2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Cody montana · 14-08-2020 02:09PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't Harris a racist pick, it was all black women Biden was choosing from.
Is the thinking all blacks will vote for her, didn't they think women would vote for Hillary.

Racist to who?

Overheal · 14-08-2020 02:11PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't Harris a racist pick, it was all black women Biden was choosing from.
Is the thinking all blacks will vote for her, didn't they think women would vote for Hillary.

That’s not true at all. Grisham, Duckworth and Warren were also up for consideration.

Igotadose · 14-08-2020 02:15PM

Well, that didn't work too well. Seems the change to send Covid case and mortality information to HHS rather than CDC (just a few weeks ago, which is of course feels like a lifetime in TrumpYears), is causing chaos for doctors. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/14/health/hospital-covid-19-data-letter/index.html

The #IMPOTUS's HHS spokesdroid is gaslighting the doctors that signed the letter saying the old system (which was more than just some software ffs), couldn't keep up. Funny, didn't hear that from the CDC previously.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/14/health/hospital-covid-19-data-letter/index.html

drunkmonkey · 14-08-2020 02:17PM

Overheal wrote: »

That’s not true at all. Grisham, Duckworth and Warren were also up for consideration.

I'll give you Grisham but Duckworth is Thai and there others a Native American. We've known for a while it was between black women though.
I dunno, what's the average American woman these days?

James Brown · 14-08-2020 02:24PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't Harris a racist pick, it was all black women Biden was choosing from.
Is the thinking all blacks will vote for her, didn't they think women would vote for Hillary.

You stepping over Trump being a racist in a 'look over there!'?

Playing to a demographic is what all politicians do all the time, be it race or economically based.

Trump is playing if she's part black she might not be American, again. He's called all female political opponents 'nasty' at one time or another.

feargale · 14-08-2020 03:40PM

The Unbearables wrote: »

Obama is/was a saint for many. Truth is he was an evil yoke of a man who got away with plenty

Substantiate, please.

Igotadose · 14-08-2020 03:41PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'll give you Grisham but Duckworth is Thai and there others a Native American. We've known for a while it was between black women though.
I dunno, what's the average American woman these days?

Dafuq does that question mean? The average American woman is wonderful!

feargale · 14-08-2020 03:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There's something a little off about the Florida chapter of Black Voices for Trump. But I can't quite put my finger on it.
https://twitter.com/EvanPower/status/1293582537969807367

I get it. Their surname is Black.

feargale · 14-08-2020 03:47PM

timsey tiger wrote: »

This is the name you're going with for Biden.

I can only think of on whining b*tch hiding in his bunker when protesters came and as the add says Biden's not that.

Golf bunker Donald!

Like Nero fiddling he played golf while Covid was ravaging his country.

Muahahaha · 14-08-2020 03:48PM

Bowie wrote: »

Trump reconfirms he's a racist citing a birther theory for Harris. 'Nasty' man.

Just more nonsense from Trump, its hard to believe at a time he is so far behind in the polls and needs to convince Biden voters to vote for him instead that he is engaging in this divisive crap. It didnt work vs.Obama and it wont work here either. Trump supporters and racists will lap it up as a dogwhistle meant for them but his campaign doesnt seem to realise that ultimately it will drive voters away from them. He really is doing a remarkable job at losing this election through unforced errors.

feargale · 14-08-2020 04:02PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He was asked a question by a reporter and he said this:

"I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements ... I have no idea if that's right."

That's not "pushing" anything. Why do people just believe these things without doing a tiny bit of research? Cant find it but it would be nice to see the whole conference to get more context (that tweet cuts him off mid sentence)

Here's the article in question:

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483

Here is an extract:

"I just heard that, I heard it today, that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “I have no idea if that’s right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked it before she gets chosen to run for vice president. But that’s a very serious ….You’re saying that they’re saying that she doesn’t qualify because she wasn’t born in this country?”

Ms Trump’s comments come on the back of a widely-circulated opinion piece by conservative law academic John Eastman in Newsweek magazine. The article questions whether Ms Harris is eligible to become vice president or president under the US constitution, claiming that neither her father or mother was a naturalised US citizen at the time of her birth in 1964.

The article argues that, before voters “so cavalierly accept senator Harris’ eligibility” questions should be posed “about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.”

Decide for yourself. You can put your hand on your heart and assert that the Great Liar's hand is not in it. Some will believe you without question, and others, albeit without hard and fast evidence right now, in the light of the similarly racist slur on Obama, will wonder. At least it came from the "conservatives.

There is no more justification for raising this than there is for questioning the status of Eastman's parents the night he was conceived.

feargale · 14-08-2020 04:07PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thank you President Trump!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/13/israel-and-uae-to-form-diplomatic-ties-says-donald-trump

Israel and UAE to form diplomatic ties, says Donald Trump

"Israel and the United Arab Emirates have established full diplomatic ties in a historic Washington-brokered deal that will mean Israel “suspending” its plans to annex parts of the Palestinian territories.

The deal, announced in a joint statement between Israel, the UAE and the US, said the two states had “agreed to the full normalisation of relations."

So, they won't steal any more Palestinian land, but they will hang on to what they have stolen already. Thank you Golf Bunker Don.

A deal between Israel and UAE? Sounds like a deal between the IRA and Luxembourg.

Tell me how · 14-08-2020 04:08PM

Whats the betting that despite everything that has gone on so far and the widespread efforts to not lockdown, and to keep things open that Covid could still be used as an excuse in a November to restrict access to voting?

If this was a central African Nation of 20 years ago, the US and the UN would be sending representatives to monitor the electoral process and to ensure it was open and fair.

Things are going to get pretty mental.

Noeleff · 14-08-2020 04:09PM

Igotadose wrote: »

By all accounts, including Trump's, they knew each other. And Trump despite calling so many prominent women 'Nasty" and other childish nicknames, wished Ghislaine Maxwell well recently after she was captured and interred waiting for trial on child rape and other horrific crimes.

Yes he wished the trollop well.
But that is a kiss of death.
He has literally done that to all of his enemies just before they go down.

Tell me how · 14-08-2020 04:12PM

feargale wrote: »

So, they won't steal any more Palestinian land, but they will hang on to what they have stolen already. Thank you Golf Bunker Don.

A deal between Israel and UAE? Sounds like a deal between the IRA and Luxembourg.

Israel's behaviour over several decades has been shameful.

1 - Sign agreement promising to keep things as they are.
2 - Ignore agreement.
3 - Invade and occupy more Palestinian territory.
4 - Repeat from step 1.

There's only one reason they have gotten away with this. US support.

Tokyo · 14-08-2020 04:14PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's an untested in the real world theory, there is 0 evidence to back up such a claim in a real world setting. Antidotal evidence is showing them to have the opposite effect. Large scale testing happening at the moment, results should be out soon.
Don't point me to a labatory test to back up your assumption.

Mod: "Don't back up *your* point of view with laboratory tests, but by all means accept my anecdotal 'evidence'".

I have no issue with you taking the contrarian point of view, but if you're going to do so, at least *try* to back it up with something more than 'cos I say so'. Otherwise, you're just stirring the pot.

Also, how does this relate to the topic at hand?

joseywhales · 14-08-2020 04:20PM

feargale wrote: »

So, they won't steal any more Palestinian land, but they will hang on to what they have stolen already. Thank you Golf Bunker Don.

A deal between Israel and UAE? Sounds like a deal between the IRA and Luxembourg.

Exactly they will be rewarded for breaking international law.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-08-2020 04:38PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Whats the betting that despite everything that has gone on so far and the widespread efforts to not lockdown, and to keep things open that Covid could still be used as an excuse in a November to restrict access to voting?

If this was a central African Nation of 20 years ago, the US and the UN would be sending representatives to monitor the electoral process and to ensure it was open and fair.

Things are going to get pretty mental.

At this stage the Dems should actually ask the UN to send in observers, Imagine being American right now knowing that your president is doing his best to stop you from voting.

Closing polling stations in mostly Dem areas, Trying to stop mail in voting even though there is no evidence of fraud on a scale that could affect a nationwide election. Soon we will see the call to "patriots" to stand outside polling stations demanding to see peoples proof that they are eligible to vote, intimidating people as they try to exercise their right to vote for whomever they wish.

Quin_Dub · 14-08-2020 04:51PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

At this stage the Dems should actually ask the UN to send in observers, Imagine being American right now knowing that your president is doing his best to stop you from voting.

Closing polling stations in mostly Dem areas, Trying to stop mail in voting even though there is no evidence of fraud on a scale that could affect a nationwide election. Soon we will see the call to "patriots" to stand outside polling stations demanding to see peoples proof that they are eligible to vote, intimidating people as they try to exercise their right to vote for whomever they wish.

Already done

...Its premise is that a Republican victory in November is imperiled by widespread voter fraud, a baseless charge embraced by President Trump but repeatedly debunked by research. Democrats and voting rights advocates say the driving factor is politics, not fraud — especially since Mr. Trump’s narrow win in 2016 underscored the potentially crucial value of depressing turnout by Democrats, particularly minorities.

The Republican program, which has gained steam in recent weeks, envisions recruiting up to 50,000 volunteers in 15 key states to monitor polling places and challenge ballots and voters deemed suspicious. That is part of a $20 million plan that also allots millions to challenge lawsuits by Democrats and voting-rights advocates seeking to loosen state restrictions on balloting. The party and its allies also intend to use advertising, the internet and Mr. Trump’s command of the airwaves to cast Democrats as agents of election theft.

TheRepentent · 14-08-2020 04:54PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Already done

Unless it was a cop or an employee involved with the voting , I'd tell them to go get fukked.

Quin_Dub · 14-08-2020 04:59PM

TheRepentent wrote: »

Unless it was a cop or an employee involved with the voting , I'd tell them to go get fukked.

Sadly , because of the recent change in the law. They are legally entitled to challenge you , refusal could lead to you being prevented from Voting..

The efforts are bolstered by a 2018 federal court ruling that for the first time in nearly four decades allows the national Republican Party to mount campaigns against purported voter fraud without court approval. The court ban on Republican Party voter-fraud operations was imposed in 1982, and then modified in 1986 and again in 1990, each time after courts found instances of Republicans intimidating or working to exclude minority voters in the name of preventing fraud. The party was found to have violated it yet again in 2004.

So basically - they are allowed be in the polling station and randomly pick people out and demand that they prove their eligibility to vote. I think we all know exactly where these "Poll monitors" will be and what type of people they will be targeting.

y0ssar1an22 · 14-08-2020 05:00PM

feargale wrote: »

Here is an extract:

"I just heard that, I heard it today, that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “I have no idea if that’s right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked it before she gets chosen to run for vice president. But that’s a very serious ….You’re saying that they’re saying that she doesn’t qualify because she wasn’t born in this country?”

Ms Trump’s comments come on the back of a widely-circulated opinion piece by conservative law academic John Eastman in Newsweek magazine. The article questions whether Ms Harris is eligible to become vice president or president under the US constitution, claiming that neither her father or mother was a naturalised US citizen at the time of her birth in 1964.

The article argues that, before voters “so cavalierly accept senator Harris’ eligibility” questions should be posed “about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.”

Decide for yourself. You can put your hand on your heart and assert that the Great Liar's hand is not in it. Some will believe you without question, and others, albeit without hard and fast evidence right now, in the light of the similarly racist slur on Obama, will wonder. At least it came from the "conservatives.

There is no more justification for raising this than there is for questioning the status of Eastman's parents the night he was conceived.

this is what i cant understand, regardless of what side you're on. an opinion piece? either they were or they were not. that should be easy to ascertain.

look at her DOB, look when the parents were naturalised. put the story to bed one way or another.

TheRepentent · 14-08-2020 05:00PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Sadly , because of the recent change in the law. They are legally entitled to challenge you , refusal could lead to you being prevented from Voting..

Seriously ? Fuk that..land of the free* my arse

*whites only need apply

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-08-2020 05:01PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Sadly , because of the recent change in the law. They are legally entitled to challenge you , refusal could lead to you being prevented from Voting..

So basically - they are allowed be in the polling station and randomly pick people out and demand that they prove their eligibility to vote. I think we all know exactly where these "Poll monitors" will be and what type of people they will be targeting.

Thats disgraceful, Could Dems do the same and confront white people?

Quin_Dub · 14-08-2020 05:16PM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

this is what i cant understand, regardless of what side you're on. an opinion piece? either they were or they were not. that should be easy to ascertain.

look at her DOB, look when the parents were naturalised. put the story to bed one way or another.

It doesn't matter - She was born in California so she's an American citizen and qualified. , end of discussion.

Her Parents status is utterly irrelevant - The status of parents only matters if you are born outside the US , like Ted Cruz for example.

She's not white so they question if she's "really" American.. The fact that she's even being asked to verify and confirm this stuff is beyond pathetic.

If she was white and had European born parents , the question would never even have been asked.

Quin_Dub · 14-08-2020 05:21PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thats disgraceful, Could Dems do the same and confront white people?

Technically yes and they have always been allowed , the GOP have been banned from doing it since the early '70's having been found to be guilty of extreme voter intimidation and other illegal practices.

They finally got the ban overturned in 2018 (after the mid terms) so this will be the 1st time in almost 50 years that they've been allowed to have monitors.

They are planning to go whole hog with it in all the places that they feel are "Hotbeds for voter fraud" which are, in surprise to no one , predominantly Democrat , mainly Black/Hispanic voting districts.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-08-2020 05:24PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Technically yes and they have always been allowed , the GOP have been banned from doing it since the early '70's having been found to be guilty of extreme voter intimidation and other illegal practices.

They finally got the ban overturned in 2018 (after the mid terms) so this will be the 1st time in almost 50 years that they've been allowed to have monitors.

They are planning to go whole hog with it in all the places that they feel are "Hotbeds for voter fraud" which are, in surprise to no one , predominantly Democrat , mainly Black/Hispanic voting districts.

And Trumps zealots will defend this despicable behaviour because their dear leader says so.

drunkmonkey · 14-08-2020 05:25PM

Dr. Siegel tells Tucker Carlson there is 'no science' behind Biden's mask mandate
Siegel called it 'the politics of fear'

Media not buying it after all, I'm sure CNN will retort later to say everyone is going to die if they don't listen to Professor Biden.

y0ssar1an22 · 14-08-2020 05:27PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It doesn't matter - She was born in California so she's an American citizen and qualified. , end of discussion.

Her Parents status is utterly irrelevant - The status of parents only matters if you are born outside the US , like Ted Cruz for example.

She's not white so they question if she's "really" American.. The fact that she's even being asked to verify and confirm this stuff is beyond pathetic.

If she was white and had European born parents , the question would never even have been asked.

my bad so. just picked up on this part:

claiming that neither her father or mother was a naturalised US citizen at the time of her birth in 1964.

here are the criteria (per wikipedia):

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
be at least 35 years old;
be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.[1]
A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

[cut out - things like treason, irrelevant here though]

there is a question about a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States, as its not defined in the constitution which is what yer man was angling at i presume:
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen".
the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

but thats soooo far reaching, its almost embarrassing. just get on with the various campaigns. attack her policies if you want, this is just desperate!

drunkmonkey · 14-08-2020 05:29PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

If she was white and had European born parents , the question would never even have been asked.

Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president and he has European parents.

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Comments