Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

DubInMeath wrote: »

Think you missed the sarcasm

Prof Moriarty needs to work on it a bit more! Not so obvious in fast moving hotly debated threads!

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Republicans in 2018...

And here I am once again with my most used quote of this Presidency and election cycle.

'Accuse others of that which you are guilty'.

It's easy to speak forcefully on a topic when you know yourself how you would behave and can just refer to that. Makes you sound insightful, because, actually, you are.

DeanAustin wrote: »

This will be a problem. Presidents, by and large, have refrained from commenting on their successors. Obama probably strayed too far at times although I can understand why.

There's no way this clown isn't tweeting criticism of Biden every chance he gets. And that's going to keep the chasm well and truly open.

I've said before that I expect to see him get a Prime Time slot on Fox called 'The President Speaks' or 'The State of the Union'.

Although, it seems they have fallen out of love with each other so maybe it is possible that he will indeed try to launch his own station to rival fox and give himself top billing. Although, to be fair, I think funding might be an issue for him at this point.

Tell me how wrote: »

I've said before that I expect to see him get a Prime Time slot on Fox called 'The President Speaks' or 'The State of the Union'.

Although, it seems they have fallen out of love with each other so maybe it is possible that he will indeed try to launch his own station to rival fox and give himself top billing. Although, to be fair, I think funding might be an issue for him at this point.

OANN.

DeanAustin wrote: »

This will be a problem. Presidents, by and large, have refrained from commenting on their successors. Obama probably strayed too far at times although I can understand why.

There's no way this clown isn't tweeting criticism of Biden every chance he gets. And that's going to keep the chasm well and truly open.

Trumpism is based on anger. It's a fundamentally angry philosophy, and I use 'philosophy' loosely. Trump and his acolytes will attempt to keep people angry for as long as possible.

However, it's probably also the great weakness of Trumpism. At some point, people just get tired of being angry all the time. It'll eat a person up. The flame of Trumpism may burn bright for a while, but then expend itself.

Mr. Karate wrote: »

Even if Biden wins he still loses. Dems lost seats in the House and the Senate. Not the Anti-Trump mandate that the Dems and the media want us to believe.

What media is that Ted?

Fox News? The New York Post? OANN? The Washington Times?

Oh, let me guess, that media is fine, it's that other liberal loving media which should be eradicated.

Tell me how wrote: »

What media is that Ted?

Fox News? The New York Post? OANN? The Washington Times?

Oh, let me guess, that media is fine, it's that other liberal loving media which should be eradicated.

Fox News was fine, but then some of their anchors and reporters couldn't fully back Trump's guff, so they've been moved to the not fine category.

How much of a risk is it that he'll pull this off?

We can all concede that Trump will stop at nothing to cling to power.
He will lie, steal and cheat as much as possible to preserve himself without a thought for the consequences. He could care less about the american people or democracy.


Is there a real danger here?

Even Kavanaugh is suggesting that the plaintiffs have an uphill battle arguing that the individual mandate cannot be simply severed from the remainder of the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiffs still want SCOTUS to invalidate the entire healthcare reform law over the individual mandate. Kavanaugh pointing out that the court's precedent on severability is "on point" here, and asks plaintiffs why the IM is inseverable from the rest of the Act.

Doesn't sound like they're making a lot of ground.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well, he is an autocrat trapped in a democratic system.

It was always the case that the transition period was going to be unstable to put it mildly.

He lost. He will leave. But he'll try and take as many down with him as he can. That's who see is.

This is not normal. Destabilising the civilian leadership of the military is a classic autocratic move. Expect more firings and destabilisation in the weeks to come.

.

I’m getting emails from the Trump team now.
I’m not Rachel or a woman either.

“Rachael,

I will NEVER stop fighting for YOU.

My Administration is achieving things no one thought possible - the stock market is up BIG, the coronavirus vaccine is underway and will be completed safely very soon.

We are accomplishing so much, which is even more reason to step up and DEFEND THE ELECTION!

I’m calling on YOU to FIGHT BACK, Rachael. We need to bolster our critical Election Defense Fund if we’re going to keep going. We can’t do this without you.

I had such a big lead in all of these key battleground states late into Election night, only to see the leads miraculously disappear as the days went by. Perhaps these leads will return as our legal proceedings move forward, but only if we have the resources to KEEP FIGHTING!

You’ve never let me down before, Rachael and I know you won’t start now.

Donald J. Trump
President of the United States“

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Well, he is an autocrat trapped in a democratic system.

It was always the case that the transition period was going to be unstable to put it mildly.

He lost. He will leave. But he'll try and take as many down with him as he can. That's who see is.

They should really look at reducing the period a President stays in office after he is defeated. It can only ever lead to whomever is there trying to push through last minute reforms to suit their agenda. 14 days and you should be out the gap. Trump can do serious damage in the 70 odd days he gets to cling in there.

namloc1980 wrote: »

They never called Arizona. The lies are unbelievable. Do you guys ever get tired of lying?

sometimes.
but not today.