Silentcorner wrote: » Well, it's very simple. Why would Bloomberg commit to spending €100,000,000 in Florida to get Harris/Biden elected? It's not the actions of a party that is confident of it's supposed lead in the polls...now, you could easily dismiss that point and I'd have no problem with that... Now both of them (Harris/Biden) didn't manage to get more than a car load of supporters to turn out for them during their time in Florida, now you could easily dismiss that point too because there is nothing scientific in that!!! We also can see that there is massive public support for Trump in Florida all up and down the state...now, you can dismiss that because there is nothing scientific in that either. But we know the real issue back in 2016 was how many polls were wrong regarding the swing states in particular... You don't want to take my point seriously, but do some digging, you'll see there is expected to be large gains in some very Democrat solid geographical areas' and demographics for Trump.
WrenBoy wrote: » Just on the Environmental issue I see Former Rep. Gov Rick Snyder of (Flint Michigan fame) is endorsing Joe Biden. Not a good look to tout the support of a guy responsible for the poisoning of an entire city and then lying about it under oath.
letowski wrote: » I think while I definitely agree there is alot of enthusiasm in the ground for Trump, I'm not sure does that translate fully to election day. One thing everyone seems to agree on, from the market researchers, pollsters, media, etc, is that this election will have one of the largest, if not the largest voter turnout in US history. While the GOP have some effective voter suppression tactics, this isn't good news for Trump and especially GOP senators. This also correlates well with widespread agreement that there is a relatively small percentage of undecideds this election cycle, with more that 90% already know who they will vote for. Furthermore, this is off the back of the highest every voter turnout at the 2018 midterms in 100 years, in which the Democratic Party performed very strongly. Its worth remembering that the Democratic voter turnout stagnated in 2016. So while enthusiasm may not be so visible for Biden, there definitely seems like alot of people are going to cast their vote nonetheless.
hirondelle wrote: » In terms of protecting the environment, I would say that unpicking the Clean Water Act (progressed by that well-known tree hugger Richard Nixon) allowing mining companies to dump contaminated wash from mining activities into headwaters is an example of Trump choosing commercial interests over and above protecting the environment. A relevant example to think of here is the West Virginia coalfields (mountaintop removal mining)- the coal is washed near the point of extraction- and the process water returned to the watercourse. Trump is steering the EPA towards reducing the testing requirements by the mining companies. This introduces the potential for lovely flavours of cadmium, arsenic and other contaminants into the drinking water supply of the local populace (on a related note, I checked and 68% of the vote in WV went to Trump). So, Trump went for the industry (and the legacy jobs in a doomed industry) by reducing the requirement to test the water and publish the results instead of protecting the health of all the people relying on these water supplies. All this dressed up as getting rid of "unnecessary" regulation by nasty "Big Government". Tell me Pete, are you personally in favour of a public water supply that is tested to ensure that human health is protected, or do you think the coal industry should be allowed to pollute it with impunity? Would you be happy with having water from these sources as your primary source of drinking water? And a plea- if you do reply please don't "lol", it never, ever adds to the debate on adult fora.
Silentcorner wrote: » I'd agree with you regarding the turnout, it is going to be huge. It has to be of major concern to see how little enthusiasm exists for the Democrats, this article is about Michigan, a state they lost in 2016 by 10,000 and yet there is no visible campaign let alone support...what gives?https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/ We are talking about polar opposite campaigns here...there have been huge amounts of parades/boat parades/car parades nationwide that have not been organized by the Trump campaign they are organic public expressions of support....not to mention the thousands and thousands that turn up and que for hours before his rallies. There was one Biden event mentioned in that article, about 8 supporters turned up...30 Trump supporters turned up...in a vital swing state 6 weeks out from an election. I thought Trump would win in a landslide a few months ago, before the real election campaign began....witnessing both campaigns now in full swing, I haven't changed my mind.
Silentcorner wrote: » I'd agree with you regarding the turnout, it is going to be huge.
namloc1980 wrote: » What do you mean by huge turnout?
Silentcorner wrote: » I mean a huge turnout
namloc1980 wrote: » Like what percentage or do you only deal in vague adjectives?
Silentcorner wrote: » What a ridiculous question...a prediction of a percentage increase in voter turnout is completely useless unless I were to predict which demographic were likely to turnout out at which increased rate and what that would mean in each region/state...I'd be working for a campaign at that stage not wasting my time trying to answer ridiculous questions from someone who just doesn't like my contribution to an online forum.
Carfacemandog wrote: » Which Democratic areas and demographics is Trump doing very large gains with?
Silentcorner wrote: » I've left the rest of your quote out as we can be going round in circles all day, like I said in my original post, I understand the legitimacy of dismissing my points...I do appreciate that spending changes and shifts for reasons we can only speculate...I just take a different view based on what I can see, that is all.https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-has-latino-voter-support-s-strong-ever-why-haven-ncna1240168https://www.rebelnews.com/gays_coming_out_for_trumphttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/31/trumps-approval-rating-black-voters-soars-60-durin/ They are but three examples of a shift in support in key demographics...again, I accept that reports and polls are not dependable...there is a host of videos available of those demographics supporting Trump you can find them if you look....I am predicting a black vote for Trump at 20% by the way. I must point out, I linked the video of the Amish because of how peculiar it is to see that community publicly support a president, not because I think it'll swing the election.
It's no surprise, then, that many Latinos don't plan to vote for Trump in November. What may be a surprise is how many do.
A survey of around 1,200 queer male Americans found that around 45 per cent – around 540 – plan to vote for Trump.
HarrisX-Hill survey finds Black support increases from 15% to 24%
Gentlemanne wrote: »
hirondelle wrote: » Tell me Pete, are you personally in favour of a public water supply that is tested to ensure that human health is protected, or do you think the coal industry should be allowed to pollute it with impunity? Would you be happy with having water from these sources as your primary source of drinking water?
“I commend the Trump Administration’s steadfast commitment to providing greater clarity with regard to the regulations under Section 401, States like New York and New Jersey have been abusing their authority and hindering the development of energy infrastructure projects for far too long. As I’ve said before, these actions have stalled infrastructure development that is vital to creating new markets for Pennsylvania natural gas and related liquids, not only here at home, but across the northeast and world. The irony of the situation is that Pennsylvania natural gas would be a significant benefit in helping New York City reduce CO2 emissions.”
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Your categorization of the executive order is inaccurate. It was repealed so that the regulation could be changed ("review and rescind or revise") not removed. The objective was merely to address issues that businesses and farmers (big and small) were having, which is why the National Federation of Independent Business sued the Obama administration over the regulations, complaining that they were too broad and gave the federal government needless jurisdiction. If you go to this link and watch a hearing on the issue you will hear many business owners and farmers (from 36min in) that were negatively affected by the regulation give evidence to that effect. Some words from Sen Yaw and Sen Inhofe on the matter:https://twitter.com/JimInhofe/status/1269030832666226691 Saying industry will be able to "pollute with impunity" is just scaremongering tbf.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Well apparently a man with a stutter stutters and its "proof" he has dementia (according to some). Im just pointing out the hypocrisy of posters who say Biden looks fragile or has no energy yet never seem to see this in their dear leaders actions.
Mic 1972 wrote: » Biden has brain issues, it's a fact There is no hypocrisy and i honestly feel sorry for him but that's the reality
Pa ElGrande wrote: » https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1308746258140614657 The deplorables registrations are up.
hirondelle wrote: » Ah come on- the purpose is exactly to reduce the impact on the polluters, pure and simple and you have linked to demonstrate the effects only on the potential polluters.
Revise my eye, you are being wilfully naïve on this.
It is part of Trump's broader strategy to pretend that environmental degradation is no barrier to economic growth.
Would you trust the EPA (for example) to do the right thing by the people depending on these supplies? I'm not scaremongering, I'm reflecting what many people in the states are concerned with.
You do understand the levels of pollution some of the intense agriculture and industry generates? You know that if it isn't dealt with by regulation these people will inevitable cut costs, particularly at a time when the EPA is being politicised.
(CNN)Political watchers awoke Wednesday morning to the two best polls for President Donald Trump in the last six months. A new ABC News/Washington Post poll found Trump 51% to former Vice President Joe Biden 47% among likely voters in Florida, a result within the margin of error. They also had Trump 49% to Biden 48% among likely voters in Arizona, again within the margin of error. The results could make your head spin if you believe that Biden is well ahead.
Silentcorner wrote: » Why did the Democrat Party go with Biden...a man of his age would always struggle with the load of a campaign, I don't want to get into the most recent controversy regarding an interview he gave, but Americans will have to confront the possibility that he is not fit for office, now they made decide he is fine, an improvement on Trump...but the question has to be asked....why was Biden overlooked by the party membership twice when he was much younger for the nomination twice but is the man they've turned to now to beat Trump? Was a younger politician not an option if not why not...what does it say about the Democrats?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/43d5d8eb6f74f970975eb821385072d4.svg)