the allegations do him in, it's his inability to form a coherent sentence that they're scared of. How he got this far blows my mind.
I don't think the allegations do him in, it's his inability to form a coherent sentence that they're scared of. How he got this far blows my mind.
This. I took the time to read up on this a bit last night. The allegations seem just as weak as every other allegation. This is an exercise to prove that he can't deal with normal political BS and everyone knows it. Interesting play, and interesting times.
Something to consider:
What if this is merely a ploy for the DNC to be able to hand-pick their candidate? Support crazy ol' JB until he becomes a liability and/or non-candidate (preferably last minute) and when he steps aside/drops out, slide in your preferred, pre-selected, uncontested candidate? None of the ugly press and bad optics from the previous election's obvious candidate-engineering/rigging by the DNC, yet same end goal.
Too conspiratorial? Not possible due to procedure/rules? I'm open to opposing opinions on this theory (thin as it is), but I wouldn't put anything past the DNC.
I will ETA that many, and possibly even the DNC may have initially believed him viable in the beginning. But he is practically the right's best asset at this point.
Something to consider:
What if this is merely a ploy for the DNC to be able to hand-pick their candidate? Support crazy ol' JB until he becomes a liability and/or non-candidate (preferably last minute) and when he steps aside/drops out, slide in your preferred, pre-selected, uncontested candidate? None of the ugly press and bad optics from the previous election's obvious candidate-engineering/rigging by the DNC, yet same end goal.
Too conspiratorial? Not possible due to procedure/rules? I'm open to opposing opinions on this theory (thin as it is), but I wouldn't put anything past the DNC.
I will ETA that many, and possibly even the DNC may have initially believed him viable in the beginning. But he is practically the right's best asset at this point.
I've kind of wondered similar things. It seems unlikely it was planned from step one - from a perspective of "why" as it would seem to cause more damage than good than pursing the desired candidate from the inset (only scenario might be if they wanted to bypass vetting) - that said, Biden has never been their "ideal" guy in a voting contest with Trump. So I do think this opportunity is presented as a get-outta-Biden card that many in their party want to play - and slide in some yet-unnamed woman cheating the process again. (probably not Hillary).
I don't understand enough of the process to even begin to guess what happens next though. If he drops... do they just "default" all the votes to the presumptive VP? There's seems to be real risk of a last-minute shake up, but I don't have an earthly idea what to anticipate actually happening. The NBC interview was fairly light, and he didn't screw it up "as-bad" as Andrew, but I don't think it went well for him. If they find any evidence of a complaint of any type being made in paper, he's a cooked goose. And they might want to ditch him early in the process instead of having that liability show up now in October.
One thing I note is that he is VERY careful trying to avoid saying anything negative about Tara - I'm wondering if that isn't for sake of a risk of a defamation suit... which could open up the university files to discovery. There is public evidence the campaign staff went through those files right after these allegations first emerged, which doesn't help their argument for clamping them down now.
I'm in general agreement too that the allegations aren't all that strong, but still have much more foundation than the Kavanaugh allegations, which couldn't be really-substantiated by anyone other than the accuser and was very vague. This has the Larry King audio from her mother calling in, a neighbor, a friend, various family, etc, so it's not on the same page, but still as of yet unsubstantiated - it does seems unusual to allege filing a written complaint if you knew in advance it didn't exist, unless she simply thought that couldn't be proven in time for November.
I somewhat wonder if it isn't a case of normal employee-employer disagreements and she may have filed a generic complaint which she now hinges this upon; but even then, a generic complaint would really undermine Biden so hard, whether there actually was a sexual assault or potentially just a verbal one 27 years ago. I don't doubt that he doesn't have an ounce of memory for whatever the truth is, as he hardly seems to have a memory for when he was VP, much less a young Senator - and the real issue is undoubtedly his growing ineptitude, because they've never seemed too creeped out over his skeletons in all the years prior to now.
One bit of joy - Biden's choking on crow hard for sticking his nose into the Kav hearings.
I've kind of wondered similar things. It seems unlikely it was planned from step one - from a perspective of "why" as it would seem to cause more damage than good than pursing the desired candidate from the inset (only scenario might be if they wanted to bypass vetting) - that said, Biden has never been their "ideal" guy in a voting contest with Trump. So I do think this opportunity is presented as a get-outta-Biden card that many in their party want to play - and slide in some yet-unnamed woman cheating the process again. (probably not Hillary).
I don't understand enough of the process to even begin to guess what happens next though. If he drops... do they just "default" all the votes to the presumptive VP? There's seems to be real risk of a last-minute shake up, but I don't have an earthly idea what to anticipate actually happening. The NBC interview was fairly light, and he didn't screw it up "as-bad" as Andrew, but I don't think it went well for him. If they find any evidence of a complaint of any type being made in paper, he's a cooked goose. And they might want to ditch him early in the process instead of having that liability show up now in October.
One thing I note is that he is VERY careful trying to avoid saying anything negative about Tara - I'm wondering if that isn't for sake of a risk of a defamation suit... which could open up the university files to discovery. There is public evidence the campaign staff went through those files right after these allegations first emerged, which doesn't help their argument for clamping them down now.
I guess I'll have to break down and actually watch the whole interview. Was trying to avoid it, as he usually makes my head hurt just listening to him.
I'm generally tracking with you on the fact that this was probably not engineered from the get go, and certainly could be a timely bail out for them if he gets progressively worse. Maybe he was the best bet to oust bernie, and now they're circling the wagons while they do damage control... I can't even imagine who they want to present as a replacement.
And as I alluded to in my post and you said in your response, I'm not entirely clear what the rules/procedures/allowances are if he is removed.
ETA: Just saw your edit above, and that is spot on to my thoughts. I do feel if they go this route, there's at least an 80% chance it's a female, and probably non-caucasian.
I can't even imagine who they want to present as a replacement..
That's the scary prospect. If they did default his existing votes to the presumptive VP once announced - the most restrictive governor (Michigan) is not out of question as the nominee, since she's favored. Such a nomination would be devastating to the market in of itself. But who the heck knows how that works, you halfway wonder if they even have "rules" that cover it, at all.
That's the scary prospect. If they did default his existing votes to the presumptive VP once announced - the most restrictive governor (Michigan) is not out of question as the nominee, since she's favored. Such a nomination would be devastating to the market in of itself. But who the heck knows how that works, you halfway wonder if they even have "rules" that cover it, at all.
I'm not entirely convinced they don't make up their own, as they feel the need to...
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-biden-this-is-an-open-book-there-is-nothing-for-me-to-hide-82865221937
11:58 - 13:20
Hate to link to that, but it gets amusing. Some serious LOL moments right in there. Glad he cleared up that e.g. there's nobody that's aware that's aware of anybody that's aware of awareness about nobody whose aware.
Joe Biden: "I can't remember."
Joe Biden: "I don't remember."
Joe Biden: "That was 27 years ago."
Joe Biden: "I'm not aware."
Joe Biden: "I don't understand it."
Joe Biden: "I don't understand the point you're trying to make."
Pretty funny that he's also concerned about his tax returns being made public while he's running for office. Hmmm, seems the Dems have made a big deal about the Donald's tax returns being made public.
After 10 minutes in he totally falls apart. If you don't watch the whole thing, just jump to 12 minutes in.
The only way he goes further is if they lock him away.
At this point, him being allowed to keep embarrassing himself is akin to elder abuse. However, if it means no democrat president for 4 more years, let's beat the crap out of grandpa.
It's rather sad that Joe Biden has both feet through the door of dementia. The pressures of the campaign have likely accelerated his fall. It reminds me of Bob Dole who rather dramatically fell down through his campaign. Picking and rewarding party elders for their loyalty hasn't produced good presidential candidates. They really aren't up to the task of the campaign or the presidency.
I expect Joe will be replaced. This article proffers how that might come about.
https://theweek.com/articles/911903/smokefilled-room-that-could-oust-joe-biden
funkymonkey1111
05-01-2020, 14:31
I think Cuomo may be a contender in the shadows
DavieD55
05-01-2020, 14:38
I'm guessing he will drop out at the last minute and then they'll replace with soetoro's wife or something like that.
Thanks Hummer. Seems pretty well put together. It looks like the replacement, if one is made, would most likely be selected by a mere 350 people Democratic National Committee voting in late August or September (very late in the game).
I'm sure it would cause a lot of gnashing of teeth and even hard division in their own party, but we already know from 2016 that the DNC seems to want to pick their nominee regardless, so the scandal wouldn't be unprecedented. Then we'd have little to no vetting, little to no debating, yet tens to hundreds of millions in last minute ads (Bloomberg). Still, I feel like it's hard to estimate if that would be a better or worse outcome as far as election risks, since it would feel "dirty" all around to most people - it certainly would end this false-bull run right quick, possibly right into a second heavy crash. Extreme caution on the market is likely warranted immediately after Biden's nomination based on that info.
I predict that this election will be the biggest clusterfu k in American political history. The craziness, unpredictability and litigiisness of Trump, the blatant ineptitude of Biden, and the last minute DNC politburo replacement will be tinder for the fire lit by the National Popular Vote scheme. It will make the hanging chad maneuvering of the Bush-Gore race look a night court sitcom. Throw in a timely Ginsburg opening on SCOTUS and the Progs and MSM will go blind with rage.
Throw in a timely Ginsburg opening on SCOTUS and the Progs and MSM will go blind with rage.
I don’t know that I have enough popcorn to watch the shitstorm we’ll be presented with if Ginsburg gives up the ghost before the election.
Bailey Guns
05-02-2020, 10:19
I think this guy pretty much nails it:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hillary-biden-endorsement-jimmy-failla
There are obviously a lot of ways replacing Biden could play out. This one seems pretty plausible, though.
two shoes
05-02-2020, 19:30
I'm guessing he will drop out at the last minute and then they'll replace with soetoro's wife or something like that.
This or HRC jumps back in...
DavieD55
05-02-2020, 21:20
This or HRC jumps back in...
Another possibility could be that he selects bho for vp and then resigns for the retirement home after he's elected leaving America with another 4 years of new world order globalism.
Martinjmpr
05-04-2020, 16:27
I'm guessing he will drop out at the last minute and then they'll replace with soetoro's wife or something like that.
This or HRC jumps back in...
Eh, I don't see either as particularly likely. One possibility is that some faction of the Dems might have just written 2020 off in hopes of getting in better position for 2024.
If you look back at all the elections since WWII one of the things that is very clear is that any election where there is a sitting, elected* incumbent president, the president is almost always reelected.
* Note that when I say "elected" I mean elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. So LBJ would be an example of a sitting president who was previously elected as a VP. By contrast, Ford was not elected to either office, he was appointed to the VP slot after Agnew resigned in disgrace and ascended to the presidency when Nixon did the same thing.
There seems to be a kind of "presidential momentum" that makes reelection a near certainty. So much so that I think it's worth it to consider the only two times since the end of WWII that a sitting, elected president was NOT re-elected: Carter in 1980 and Bush 41 in 1992.
Carter, besides being a rather weak and ineffectual politician to begin with (who only beat Ford because Ford was tainted with the scandals of the Nixon administration) was hit with the triple crises of economic stagnation, inflation, and international humiliation in Iran and Afghanistan (where our boycott of the 1980 Olympics just made us look like sore losers.)
Bush 41, who was riding so high after the first Gulf War that Saturday Night Live even ran a skit called "Election '92 - The Race To Avoid Being The Guy Who Loses To Bush" was also a weak candidate to begin with and the Democrats had had 12 years out of the White House to find a candidate - young, charismatic and well-spoken Bill Clinton, as well as a minor recession.
But look at Bush's successors: Clinton had huge "negatives" going into the 1996 election and so did Bush 43 going into the 2004 elections, and both won re-election easily. Same for Obama in '12.
It doesn't hurt that in all 3 of these elections, the opposing party ran a lackluster party insider either - which is exactly what Biden appears to be.
As far as Michelle Obama or Hillary jumping back into the race, I just don't see it happening. First of all, Hillary has had her two bites at the apple and now she has the taint of "loser" about her. Nobody serious is going to support her.
And while Michelle Obama might have a lot of people who like her, in modern politics, that's not enough. You have to have POLITICAL supporters which means people who's backs you've scratched and who owe you one, people who are willing to stick their necks out for you and who have something concrete that they want in return. It takes time and effort to build up that kind of "support base" and Michelle hasn't done that.
That shit happens on TV shows like "House of Cards" but in the real world of politics, people with money and power won't waste their efforts on a rank amateur (Michelle Obama) or a proven loser (Hillary.)
Zundfolge
05-04-2020, 17:36
If they replace Biden with anyone other than the second place finisher, Bernie, the Democrat party will explode. Doesn't mean they won't try but it'll be an entertaining shit-show.
As for replacing him with Michelle Obama (or making her his VP) I seriously doubt that because I don't think that Michelle Obama has even one single bit of interest in the job. She's way too lazy to be First Lady, let alone Vice President. She wants to sit on the veranda of her big house on Martha's Vineyard and drink mamosas with the other obnoxious, rich, leftist crones.
I think Martinjmpr is right about Hillary ... she's done, she's got no more juice. She's a two time loser.
Frankly I think that the DNC realizes they have virtually no chance of beating Trump in an honest election so they've served up ole Joe as a sacrificial lamb ... doesn't matter if his political career ends with this because he's got no future anyway.
This is why the push for nationwide vote-by-mail ... rigging the election is really all the Democrats have left.
During the interview on Friday, Joe Scarborough had to coach Joe into addressing Covid-19 and speaking to the doctors and nurses on the front line, and off Joe went...
I don't think he ever addressed the doctors and nurses.
http://youtu.be/pNm48JFNVj8
Remember, this is the same man that said 150 million Americans have died from gun violence.
I think the DNC has written off the next election, as the big focus on getting Bernie out was 'down ballot House elections'. If Bernie was the candidate, a bunch of Dems were expected to sit this one out, and that would likely mean losing control of the House. Maybe they expect to lose with Joe, they just didn't want to have their voters sitting at home instead of voting.
If this turns into an election by mail, all bets are off and the level of voting corruption will make Chicago blush.
"Sorry I misread"... Misread what... his teleprompter? You might be right on kicking Bernie to the curb being the important objective. I wonder if they didn't fear Bernie actually getting elected to extreme end - he wouldn't get much done, no more than what he did in Congress (what, named a post office?) so their objectives would be kaput either way, but within four years, the (D) would be cleaved in two. I can't imagine with as much hatred as they have towards Trump actually handing the election over for four years, but maybe they were naive enough to think Trump is hated enough for Joe to have a chance.... or like a good portion of people, they just always believe their guy is "the good guy" and going to win by some greater power of hope, who knows... but keeping the party together (and sailing in the direction of DNC's desired candidates and objectives) is probably far more important to them than a risk of not beating Trump, because if they destroy themselves during a Bernie presidency he very well might have been the last president with a "Democratic" candidate label to ever be elected.
I used to think the Republican party was the more disorganized and incompetent of the two. Trump came into the picture and ran right over the RNC.
Hillary owned the DNC, and was so dislikable that she lost to a guy not selected by the party he represented and had spent a lot less.
Now the RNC has had a chance to refocus and the DNC is pulling out all the stops just to avoid losing control of the party.
The establishment parties have both seen rejection in the past election and it's still in play this cycle.
Martinjmpr
05-06-2020, 15:40
The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.
The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.
That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.
But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.
There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.
The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.
Great-Kazoo
05-06-2020, 17:00
The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.
The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.
That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.
But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.
There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.
The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.
You missed the Never Trumpers of the R party. Who do more damage just because, Trump ? As they did in 16, hold Hillarys coat just to get rid of trump. I'm waiting for what ever biden's been coached to do, as things open up. Be curious what the turn out will be for his rally
The Democratic party's biggest problem is that the old coalition of working-class and ethnic voters (Union members, Italians, Irish, Jewish, etc) has been eclipsed by the hardcore AOC style socialists and what I call the "tribal factions", i.e. racial spoils seekers who don't even pretend to care about anybody OTHER than their own "tribe" to the exclusion of others.
The AOC style socialists scare the big-money donors away (quite rightly I think) and the tribal factions offer absolutely nothing that would encourage anybody outside their tribe to vote for them. And the socialists absolutely HATE large portions of the Democratic caucus.
That puts the Democrats in a real bind. In any election where the margin of victory is less than 5% (which is a lot of them), they can't afford to alienate anybody - despite the fact that large portions of their "base" hate other portions of their base. No matter which way the Dems go, they lose. If they move to the left to appease the AOC socialists and the tribalists, then the middle-of-the-road white, working class Democrats and big $$ donors desert them. If the move to the center to cater to the white working class, they get excoriated by the socialists and tribalists. If they upset either group, that group then threatens to stay home and throw the tight election to the Republicans. Even blacks, who have traditionally been one of the staunchest supporters of Democrats in recent times, stayed home in large numbers in 2016 because they sensed that the Hillary-led Democrats had nothing to offer them.
But "splitting up" isn't really an option either. In our first-past-the-post election system (i.e. the first candidate to get a majority wins) splitting into two parties guarantees that NEITHER party will be able to win.
There are some in the Democratic base who don't really care - to them, remaking THE PARTY is more important than winning elections. So, for those people "purity tests" are more important than actually, you know winning elections. They'd rather have a "politically correct" candidate who has all the "approved" opinions (and who doesn't stand a chance of actually getting elected) than a candidate who cuts deals with the opposition but might actually win.
The Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the same problem because while, for example, "low tax" Republicans and "pro life" Republicans might not necessarily be motivated by the same issues, they generally don't despise each other the way parts of the Democratic base actively despise OTHER parts of the Democratic base.
When you refer to "tribes", I see that as identity politics. The problem with that game is when the identities collide.
For example:
We support women's rights and want them to be equals to men.
We support "transgendered" people and want them to be treated equally as well.
Then women get their asses handed to them in sporting competitions by transgender "women". Now what?
We want freebies for illegals!
Working people are thinking, "Wait a minute. We contribute a lot of money to Dem candidates, why aren't they paying attention to our needs?"
Exclusive: 1996 court document confirms Tara Reade told of harassment in Biden’s office (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article242527331.html)
A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.
The declaration — exclusively obtained by The Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California — does not say Biden committed the harassment nor does it mention Reade’s more recent allegations of sexual assault.
Reade’s then-husband Theodore Dronen wrote the court declaration. Dronen at the time was contesting a restraining order Reade filed against him days after he filed for divorce, Superior Court records show.
In it, he writes Reade told him about “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.”
It seems most every news source has ran with some variation of the story as to the court documents, indicating there is some likelihood that it is confirmed. Many left-leaning outlets try to soften it as much as possible (e.g. never specifically said "Joe Biden" "sexually assaulted her" (it instead infers sexual harassment in Joe Biden's office and a deal with his manager).
This situation definitely has #metoo's "champions" in a phallic-shaped pickle. There's no way future opposition ads are going to poo-poo this like the press either. At this point, I'd bet very strongly on a resignation after nomination, possibly for "other reasons" like "health problems" for the party to save face.
It really would seem ludicrous at this point to proceed with Biden. Even if they anticipate a loss anyway it would cause significant reputation damage to their platform and largely invalidate an attack vector they often rely on.
TEAMRICO
05-08-2020, 19:10
And you think that will stop the Democrats? Ludicrous and insane is their mantra.
Martinjmpr
05-10-2020, 10:05
In an election where the margin of victory is razor thin, one of the most effective ways to win is to get a significant portion of the base of the other party to just stay home. It seems to me, that is the real danger for the Democrats.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://youtu.be/aJNs2i7dT-w
I've heard this interview is really solid and Tara Reade seems very credible. I haven't watched it yet.
http://youtu.be/5HeZiKvOA0o
Aloha_Shooter
05-13-2020, 13:13
At this point, I think the Democratic Party solidified behind Biden 1) as a throwaway candidate (much like McCain for the Republicans in 2008) since the incumbent is likely to win by huge margins and 2) to avoid collateral damage from a Sanders nomination that would affect the downstream candidates. Democrats aren't going to avoid going to the polls even if Biden is a likely loser while some would have just stayed home rather than vote for Sanders.
Whatever Republican ran in 2008 was going to lose, no matter who it was. The media had already tainted that election with the lies about Bush and the Iraq War, much as they swayed the '92 election for Clinton. Might as well give the candidacy to McCain and shut him up forever as "the loser of 2008".
For 2020, until the Wuhan coronavirus sprang up, all the signs indicated a massive sweep for Trump: he had the economy firing on all cylinders, had reversed many of the unpopular Obama policies, and had even moved his approval rating up. May as well throw Joe in the ring because the election was going to be a loser and Sanders was going to drive off Democrats that they needed for the lower races.
The media is still trying to sway the election with their misleading coverage of the pandemic and boosting Cuomo despite his (and Newsom's) horrible record in preparing and reacting to the virus but I think the general public still sees that Trump didn't do anything wrong. Maybe he could have done things faster or better (probably not) but he certainly didn't make any obvious missteps so Joe as the throwaway candidate still makes sense -- until this whole Tara Reade thing popped up and now they have to figure out if they're going to lose more votes due to Creepy Uncle Joe ... oh wait, they can salvage Kamala's "foot-in-mouth" career and counteract #MeToo by placing her as his running mate ...
Biden Says Voters Who Believe Tara Reade 'Probably Shouldn't Vote For Me' (https://www.npr.org/2020/05/15/856708004/biden-says-voters-who-believe-tara-reade-probably-shouldn-t-vote-for-me)
Former Vice President Joe Biden again denied the sexual assault allegation made against him by former Senate staffer Tara Reade in an interview on MSNBC Thursday night, but added that voters who stand by Reade should not support him.
"If they believe Tara Reade, they probably shouldn't vote for me," Biden said when asked what message he would give to female voters who accept Reade's allegation as true, but were planning on supporting him.
"I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade," Biden added.
At least he didn't challenge them to 'step outside' or to a pushup contest.
The lack of media appearances is really a blessing for Biden. His PR reps probably have to spend weeks prepping for the limited appearances he does do:
"How many times... Joe, shut-up about the leg hair already! Say you unequivocally deny it, then shutup! NO, NO AFRICA, NO AFRICA. DON"T BRING AFRICA INTO THIS."
If it were a normal trail, by now he might have brought up American Pie or something equally face-palmy. I'm not so sure it's dementia anymore after seeing all the 1988 campaign trail stuff. Three law degrees? Who is dumb enough to accidentally tell that kind of lie?
Great-Kazoo
05-16-2020, 15:41
At least he didn't challenge them to 'step outside' or to a pushup contest.
you dogface pony.
Biden got good news, he's leading in the polls. He's just not sure which one they're talking about.
Oh, snap.
Ukraine has reopened the investigation into Biden getting the Prosecutor General that was investigating Burisma Holdings fired. It implicates Biden by name. There's also a leaked phone call with John Kerry and Biden speaking with the then President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko regarding the subject. Heard the phone call on Glenn Beck's radio show this morning.
Found a source for reference (even though it's WaPo): Ukrainian lawmaker releases leaked phone calls of Biden and Poroshenko (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukrainian-lawmaker-releases-leaked-phone-calls-of-biden-and-poroshenko/ar-BB14l4Md)
The vice president publicly pushed for reform of the prosecutor general’s office at the time. Biden later said that he told Poroshenko that Ukraine would not receive $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was removed and the prosecutor general’s office was reformed. Much of that is recounted on the tapes.
In one clip, Biden congratulates Poroshenko on installing a new prosecutor general.
“It’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage that Shokin did,” Biden says. “And I’m a man of my word. And now that the new prosecutor general is in place, we’re ready to move forward to signing that new $1 billion loan guarantee.”
At no point in the clips released Tuesday does Biden mention Burisma or his son. Biden has denied discussing the gas company with his son, and his advisers have emphasized that he was pushing for Shokin’s ouster as a matter of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine, which called for anti-corruption reforms.
In one call, Poroshenko reported to Biden that he had met with Shokin and asked for his resignation and that Shokin had, an hour before the call, complied and written a letter resigning from his post. Poroshenko described the move as the “second step of keeping my promises.”
“Great,” Biden replied. “I agree.”
In the recordings, Poroshenko also appeared to seek Biden’s approval before appointing Yuri Lutsenko to replace Shokin, noting that if Biden was opposed to a “politically motivated figure” like Lutsenko taking on the role, he could rethink the move.
Biden replied that he would “huddle” with his team and “talk over what you and I just talked about.” It is unclear whether Biden was referring to Poroshenko’s comments about Lutsenko or other items they discussed on the call.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-tells-popular-radio-host-you-aint-black-if-considering-voting-for-trump-154645383.html
Probably be overlooked by the left, but wow.
TLDR: Biden says "Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black." to a black radio host who said he'd like to have him back with a few more questions in the future.
Joe just can't help himself.
Biden adviser says ‘you ain’t black’ comment was made ‘in jest,’ defends record (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-advisor-defends-you-aint-black-comments-directed-at-african-americans-considering-trump-vote)
Interesting to see in that same Yahoo article discussion about Amy Klobuchar as a VP pick. She recently had to admit that her husband took Hydroxychloroquine when he was having severe symptoms from Covid-19, and walked out of the hospital doing well 5 days later. She still tried to make it seem like Trump wasn't right about giving doctors the ability to use the drug.
He really said "You are not a brain dead monkey if you think for yourself and not listen to your handler"
Joe lives in an alternative universe...where he's Thanos with all of the infinity stones.
NAACP pushes back on Biden’s claim it endorsed him after ‘you ain’t black’ furor (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/naacp-pushes-back-on-bidens-claim-it-endorsed-him-after-you-aint-black-furor/ar-BB14uNHQ)
The NAACP on Friday pushed back on a claim by presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden that the civil rights organization had endorsed him “every time I’ve run” — stating that the group never endorses any political candidate.
Joe lives in an alternative universe...where he's Thanos with all of the infinity stones.
NAACP pushes back on Biden’s claim it endorsed him after ‘you ain’t black’ furor (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/naacp-pushes-back-on-bidens-claim-it-endorsed-him-after-you-aint-black-furor/ar-BB14uNHQ)
They'll be incredulous . . .
right up to the point where they vote 90%+ for him in Nov.
Just need to peel enough away and the Dems don't have a chance to win. Shoot, just enough need to stay home go change the outcome. If it's that close at all.
The way Trump is behaving now, Biden's chances are improving daily.
TEAMRICO
06-02-2020, 19:58
My question is how is he behaving?. Please tell us HOW he should act.
DenverGP
06-02-2020, 20:22
The way Trump is behaving now, Biden's chances are improving daily.
disagree completely. he's condemned the police officer that killed the guy, condemned racism, and condemned the rioters and looters.
Any vote he "lost" from those statements was never going to vote republican anyway.
I hope you are right. Just my confidence is eroding. I hope voters see him in a positive light and Biden is sent off to Delaware to stay.
Great-Kazoo
06-03-2020, 07:36
I hope you are right. Just my confidence is eroding. I hope voters see him in a positive light and Biden is sent off to Delaware to stay.
50/50 chance. depends how many places allow mail in voting, that did not prior to the virus. Cause ya know we need to avoid large crowds. Like they're doing now, in most urban areas.
Aloha_Shooter
06-03-2020, 12:16
The mainstream media, entertainment industry, and self-appointed elites will certainly do their level best to portray Trump in a negative light no matter what he does, just as they did to Reagan, both Bushes, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and John McCain before him. Sometimes they have been successful (1992, 2008, 2012), sometimes the voters have resisted them. They have been increasingly transparent in their agenda-driven missives and entertainment failures over the past 3 years but who knows?
The mainstream media, entertainment industry, and self-appointed elites will certainly do their level best to portray Trump in a negative light no matter what he does, just as they did to Reagan, both Bushes, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, and John McCain before him. Sometimes they have been successful (1992, 2008, 2012), sometimes the voters have resisted them. They have been increasingly transparent in their agenda-driven missives and entertainment failures over the past 3 years but who knows?
I kinda' agree, but must say that Dole, Romney, and McCain were terrible candidates. RNC figured it was either 'their turn' (Dole) or the open primaries on the east coast put 2 RINOs on the ballot (Romney & McCain).
Biden claims '10 to 15 percent' of Americans are 'just not very good people' (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-claims-10-to-15-percent-americans-just-not-very-good-people)
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed Thursday that "10 to 15 percent" of Americans are "just not very good people."
As first reported by The New York Times, Biden held a virtual town hall on Thursday evening with black supporters where he knocked President Trump's divisiveness and weak leadership.
“The words a president says matter, so when a president stands up and divides people all the time, you’re going to get the worst of us to come out,” Biden told actor Don Cheadle, who was moderating the virtual town hall.
“Do we really think this is as good as we can be as a nation? I don’t think the vast majority of people think that...," Biden continued. "There are probably anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the people out there that are just not very good people, but that’s not who we are. The vast majority of the people are decent, and we have to appeal to that and we have to unite people -- bring them together. Bring them together.”
It is unclear who exactly he was referring to within the "10 to 15 percent" of people and whether or not he believes they support President Trump.
The remarks harken back to the controversial comments made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election when, at a campaign event, she estimated that "half" of Trump's supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables."
It's hard to argue that out of every 100 people, that 10-15 of them aren't good.
It's bad when you divide people...so making an 85/15 split is OK. Flawless logic there.
...or something.
Great-Kazoo
06-05-2020, 07:10
It's hard to argue that out of every 100 people, that 10-15 of them aren't good.
I believe that number is higher. Based on what we're seeing during these protest.
Aloha_Shooter
06-05-2020, 16:07
Based on the percentage of people that knowingly voted for the most corrupt AND most incompetent politician of our lifetime (Billary) not once but twice, I'd say ol' Joe is underestimating.
Great-Kazoo
06-05-2020, 18:40
Depending what happens during this so called march on D.C. it very well may tip the election in bidens favor.
OR awaken those deplorables who have remained on the sidelines. Either way it's going to be an interesting election.
Remember this, 1 state we lose on 2020, R most likely not win. It always been a uphill battle for R.
https://www.270towin.com/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/electoral-map-2020-election-donald-trump-joe-biden/index.html (basically covers electoral , with minimal dumbassness )
Great-Kazoo
06-05-2020, 20:52
Remember this, 1 state we lose on 2020, R most likely not win. It always been a uphill battle for R.
https://www.270towin.com/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/electoral-map-2020-election-donald-trump-joe-biden/index.html (basically covers electoral , with minimal dumbassness )
while i'm not doubting the numbers, Cillizza has never written anything favorable on trump. he's a resist / NT'er from day 1. If only there was an unbiased story with the numbers. From either side.
while i'm not doubting the numbers, Cillizza has never written anything favorable on trump. he's a resist / NT'er from day 1. If only there was an unbiased story with the numbers. From either side.
I am playing around with the interactive EC map, and looks like WI MI PA will be the key state this election year.
Still in a state level. In order to get more accurate #, probably looking at major county # would give better picture.
Martinjmpr
06-08-2020, 11:21
Depending what happens during this so called march on D.C. it very well may tip the election in bidens favor.
OR awaken those deplorables who have remained on the sidelines. Either way it's going to be an interesting election.
There's a saying that "6 months is an eternity in politics." It's hard to say what the hot-button issue will be in October-November.
Also, if Crazy Old Uncle Joe is nominated, as he seems likely to be, he'll have lots of opportunities to say crazy stupid things which will generate their own political weather systems.
And before anyone says "well XYZ poll shows Biden sailing to a clear victory", were those by chance the same polls that showed Hillary easily beating Trump in 2016? :rolleyes:
Old Joe is a shoe in. He has clinched the nomination with the results of last weeks primaries. It will only be reinforced by the remaining primaries.
Trump needs to stop putting foot in mouth or he will loose an election he should easily win as BLM and Wuhan Flu fade away as the economy storms back to life.
There's a saying that "6 months is an eternity in politics." It's hard to say what the hot-button issue will be in October-November.
Also, if Crazy Old Uncle Joe is nominated, as he seems likely to be, he'll have lots of opportunities to say crazy stupid things which will generate their own political weather systems.
And before anyone says "well XYZ poll shows Biden sailing to a clear victory", were those by chance the same polls that showed Hillary easily beating Trump in 2016? :rolleyes:
Scott Adams had a funny re-Tweet from somone identifying polls where Biden is leading.
"Someday historians will ask, "What was the best practical joke ever played on the world?" Answer: Republicans lying to pollsters in 2020."
UrbanWolf
06-10-2020, 15:26
And before anyone says "well XYZ poll shows Biden sailing to a clear victory", were those by chance the same polls that showed Hillary easily beating Trump in 2016? :rolleyes:
I really don't know why people in the internet age still trust polls, people in the internet age just troll.
Did uncle Joe Bin Biden announce a VP running mate?
I bet my money on Rice.
(Dream on... not Condoleezza) [LOL]
.455_Hunter
06-25-2020, 14:01
Joe has a perfect life right now as a candidate...
- Opponent constantly trashed from all sides on all platforms.
- Statements and appearances carefully massaged, rehearsed and coached by handlers (expect when they are not, then whew boy!)
- Gaffe chances minimized.
It will get interesting when he has to stand on stages to field multitudes of unsolicited questions, plus actually debate Trump directly.
You don't have to be an activist Trump supporter, or approve of the job he has done to date, to realize his continued presidency is preferred over Biden and the check the boxes VP.
Aloha_Shooter
06-25-2020, 17:55
Tin hat minds will note that the pandemic has been a convenient excuse for Joe to limit his public appearances and access.
TresMonos
06-28-2020, 14:45
Joe has a perfect life right now as a candidate...
- Opponent constantly trashed from all sides on all platforms.
- Statements and appearances carefully massaged, rehearsed and coached by handlers (expect when they are not, then whew boy!)
- Gaffe chances minimized.
It will get interesting when he has to stand on stages to field multitudes of unsolicited questions, plus actually debate Trump directly.
You don't have to be an activist Trump supporter, or approve of the job he has done to date, to realize his continued presidency is preferred over Biden and the check the boxes VP.
Whoever Biden picks has a strong chance to take over as POTUS. That's two reasons to support Trump no matter how you feel about him. Pinch your nose and take the medicine....
.455_Hunter
06-28-2020, 14:53
Whoever Biden picks has a strong chance to take over as POTUS. That's two reasons to support Trump no matter how you feel about him. Pinch your nose and take the medicine....
Yup- Wouldn't surprise me if that occurred within 6 month of inauguration. How does President Stacy Abrams suit you? I would take Hillary in that situation, at least she is somewhat pragmatic.
Odds are slim to none, but if Biden picks Hillary as a running mate, I would probably fall off of chair laughing.
Aloha_Shooter
07-01-2020, 16:59
Yup- Wouldn't surprise me if that occurred within 6 month of inauguration. How does President Stacy Abrams suit you? I would take Hillary in that situation, at least she is somewhat pragmatic.
Inauguration? Try the morning after Election Day if he makes it that far. Now that they've got Bernie out of the way, I wouldn't even be surprised if it happened before Election Day.
The Babylon Bee cracks me up: Biden Says He Can't Wait To Find Out Who He Picked For VP (https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-excited-to-find-out-who-he-picked-for-vp/)
StagLefty
08-05-2020, 07:27
That's hilarious [ROFL3]
Singlestack
08-06-2020, 08:24
Bidens VP is being picked for him by the Dem elites and big donors. Part of me thinks that it may be warren - far left enough to appease the base. Now she is not a woman of color, being a fake Indian. But the dems may be thinking they "got away" with promoting two old white guys for the head of the ticket (Biden, Bern), and not checking the woman of color box may be ok with the far left as long as a woman and a far leftie is the VP candidate. I believe they are also calculating who could actually and reliably do the president job when the biden is pushed aside or gets "Clintoned". Warren knows Washington and the apparatus well. Would love to see the look on Hillary's face if Warren gets the nod.
Great-Kazoo
08-06-2020, 09:03
I'm curious to see how biden and the dnc will keep from having biden debate trump. They're running with the virus / social distancing program, yet with 90ish days till the election, there's no attempt to get them together.
The DNC is already trying to set a potential debate schedule that begins after early voting has started.
Great-Kazoo
08-06-2020, 13:05
The DNC is already trying to set a potential debate schedule that begins after early voting has started.
I see that, 1st debate is Nov 4th ;)
BushMasterBoy
08-07-2020, 21:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7RHNeHEKBs
GilpinGuy
08-09-2020, 20:20
Is it possible that Biden is just a sacrificial lamb and the Dems don't want to win? The economy is gonna be in shambles, possibly a 2nd or 3rd wave of COVID hysteria, continued (fake) racial unrest, etc. Let Trump win, gain the house and senate seats and crush it in 4 years.
I'm no political genius, but this seems kinda likely.
Zundfolge
08-09-2020, 20:50
Is it possible that Biden is just a sacrificial lamb and the Dems don't want to win? The economy is gonna be in shambles, possibly a 2nd or 3rd wave of COVID hysteria, continued (fake) racial unrest, etc. Let Trump win, gain the house and senate seats and crush it in 4 years.
I'm no political genius, but this seems kinda likely.
I think the plan is more sinister than that ... sow so much uncertainty and chaos around this upcoming election (rig the polls to make it look like Biden can't lose and when he does cry foul) and then remove Trump by force in the chaos after the election and install Pilosi in the seat as interim president while they hold congressional hearings and SCOTUS trials. Then by the end our constitutional republic will be in such tatters that we'll never have an honest election nor peaceful transition of power ever again.
Great-Kazoo
08-09-2020, 22:06
I think the plan is more sinister than that ... sow so much uncertainty and chaos around this upcoming election (rig the polls to make it look like Biden can't lose and when he does cry foul) and then remove Trump by force in the chaos after the election and install Pilosi in the seat as interim president while they hold congressional hearings and SCOTUS trials. Then by the end our constitutional republic will be in such tatters that we'll never have an honest election nor peaceful transition of power ever again.
They do that. Which BTW i don't doubt, for a minute. The 2020 election will be the last one ever held, in what we knew as America.
Singlestack
08-10-2020, 20:19
I think the signs are clear for a high likelihood of massive chaos and violence around the election. The violence will happen regardless of who wins. I am in the process of taking profits in nearly all stocks I own. I plan to be in cash, except for fairly small holdings in precious metals. I do not plan to reinvest until I'm convinced the country is stable, which might be never.The markets hate chaos and uncertainty, so why risk it?
We are in a different and more dangerous time.
They do that. Which BTW i don't doubt, for a minute. The 2020 election will be the last one ever held, in what we knew as America.
Ever read Allen Drury?s novel ?Come Nineveh, Come Tyre??
.455_Hunter
08-11-2020, 15:01
It's Harris as Biden's VP choice.
Singlestack
08-11-2020, 15:04
I see that Biden just named Harris as VP running mate. Seemed to be the consensus of the lamestream media. Harris has shown herself to have no actual principles and a 100% opportunist - just look at her career in Kalifornia and the help that Willie Brown gave her. I have a hard time believing the dems would ever let her be president if something "happened" to biden, but perhaps she convinced them she would do anything to have the title and allow the dem elites and power brokers control her every move/statement. I think she has great ambition - maybe not as much as Hillary, but significant.
Making sure I can't even a consider a vote for Biden. I wasn't considering that vote, but this doesn't help.
This seems like the Dem’s version of McCain and Palin.
ETA: he should have chosen Tulsi Gabbard. He’d have likely sealed the deal with her on board.
It's Harris as Biden's VP choice.
That was Soros' choice. This should make it pretty clear that George Soros owns the DNC.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=George+Soros+and+Kamala+Harris
Martinjmpr
08-11-2020, 16:22
This seems like the Dem’s version of McCain and Palin.
Wasn't she the Attorney General - IOW, the "Top Cop" - of California? Even with her "racial qualifications" that's got to be a bit difficult for the most extreme BLM activists to stomach.
Interesting choice. Basically a kind of "screw you!" to the AOC/"progressive" wing of the Democrats.
It does kind of make you wonder whether some of the back-room string-pullers in the party think they're going to lose this one anyway, so they're trying to position themselves to have a better shot for 2024.
Most of us here on the board lean conservative/Republican, so we don't necessarily see the internal struggles of the Democrats, but there has been a very real and very nasty fight going on for years between the "pragmatic" wing of the Democrats (Hillary being the best example) and the "progressives", radical leftists of the AOC/Bernie Sanders variety.
The thing is, the "pragmatics" NEED the anger and intensity (and most importantly the NUMBERS) of the "progressives" to win, and the "progressives" need the money and mainstream support that comes from the "pragmatics" (because for some weird reason, wealthy business owners aren't huge fans of the "kill the wealthy and take all their money" radicals on the "progressive" side. Go figure. :rolleyes: )
Since neither side is big enough to take over the whole party, and since the margins for getting elected are so razor thin, each wing of the party effectively holds a gun to the head of the other wing - a kind of "mutual assured destruction" is what results. IOW neither side can win by itself, but simply by staying home, they can make the party lose, denying the other wing the power it wants.
Each wing seems to believe if they just hang on, sooner or later they will hold enough of a majority to force the other side out of the party without costing them the election.
Wasn't she the Attorney General - IOW, the "Top Cop" - of California? Even with her "racial qualifications" that's got to be a bit difficult for the most extreme BLM activists to stomach.
Interesting choice. Basically a kind of "screw you!" to the AOC/"progressive" wing of the Democrats.
It does kind of make you wonder whether some of the back-room string-pullers in the party think they're going to lose this one anyway, so they're trying to position themselves to have a better shot for 2024.
Most of us here on the board lean conservative/Republican, so we don't necessarily see the internal struggles of the Democrats, but there has been a very real and very nasty fight going on for years between the "pragmatic" wing of the Democrats (Hillary being the best example) and the "progressives", radical leftists of the AOC/Bernie Sanders variety.
The thing is, the "pragmatics" NEED the anger and intensity (and most importantly the NUMBERS) of the "progressives" to win, and the "progressives" need the money and mainstream support that comes from the "pragmatics" (because for some weird reason, wealthy business owners aren't huge fans of the "kill the wealthy and take all their money" radicals on the "progressive" side. Go figure. :rolleyes: )
Since neither side is big enough to take over the whole party, and since the margins for getting elected are so razor thin, each wing of the party effectively holds a gun to the head of the other wing - a kind of "mutual assured destruction" is what results. IOW neither side can win by itself, but simply by staying home, they can make the party lose, denying the other wing the power it wants.
Each wing seems to believe if they just hang on, sooner or later they will hold enough of a majority to force the other side out of the party without costing them the election.
She joked about smoking pot. Something her office prosecuted people and put them in prison for. WINNING!
hollohas
08-11-2020, 20:03
She joked about smoking pot. Something her office prosecuted people and put them in prison for. WINNING!Yeah. She said she smoked weed while listening to 2Pac in college...in the 80's. Faking it so hard to win the black vote she doesn't even know 2Pac wasn't around in the 80's.
Wonder how BLM is going to react to the VP being a chief law enforcement officer who was "tough on crime"?
Old Joe vs new Joe
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1293230899702591489
thedave1164
08-11-2020, 20:37
#joeandtheho
Great-Kazoo
08-11-2020, 22:24
Joe Biden said on msnbc He was ecstatic to have a woman like Kamala on his team. She told me she'd work twice as hard as V.P then when she did ,while on willie browns staff.
Aloha_Shooter
08-11-2020, 22:35
I see that Biden just named Harris as VP running mate. Seemed to be the consensus of the lamestream media. Harris has shown herself to have no actual principles and a 100% opportunist - just look at her career in Kalifornia and the help that Willie Brown gave her. I have a hard time believing the dems would ever let her be president if something "happened" to biden, but perhaps she convinced them she would do anything to have the title and allow the dem elites and power brokers control her every move/statement.
No core principles and 100% opportunist is exactly why she's a perfect fit for the power brokers in the DNC. Add to that the fact she's liberal as hell and it was a no-brainer for them ... perfect for ol' Joe and it probably only took him this long to name her because the two neurons operating between his ears don't fire at the same time.
ETA: he should have chosen Tulsi Gabbard. He?d have likely sealed the deal with her on board.
Problem for the power brokers in the DNC is that while Tulsi is clearly very liberal, she's also shown herself to be independent and actually a bit of a patriot. If I had to agree to a Biden presidency but got to select the VP from the contenders presented, Tulsi would have been my pick for those two reasons but that's exactly why she's got no chance of significant power in anything the Democrat power brokers can influence.
That was Soros' choice. This should make it pretty clear that George Soros owns the DNC.
Yep, although it should have been clear 8 or 10 years ago.
Wasn't she the Attorney General - IOW, the "Top Cop" - of California? Even with her "racial qualifications" that's got to be a bit difficult for the most extreme BLM activists to stomach.
Nah, the fact she's an SJW at heart and Soros' pick will make it real easy for them to ignore that. They've never had any consistency anyway.
It does kind of make you wonder whether some of the back-room string-pullers in the party think they're going to lose this one anyway, so they're trying to position themselves to have a better shot for 2024.
I actually think the opposite: my conjecture is they believe their own bought-and-paid-for press about Trump losing to Biden by double digits and Harris is the power broker selection for when Biden has a sudden 25th Amendment issue after the inauguration. You're right about the internal fight but I believe a lot of that will be patched up by Nov 1. Once it's a matter of voting for the pragmatic ticket or "allowing" Trump to continue trying to return the country to some level of moderation (or slightly liberal compared to most of the past century), the regressive Maoists/Stalinists will fall in line and vote for the party.
Each wing seems to believe if they just hang on, sooner or later they will hold enough of a majority to force the other side out of the party without costing them the election.
Disagree. They saw what happened when Nader split the vote and learned more from it than the Republicans did from letting Clinton divide them over Bush v. Perot. They've had these showy "fights" before to make the rest of the electorate believe the very liberal wing is moderate (and it is compared to the radical extremists). This is exacerbated by the GOP push for "conservative" positions that are really centrist or slightly liberal. We let the radicals define the battlefield with their lexicon and the small group that likes to think of themselves as moderate keeps getting pushed further and further toward actual Marxism.
She was worse choice than Elizabeth Warren.
I would have deal with bengazi baggage and went with Rice. Safe and more loyal choice than Kamala.
[ROFL2]
Kamala Harris can't be that bad considering Donald Trump donated to her AG campaign twice in 2011 and 2013. While Ivanka donated to Harris in 2014.
Kamala Harris can't be that bad considering Donald Trump donated to her AG campaign twice in 2011 and 2013. While Ivanka donated to Harris in 2014.
Business move. And, the Trump family has a principal principle: business. Actual morality need not apply.
Delfuego
08-12-2020, 11:07
82637
According to this research report, Kamala Harris? ancestor Hamilton Brown owned seven plantations in Jamaica in 1817. He employed more than 200 slaves whose first names are listed here.
http://www.jamaicanfamilysearch.com/Members/slavereg.htm
Snopes doesn't say it's false.
(Which we know they probably would if they could)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-ancestor-slaves/
At least he gave the slaves jobs!
Re: "employed."
https://youtu.be/5e_MIUkkfSc
Many says this is a clue that Bin Biden already made up his mind to run with Kamala.
Kamala is lucky that he was very close to Beau.
At least he gave the slaves jobs!
Re: "employed."
150% employment rate.
The Dems are cheering Harris because she checks a bunch of boxes, and they're counting on Biden not finishing his term if elected.
Looks like Kamala owes a significant amount in reparations......
wctriumph
08-13-2020, 11:39
So, when Biden steps aside, for whatever reason, whom do you all think her VP pick will be? I know it wouldn’t be her pick, but who?
Great-Kazoo
08-13-2020, 14:23
So, when Biden steps aside, for whatever reason, whom do you all think her VP pick will be? I know it wouldn’t be her pick, but who?
IIRC speaker of the house, is next in line. Again. If this team winds it will be the last election, as we know it for who knows how long.
The d's loing game IMO was pickign these 2 to run against trump. With the media and democrats talking how trump is stealing the election, since, when ever. The D team Joe / Blow loose. The D's contest the election, dragging it out to the SC in maybe late jan, or feb. If that happens, as i would not be surprised. The speaker of the House. Pelosi (if the d's keep their majority) steps in to take "temporary" control.
IIRC speaker of the house, is next in line. Again. If this team winds it will be the last election, as we know it for who knows how long.
Say people before EVERY election, yet only one person in my memory has even brought up not leaving office.
Great-Kazoo
08-13-2020, 16:26
Say people before EVERY election, yet only one person in my memory has even brought up not leaving office.
Has nothing to do with leaving office. It's the legal aspect. Contest the outcome and the d's take the oval office while it's sorted out in court. Their long game has been in the works for some .
time.
However if there is as much division among the D party between the AOC team and Pelosi lifers. That alone might make for some interesting viewing.
Kamala Harris shamed by Jamaican father over pot-smoking joke (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/kamala-harris-father-pot-1176805)
Kamala Harris made headlines last week when she joked in a radio interview that of course she smoked marijuana in her younger years: “Half my family’s from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?”
But the crack didn’t go over well with at least one Jamaican: Donald J. Harris, her father.
The elder Harris sent an unsolicited statement to Kingston-based Jamaica Global Online, for which the emeritus professor of economics at Stanford University wrote a recent essay on his family’s history.
“My dear departed grandmothers (whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,” he wrote.
“Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty,” he added.
Ouch. I bet that will play well for her though.
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDWZ7kB/ezgif-6-84a05fa9e8f6.gif
And..........AOC just endorsed Bernie for prez, on the 2nd day of CommieCon. [LOL]
http://youtu.be/fIK8BA4aBbQ
http://youtu.be/qNlKp6Rzl1g
https://youtu.be/qNlKp6Rzl1g
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-14-2021, 21:54
Ugh. Sad. I hate to be the foreign language translator or the sign language translator that has to push through that and translate it. Its hard to translate gibberish.
wctriumph
06-15-2021, 11:51
So sad. The guy is such an embarrassment. Shouldn’t be long now ...
But kamala is far more incompetent
http://youtu.be/DMYx3FrjKIM
https://youtu.be/DMYx3FrjKIM
And..........AOC just endorsed Bernie for prez, on the 2nd day of CommieCon. [LOL]
http://youtu.be/fIK8BA4aBbQ
I just want to know who is backing the "bar wench". There is nothing intelligent coming out of her pie hole.
JohnnyDrama
09-18-2021, 10:52
I haven't had ice cream in a long time.
JohnnyDrama
09-19-2021, 18:56
87626
Finally!
I just want to know who is backing the "bar wench". There is nothing intelligent coming out of her pie hole.
Onlyfans?
Ol' President Post Turtle.....
"Let's Go Brandon" magazines are now a thing.
88070
https://culperprecision.com/product/lets-go-brandon-ar-15-magazine/
Love this note in the info:
Yes it comes with Googeley eyes on both sides, no we will not ship one without googeley eyes.
The video brings it all together: https://www.instagram.com/p/CU_iyFZjq4Z/
How about a lower to go with it?: https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-ar-15-letsgo-15-stripped-lower-receiver-pre-order-ships-in-approximately-10-12-weeks.html
What I find amusing is that 35 years from now, grandkids are going to find this stuff and wonder who the hell Brandon is.
Vic Tory
10-24-2021, 12:34
So sad. The guy is such an embarrassment. Shouldn?t be long now ...
I was way wrong. I was certain Joe wouldn't last six months....
I just want to know who is backing the "bar wench". There is nothing intelligent coming out of her pie hole.
Soros.
88082
Biden accidentally flashed a cue card telling him exactly where to go and what to do at a White House event (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-accidentally-flashed-a-cue-card-telling-him-exactly-where-to-go-and-what-to-do-at-a-white-house-event/ar-AAYP4AG)
The full list of instructions reads:
"YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants."
"YOU take YOUR seat. "
"Press enters."
"YOU give brief comments" — this note was partially blocked by Biden's finger.
"Press departs."
"YOU ask Liz Shuler, President, AFL-CIO, a question. Note: Liz is joining virtually."
"YOU thank participants."
"YOU depart."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.