Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

cutz said:

Thanks for that  article^^^^, Jose^^^^

I just thought I'd Post a portion of that article:

Trump actually tweeted on June 22: "Rigged 2020 election: millions of mail-in ballots will be printed by foreign countries, and others. It will be the scandal of our times!" With this, Trump has begun to lay the groundwork for the step-by-step process by which he holds on to the presidency after he has clearly lost the election:

1. Biden wins the popular vote, and carries the key swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by decent but not overwhelming margins.
2. Trump immediately declares that the voting was rigged, that there was mail-in ballot fraud and that the Chinese were behind a plan to provide fraudulent mail-in ballots and other "election hacking" throughout the four key swing states that gave Biden his victory.
3. Having railed against the Chinese throughout the campaign, calling Biden "soft on China," Trump delivers his narrative claiming the Chinese have interfered in the U.S. election.
4. Trump indicates this is a major national security issue, and he invokes emergency powers, directing the Justice Department to investigate the alleged activity in the swing states. The legal justification for the presidential powers he invokes has already been developed and issued by Barr.
5. The investigation is intended to tick down the clock toward December 14, the deadline when each state's Electoral College electors must be appointed. This is the very issue that the Supreme Court harped on in Bush v. Gore in ruling that the election process had to be brought to a close, thus forbidding the further counting of Florida ballots.
6. All four swing states have Republican control of both their upper and lower houses of their state legislatures. Those state legislatures refuse to allow any Electoral College slate to be certified until the "national security" investigation is complete.
7. The Democrats will have begun a legal action to certify the results in those four states, and the appointment of the Biden slate of electors, arguing that Trump has manufactured a national security emergency in order to create the ensuing chaos.
8. The issue goes up to the Supreme Court, which unlike the 2000 election does not decide the election in favor of the Republicans. However, it indicates again that the December 14 Electoral College deadline must be met; that the president's national security powers legally authorize him to investigate potential foreign country intrusion into the national election; and if no Electoral College slate can be certified by any state by December 14, the Electoral College must meet anyway and cast its votes.
9. The Electoral College meets, and without the electors from those four states being represented, neither Biden nor Trump has sufficient votes to get an Electoral College majority.
10. The election is thrown into the House of Representatives, pursuant to the Constitution. Under the relevant constitutional process, the vote in the House is by state delegation, where each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the majority of the representatives in that state.
11. Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.
12. This vote would enable Trump to retain the presidency.

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

This seems like bad news for the incumbent

i did not look at it too closely at first. i thought the red was a visual representation of papa john's career.

OnWis97 said:

I don't think any president (certainly not one in my lifetime) has ever tried so hard to divide the country. The country has been divided (Vietnam war and civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s, for sure) but while I won't speak to Andrew Jackson or Chester A. Arthur, I don't think any president has even been a tenth as intentionally divisive as Trump over the last 100 years. People (not me, but people) tend to like positivity and Trump's inauguration, his Mount Rushmore speech, and almost all others are dark and depressing.  Reagan and W thrived on foreign enemies to exhausting levels, but I never imagined I see someone so dependent on domestic enemies. 

While this election is not really about Biden and my primary hope for him is that he appears healthy, is unable to sniff hair (thank you, Covid), and doesn't have too many memorable gaffes, I'm starting to think  his primary message should be to counter this division. He should talk about the role of the office in bringing the country together and cite examples from past presidents, Democrat and Republican. That needs to be the message: Trump is trying to divide us and I'm going to try to bring us together. I suppose that will upset some of the hard-left but generally, if Trump keeps digging his heels in on vilifying nearly half the country and Biden does a good job of saying this needs to stop and I'm going to stop it, it should work.  And if it doesn't, it just confirms that all hope his lost.

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

static111 said:

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

Agree on Biden.  Disagree that Trump isn’t doing any dividing of his own.  Yes he is a symptom, but he is also a mega phone amplifying the message , I mean have you ever heard his speeches?

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

Trump may be a symptom of division but like hell he isn't causing any of his own. Anyone and everyone can see that. 

static111 said:

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

Agree on Biden.  Disagree that Trump isn’t doing any dividing of his own.  Yes he is a symptom, but he is also a mega phone amplifying the message , I mean have you ever heard his speeches?

He is absolutely stoking it. Like I said, he leans into it in a galling way. What I'm saying is that voting in Biden isn't going to move the needle on bringing us together. It's a much deeper problem than who's in the White House. 

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

benjs said:

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

Trump may be a symptom of division but like hell he isn't causing any of his own. Anyone and everyone can see that. 

static111 said:

pjl44 said:

Biden isn't unifying anything. He can say that if he wants, but no one who isn't already voting for him is gonna buy it. Trump isn't causing division, he's a symptom of it. The only thing that's remarkable is how he leans into it like a complete asshole. Past Presidents and Presidential candidates had the decency(?) to save it for private speeches so they could talk about being misquoted later.

Agree on Biden.  Disagree that Trump isn’t doing any dividing of his own.  Yes he is a symptom, but he is also a mega phone amplifying the message , I mean have you ever heard his speeches?

He is absolutely stoking it. Like I said, he leans into it in a galling way. What I'm saying is that voting in Biden isn't going to move the needle on bringing us together. It's a much deeper problem than who's in the White House. 

I didn’t say he’d move the needle...I said it should be his primary theme.  His intention should be to move the needle; if it doesn’t move it should not be for lack of effort... but at the very least he can slow The current trajectory simply by not being Trump.

I don’t think that much of Biden...but just about anyone outside of Trump-licking Republicans can set a better tone.The needle can’t move until Trump is out and the obvious rhetoric is right in front of him.

Bentleyspop said:

cincybearcat said:

The sitting president just used his July 4th speech to declare war on Americans. Let that sink in.

Getting rid of the “undesirables”.  This rhetoric has been used by strongmen before. Their countries ended up failing.

"The sitting  president " doesn't care about you or me or his voters or any Americans for that matter.
He only cares about himself