nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

notobtuse

With Nancy Pelosi’s Schiff Show Sham of an impeachment over (well, all but over, anyway) time to turn to the US presidential election.

So, who is left:

Donald Trump (R): You wanted change, you got change... Trump change!

Joe Biden (D): Distracted by shiny objects!
Bernie Sanders (I - running as a D, what's up with that?): On a scale of Mao to Stalin, how bad would a president Bernie be?
Elizabeth Warren (D): Little Chief Gonna Spend A Lot.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D): Portrait of a young bull$hit artist.
Andrew Yang : Vote for me and I’ll give you $12,000.
Mike Bloomberg (?): Who says you can’t buy an election?
Tulsi Gabbard (D): I guess it’s true you never piss off the Clintons.
Amy Klobuchar (D) and the rest of the also-rans: Who?

And then there’s Hillary Clinton (Witch), waiting in the wings for a contested convention so her superdelegates buddies can hand her the nomination: Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire!

Personally, when Pelosi, who had to impeach Trump immediately because he was such a threat to the nation, and then waited a month to walk the articles of impeachment in a stupid procession over to the Senate... it was like she was walking with Trump’s reelection papers.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Airyfairy12

If they vote trump back in they deserve everything they get.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Biden was in the Senate, was VP, and is running for POTUS. The Senate doesn't need him to testify (he'd most probably just ramble away incoherently, anyway), just investigate what was done at the time in the Senate when (and if) Reade's charges were made.

Biden is currently a private citizen. I can’t believe there is any reason for the senate to call hearings into one private citizen. Has it ever been done before? Is there actually any legal basis for it? I really don’t think so.

Can you please acknowledge how different the context is between Kavanagh and Biden? Kavanagh was in a senate confirmation process. That’s the only reason there was any testimony heard on the matter.

Outlaw Pete

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Considering that you were trying to pass off actual full on QANON peddlers pretending to be the lawyers for one of Epsteins victims as legitimate source only a few weeks ago, that's not exactly the most ringing endorsement for RS. :pac:

What are you on about

You said this before and I just ignored you as it was such an absurd thing to say. The clip was of an interview with Brad Edwards, who was a lawyer for some of Epstein's victims from 2008. If you had watched the interview and listened to what was said, rather than trying to see if you could get some gotcha, you might have gathered that.

Here, see, same guy. Brad Edwards, or are CBS also trying to pass off QANON peddlers as lawyers for Epstein's victims too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kORw6wW4

[Deleted User]

So Trump’s has said he saw evidence the virus originated in a lab. Then his intelligence chief said they don't know where it originated....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1135959/

MadYaker

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, No! An unconfirmed report is noting James Baker, the former FBI General Counsel under Barack Obama and for a little less than a year with Trump, has flipped in the Durham probe and is cooperating because he was looking at a great deal of criminal charges.

Might we be seeing an “October Surprise” a couple months early?

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/30/joe-digenova-former-fbi-general-counsel-james-baker-has-flipped/

There's so many "Ohhh look at this" posts in this thread about this enquiry and all have amounted to nothing. Considering Horowitz said that nothing the FBI did was politically motivated I don't see how this pertains to the presidential election.

The Nal

Biden on MSNBC in 20 mins or so. Will be interesting to see how aggressive he is denying it.

Brian?

The Nal wrote: »

Biden on MSNBC in 20 mins or so. Will be interesting to see how aggressive he is denying it.

My guess: not at all aggressive. He's a decent politician who'll be well coached. It's a stark contrast to Trump buffoonery.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

But it's okay for a man who might be president of the US to lie in order to defend himself by directing his campaign to state: "Here’s the bottom line...” “Vice President Joe Biden has spent over 40 years in public life: 36 years in the Senate; 7 Senate campaigns, 2 previous presidential runs, two vice presidential campaigns, and 8 years in the White House. There has never been a complaint, allegation, hint or rumor of any impropriety or inappropriate conduct like this regarding him — ever.”?

If he is shown to have lied , then he should absolutely be held accountable , but just because there is no record of any complaints about him in 36 years doesn't automatically mean lies and a cover up.

Amazingly some people can go their whole lives without being accused of bad behaviour..

notobtuse wrote: »

There seems to be enough information out their to indicate that was a lie, especially since the complaint apparently might be in his sealed Senate records.

What information would that be then ?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, No! An unconfirmed report is noting James Baker, the former FBI General Counsel under Barack Obama and for a little less than a year with Trump, has flipped in the Durham probe and is cooperating because he was looking at a great deal of criminal charges.

Might we be seeing an “October Surprise” a couple months early?

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/04/30/joe-digenova-former-fbi-general-counsel-james-baker-has-flipped/

Baker cooperating with Durham isn't the same as "Flipping". It just means that he's answering the questions and not hiding behind subpoenas or bizarre claims of privilege like some people do . There's nothing to suggest that he is doing so to avoid any charges.

diGenova is a wild Conspiracy theorist , even Red State feel it necessary to call that out in the piece you link to.

So far , everything that has come out from the Durham investigation has been "Meh" - Just like the other investigations into the "Plot to get Trump" that get breathlessly touted as the smoking gun that will bring the house down , they will actually find nothing of consequence.

The papers released in the last few days that talk about the FBI plans around interviewing Flynn sounds like a fairly standard discussion about how to approach a subject and I don't see anything untoward.

They had evidence that Flynn had been in contact with Kislyak so they had to decide whether they told Flynn they knew about the calls up front or to see if Flynn would be forthcoming about them himself or lie.

How is that in any way the actions of "Dirty Cops" and Trump and Devin Nunes have proclaimed on Twitter.

Sounds like pretty standard criminal interview tactics to me.

MadYaker

Will MSNBC even ask him about it? They have clear bias.

The Nal

MadYaker wrote: »

Will MSNBC even ask him about it? They have clear bias.

They've been talking about it for the last 30 mins. The interview is basically a platform for Biden to talk about it/deny it and move on.

amdublin

Ha! Do you know what just jumped into my head.

Do you remember the eclipse and everyone was advised not to look directly at it/could cause damage to the eyes.

Who looks directly at it? Trump of course.

*Facepalm*
What an eejit!

The Nal

MSNBC just kept asking the same question about why they don't search the files at the university. Biden "It never happened" and any complaints wouldn't be in there. Repeat for 10 minutes.

Outlaw Pete

amdublin wrote: »

Do you remember the eclipse and everyone was advised not to look directly at it/could cause damage to the eyes.

Who looks directly at it? Trump of course.

*Facepalm*
What an eejit!

Clarence Boddiker

Oh dear...

SnazzyPig

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Jesus, this thread has reached a new low.

Outlaw Pete

Car crash TV. Whether he is or not, Biden coming across as if there is something to hide:

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1256209471765983234

kilns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Car crash TV. Whether he is or not, Biden coming across as if there is something to hide:

https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1256203136835956739
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1256209471765983234

He is right about one thing. If Trumps campaign got access to the records they pull lots of stuff out and manipulate it and twist it.

While the whole time nobody if Trump is broke or who he is financially exposed to because he won’t release his taxes

notobtuse

Tara Reade has tried to track down the complaint she made against Biden back in 1993. Complaints of this kind were handled by the Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices in 1993, which was replaced by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) following the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995. But she was told the records would have been returned to Biden’s office. Yeah, like he would have held onto them so they could bite him in the ass with any future political ambitions. I’m confident they won’t find anything in his sealed Senate files. It’s democrats we’re talking about! Remember Sandy “docs in his socks" Burger? Right after Biden announced he was running for president his staff was given access and combed through his records. Think anything incriminating remains? If you do I have a bridge in New York to sell you. That complaint of Reade’s probably went directly in the ‘circular file’ and then they stripped her of duties supervising interns, stuck her in a small office without windows, and told her to go find another job. Face it... if people involved back in 1993 who were responsible for handling, dealing with, and holding onto such complaints are now lying and saying it never happened in order to protect Biden, they surely covered up for him back then as well. You don’t get to the point of running for president as a democrat without avoiding a lot of landmines.

“I used to think that a Republican talking point was to call the mainstream media biased,” Reade said. “So I used to think, ‘Oh, that’s just a talking point for them. I don’t believe it.’ But now I’m living it, real time, and I see it — like, I see it for what it is. Because I am a Democrat, or I was. But now I’m not anything, really. I’m politically homeless.”…

dark crystal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Sexual misconduct allegations have been made against Trump by at least 22 women. Trump has denied the allegations, saying he has been the victim of media bias, conspiracies, and a political smear campaign. In October 2016, Trump publicly vowed to sue all the women who have made allegations of sexual assault (e.g. non-consensual kissing or groping) or sexual harassment against him, as well as The New York Times for publishing the allegations, but he has yet to follow through with any legal action.

Notobtuse, you seem so incredibly focused on this one allegation against Joe Biden. What are your views regarding the 22 allegations made against Donald Trump? Do you believe, as he does, that they are merely targeting him as a political smear tactic? Are these women more or less credible than Tara Reade? Are Trump's denials more authentic than Biden's?

Surely all allegations deserve the same amount of scrutiny, regardless of political affiliation?

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What information would that be then ?

Corroborating witnesses that back up the account she told from back in 1993.

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

You seem so incredibly focused on this one allegation against Joe Biden. What are your views regarding the 22 allegations made against Donald Trump? Do you believe, as he does, that they are merely targeting him as a political smear tactic? Are these women more or less credible than Tara Reade? Are Trump's denials more authentic than Biden's?

Surely all allegations deserve the same amount of scrutiny, regardless of political affiliation?

Why? Simple… hypocrisy, and one set of standards for Republicans and another for Democrats shouldn’t be tolerated. Did not the press devote countless resources into investigating those allegations against Trump? The answer is OH, YEAH! So, why have the democrat's media handmaidens been MIA for weeks now that accusations of sexual abuse against Biden were made?

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Car crash TV. Whether he is or not, Biden coming across as if there is something to hide:

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1256209471765983234

He should really have taken a page out of Trump's playbook and just dismissed her as having been too ugly to have groped.

“Yeah, I’m gonna go after her,” he said sarcastically at a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Believe me, she would not be my first choice. That I can tell you. You don’t know. That would not be my first choice.”

“When you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said 'I don’t think so,'” Trump told his supporters. “I don’t think so. Whoever she is, wherever she comes from, the stories are total fiction. They are 100 percent made up. They never happened. They never would happen. I don’t think it happened with very many people, but they certainly aren’t gonna happen with me.”

notobtuse

If Democrats didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

Got to love Nancy Pelosi’s defense of Biden: “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” Translation: “Boys will be Boys.”

Nancy was right about one thing in her word salad defense that Joe Biden should have “due process.” Someone should remind her this was something denied to Brett Kavanaugh by Pelosi and her cronies. Of course she'd ignore it anyway.

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

Why? Simple… hypocrisy, and one set of standards for Republicans and another for Democrats shouldn’t be tolerated. Did not the press devote countless resources into investigating those allegations against Trump? The answer is OH, YEAH! So, why have the democrat's media handmaidens been MIA for weeks now that accusations of sexual abuse against Biden were made?

Ok, let's go with the media bias thing. The biased media reported at least 22 allegations against Trump. He didn't sue a one of 'em.

So, now this story is out, including in all the biased publications and news networks, do you believe her or not? Is she more or less credible than the 22 Trump accusers?

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

He should really have taken a page out of Trump's playbook and just dismissed her as having been too ugly to have groped.

“Yeah, I’m gonna go after her,” he said sarcastically at a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Believe me, she would not be my first choice. That I can tell you. You don’t know. That would not be my first choice.”

“When you looked at that horrible woman last night, you said 'I don’t think so,'” Trump told his supporters. “I don’t think so. Whoever she is, wherever she comes from, the stories are total fiction. They are 100 percent made up. They never happened. They never would happen. I don’t think it happened with very many people, but they certainly aren’t gonna happen with me.”

Reade has claimed that after he pushed her up against a wall in a secluded area, began kissing her, and reached under her skirt to penetrate her with his fingers, he told her “You're nothing to me.” Hmmm… perhaps Biden was Trump before Trump was Trump?

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

If Democrats didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

Got to love Nancy Pelosi’s defense of Biden: “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” Translation: “Boys will be Boys.”

Nancy was right about one thing in her word salad defense that Joe Biden should have “due process.” Someone should remind her this was something denied to Brett Kavanaugh by Pelosi and her cronies. Of course she'd ignore it anyway.

How do you figure? There was a publicised hearing and everything where both sides were heard. Kavanaugh got his confirmation in the end.

What other due process should he have been afforded beyond that?

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

Reade has claimed that after he pushed her up against a wall in a secluded area, began kissing her, and reached under her skirt to penetrate her with his fingers, he told her “You're nothing to me.” Hmmm… perhaps Biden was Trump before Trump was Trump?

But you believe Trump when he says such allegations against him were untrue, yes?

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

Ok, let's go with the media bias thing. The biased media reported at least 22 allegations against Trump. He didn't sue a one of 'em.

So, now this story is out, including in all the biased publications and news networks, do you believe her or not? Is she more or less credible than the 22 Trump accusers?

I don't know if she is truthful or not, but her account and the witnesses who back up her account from the time are many times more credible that Ford's were against Kavanaugh. I think the media should at least devote the same amount of reporting and investigation in this claim as they did with Ford. Accusations against leaders who would have impact on the way our country is run demand the same standards... wouldn't you agree?

notobtuse

dark crystal wrote: »

But you believe Trump when he says such allegations against him were untrue, yes?

Based on all the time and effort the media spent into investigating and reporting on them and basically coming up with nothing I would gather allegations him are untrue.