|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 14, 2020 13:04:15 GMT
Only a nutjob could vote for Biden. Unfortunately, I note that there are lots of fat squirrels around.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 14, 2020 16:52:53 GMT
This would stress Biden's depends....
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 14, 2020 18:01:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 14, 2020 20:13:04 GMT
"RSBN Trump Rally, Henderson, Nevada Posted on 14 September 2020 by E.M.Smith
Coverage already started, Looks like Trump is back on the stump again. RSBN showed the media area reserved for MSM and none of them were in place… So it’s RSBN if you want coverage!
I’m just tossing this back up quickly, so I’ve not checked that the other links are still correct.
Right Side Broadcasting Network is once again able to broadcast live on YouTube. "chiefio.wordpress.com/2020/09/14/rsbn-trump-rally-henderson-nevada/
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 30, 2020 20:26:57 GMT
The debates last night were tough to watch. I think President Trump did Biden a huge favor by interrupting him every five seconds. When your opponent may have cognitive issues and even be in the early stages of dementia you may want to let him talk.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2020 20:55:30 GMT
The debates last night were tough to watch. I think President Trump did Biden a huge favor by interrupting him every five seconds. When your opponent may have cognitive issues and even be in the early stages of dementia you may want to let him talk. I think you are right. And there were many 'open goal' issues that waiting and then quietly explaining how wrong they were would have been a better tactic - but then I have a different style to Donald Trump. In particular Biden repeatedly stated in several areas 'The President did not have a plan and should have mandated..... etc" I would have asked Biden if he was aware of the enumerated powers in the constitution and could he quote the one about health care? Then after a flounder as Biden would not have expected that ask if he and his party disagreed with state's rights and was that why they wanted to remove the electoral college and have popular vote? How long before they removed governors altogether? Then after whatever Biden replied, say that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government to enumerated powers, if they have to change then that would require a constitutional amendment. That is why there was no federal response to the rioting being allowed in 'blue states' as the states have the right to manage law and order in their state. Until the unrest meets the level of an insurrection. Etc etc. The aim being to get Joe Biden into doing gold fish impressions. [mouth opening and shutting but no sound] You have to go off script and respond in a way your opponent just does not expect. On the COVID one - a list of dates and actions made by president on advice of 'the science' Fauci vs what the Democrats were doing and recommending. Followed by- so Joe you had a way to certainly save American lives - and you didn't say anything till now? Although from what you have said we did everything you are talking about some time ago - but what would you have added to what we have done? Again intent to get the goldfish impressions. Yes I was frustrated - but then I may have misunderstood the tactics. One thing that was very poor was that Chris Wallace was playing Biden's points for him.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 30, 2020 21:19:01 GMT
I didn't watch last night. I was planning a night out with the wife hoping the Aurora would get far enough south that we could see it in WA. As I followed that, it looks like Sig and the folks in Eastern Montana might have been able to see it, but the halo didn't extend out where we could see it this far west. However; in previous debates I have watched, I have been frustrated because it always seemed that candidates like Al Gore got a complete free pass to not follow the rules, talk over his opponent, then have the media fawn over his masterful approach. They're not debates like a debate team would engage in at all, and previously, I think Republicans in general have just wanted a candidate that would do more than just stand there and take it. From what I've heard (still haven't watched, and don't intend to), they may have gotten exactly that. So who won? Honestly, I don't think there are a half dozen people in the entire US who care about who won on style or on following the rules. I think they tend to complain when they think the other side isn't following the rules. Some more toward the center may have thought the person they leaned toward may have gone overboard, but win or lose would be defined as "did anybody make a decision on who to vote for based on that?" Again, I generally think you could count on one hand the number of people who factor anything from a debate into their decision of who to vote for, so my cynical view is that the debates are theater, and the media reactions could have been written before any debate questions were asked. Were there any surprises? Well, I found this to be a bit surprising: newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/jorge-bonilla/2020/09/30/shock-69-telemundo-viewers-say-trump-won-debate It seems that reaction wasn't expected. Maybe, in that demographic, they were really looking for someone who would get down, not back down, and fight it out. If so, then from what I've heard of it, maybe they saw that in Trump, and maybe they liked that, although the reaction doesn't really state whether or not they liked what they saw. Whatever it was, they seemed to overwhelmingly think Trump won the brawl. Trump voters are going to vote for Trump no matter what happened last night. Biden voters are going to vote for Biden no matter what happened last night. What did the people think who really were not intending to vote at all? I think that's the ones we would have to look at to see whether it made any difference at all. Were they just looking for a brawler who would stand up for them and not back down? Maybe that's what Telemundo viewers saw. Maybe others saw the same. I'm still not going to watch it, but what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 30, 2020 21:34:11 GMT
slh1234
I think you are absolutely correct. 90% of the voters have made up their minds before the candidates have even announced their intention to run. I don't think either candidate did anything last night to get the "undecided" voters.
I see a low voter turnout mainly from disgust.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2020 21:49:55 GMT
There is an old saying from UK politics by then Prime Minister Harold Wilson: "A week is a long time in politics"
The problem with this election though is the deliberate democrat intent to obfuscate the elections with mail shot ballots. The lawyers will love it.
It is probably too late now - but making interference with a presidential ballot a federal offense with mandatory 5 year jail term with up to 10 years if the number of ballots interfered with exceeds 100. Would concentrate people's minds.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Oct 1, 2020 1:58:59 GMT
There is an old saying from UK politics by then Prime Minister Harold Wilson: "A week is a long time in politics"The problem with this election though is the deliberate democrat intent to obfuscate the elections with mail shot ballots. The lawyers will love it. It is probably too late now - but making interference with a presidential ballot a federal offense with mandatory 5 year jail term with up to 10 years if the number of ballots interfered with exceeds 100. Would concentrate people's minds. I think the problem with this election is the total lack of respect and civility in our society today. I am old school and if my parents were alive today they would be shocked by last nights performance by both candidates. Neither party should accept this.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 1, 2020 3:54:02 GMT
This is more like the politics of the late 1850s ... two long cycles ago. The canes and guns have not come out yet (at least not in the Senate proper), but I expect them at any time.
Caning of Charles Sumner
The Caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Brooks.Wikipedia
On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate Chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Oct 1, 2020 9:05:04 GMT
slh1234 I think you are absolutely correct. 90% of the voters have made up their minds before the candidates have even announced their intention to run. I don't think either candidate did anything last night to get the "undecided" voters. I see a low voter turnout mainly from disgust. Lets hope there will not be a HUGE swing against Trump (mail in ballots) with Trump declared the loser, then the trouble would REALLY start
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Oct 1, 2020 12:47:33 GMT
Lets hope there will not be a HUGE swing against Trump (mail in ballots) with Trump declared the loser, then the trouble would REALLY start I think you're exactly wrong. The "right" has not yet shown itself willing to use violence even in the face of a long chain of abuses. What's one more? Now if Trump looks to have won, the mobs of the "left" will have yet another reason to riot. And there's only so much of THAT the "right" is likely to take.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 1, 2020 14:48:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Oct 1, 2020 20:15:44 GMT
Lets hope there will not be a HUGE swing against Trump (mail in ballots) with Trump declared the loser, then the trouble would REALLY start I think you're exactly wrong. The "right" has not yet shown itself willing to use violence even in the face of a long chain of abuses. What's one more? Now if Trump looks to have won, the mobs of the "left" will have yet another reason to riot. And there's only so much of THAT the "right" is likely to take. So, Trump is declared the loser but contests it based on mail in fraud, happy times ahead?
|
|