Odds on ol' Joe.

[Singlestack]

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.

[CS1983]

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]

It's Harris as Biden's VP choice.

[Singlestack]

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.

[Irving]

Making sure I can't even a consider a vote for Biden. I wasn't considering that vote, but this doesn't help.

[CS1983]

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.

[Gman]

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...+Kamala+Harris

[Martinjmpr]

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. )

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.

[Gman]

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. )

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]

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"?