Drumpot wrote: » I could also see him potentially moving elections if it doesn’t look good for him around October. You can rule out nothing with this person
everlast75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1247737221911896064?s=19 I think i figured out why trump is so impulsive. It's because if he thinks about anything for more than 3 seconds he forgets what he said and ends up contradicting himself
Penn wrote: » I think it's already been established that if the election isn't held by late-January (when the inauguration would normally be held, can't remember exact date, 21st or 22nd January I think), then the Speaker of the House (currently Pelosi) becomes President as neither the President nor Vice-President has been elected to a second term, whereas whoever is in the role of Speaker of the House stays even if no election has been held. The election will happen. As seen in Wisconsin just yesterday they'll force people out to the polls regardless. What's more likely is they'll find some way to close down polling stations in more Dem-leaning constituencies in swing states or other such measures.
StringerBell wrote: » The fact that Trump is going to win or lose a close election after everything that has happened and continues to happen over the past 3 years says an awful lot about the country itself and how divided it is. The middle need to take a long hard look at the situation and ensure that even if they deem a vote for Biden, or Sanders (unlikely) to be something they don't want to do that they need to just follow the republican creed of the lesser of two evils for this election. Pragmatism rather than ideological aspirations are the order of the day. Get the stain out of office, work on the rest after that. It's positive that Biden is saying he wants Sanders in his administration.
"If I'm the nominee I can tell you one thing — I would very much want Bernie Sanders to be part of the journey. Not as a vice presidential nominee, but just in engaging in all the things that he's worked so hard to do, many of which I agree with."
Quin_Dub wrote: » Agree that it's good that Biden is looking to be inclusive with Sanders , mainly to keep the "Bernie Bros" onside for November , but I don't think he necessarily wants him to be part of the Administration. He talked about wanting Sanders to be "part of the Presidential journey" which I'm interpreting as meaning he wants him to be out involved on the campaign trail etc.
aloyisious wrote: » WaPo has a report that Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer are going to lay down markers for the next stimulus funding plan, that it must provide funding to local banks and local enterprises for it to get their agreement. Don and Mitch are dependant on their voting approval for it to get through the house. It's below the initial Don attacks W.H.O report paragraphs.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/08/coronavirus-latest-news/#link-FTTQERWMAVB3VOEQA32OB5JHGI
AbusesToilets wrote: » They should tie in electoral reforms and voting security measures too, but they won't because the Democrats are inherent losers.
Leroy42 wrote: » And they would immediately be accused of putting politics ahead of the people. Trump already stated that they won't change to make voting easier as it would result in the republicans never winning another election. Unfortunately, Trump has a free 2 hour spin session every evening carried by numerous live media and reported on across all media to throw out any narrative he wishes and from that moment on the DNC are on the back foot.
everlast75 wrote: » Hopefully people won't get fooled again come November...
everlast75 wrote: » Trump quoting Fox and Friends in relation to mail in voter fraud this morning. Perhaps if he restored quorum for the board that oversees election security that might help?
pixelburp wrote: » And I'm not so proud that I can't admit I would love to see a journalist rage-quit during one of those sham Press Conferences and just eviscerate Trump on his persistent nonsense. Real wrath of God stuff, then just Peace Out and leave the room (and, presumably, his or her career). Patience of saints that lot, or else they're all functional alcoholics at this stage.
aloyisious wrote: » That is the time to ask questions which will make him lose his temper and the plot before MP or one of the other actors there can step in and save him. Get him undeniably raging live on air.
BonnieSituation wrote: » That's hilarious, I've just been imagining that exact scenario and playing it over and over in my head. The journalist about should've just said after all that "Sir, you're lying", that's all. Just a small interjection like that and we'll all get the reaction we want. It's bubbling.
pixelburp wrote: » I think the support for Trump is simply down to the crisis level situation; it's not without reason that he and his acolytes have chosen to use "war time" in their language as it reinforces this idea that one doesn't change administrations during war-time (even though yes, there are historical precedents). Mind you, 538's polling average doesn't show a majority support for Trump. The gap has shrunk sure, but even in this existential crisis he can't get sweeping support. Bush's popularity skyrocketed in the wake of 9/11. If this pandemic persists up to and into the Autumn, I'd say there are shorter odds for the likelihood of the typical mouth-pieces talking of suspending the November election - in the interests of "public safety". AFAIK this is not allowed under the constitution but ... ... oh sorry, who were the recent appointees to the Supreme Court? Huh. Huh. Hey, remember when Trump demurred on whether he'd accept the 2016 election result? Huh. Not saying it will happen, and TBH I'm maintaining the belief that the hump of this will be truly in our rearview by Summer, but for now I reckon Americans are leaning towards the Devil You Know. And I'm not so proud that I can't admit I would love to see a journalist rage-quit during one of those sham Press Conferences and just eviscerate Trump on his persistent nonsense. Real wrath of God stuff, then just Peace Out and leave the room (and, presumably, his or her career). Patience of saints that lot, or else they're all functional alcoholics at this stage.
aloyisious wrote: » I have in mind a reporter saying politely to Don: Mr President, you've evaded answering my question and said I was rude. That is both rude and untrue on your part. Again I put my question to you....
Leroy42 wrote: » Its easy to say that but there is very large potential loss of support and little upside from that. They play hardball, deal doesn't go through, companies and individuals do not get access to funds, more hardship and unemployment and all laid at the feet of the DNC. They could potentially lose swing voters that may have gone with them. But they definitely have no chance of getting any GOP leaning voters as they follow the line from Trump et al that the DNC screwed them over at a time of national crisis.On the other hand, if they do get want they want (election reform or whatever) what is the potential gain? There would be some but many people are likely to feel that now is not the time to be playing politics and that feeding themselves and their families is more important.
everlast75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1247363112862396417?s=19 So if we believe the BS line that Trump was distracted by the impeachment, we now know his economic advisor presented a stark apocalyptic warning. If Trump was too distracted to act about the virus, then that speaks more to his mental fragility and lack of discipline and moreover ability to lead than anything else.
Deleted User wrote: » Jaysus Biden or Trump. What an awful choice