US Presidential Election 2020

Itssoeasy · 26-09-2020 1:47pm

Water John wrote: »

Called by whom? Each State when all votes are counted declares its Electors. Not up to Biden, Trump, GOP or Dems.

Well trump will call it because why the **** won’t he ? He’s not someone who lets reality get in the way of his narrative. He believes he’s all powerful already and has powers his office doesn’t give him. He’ll say there is rigging of the election if it’s close enough where there is doubt. He’s saying it out loud so people should believe him.

Water John · 26-09-2020 1:50pm

Yes Trump had telegraphed that but each State won't have declared. Nobody can help the idiots who believe what he'll spout.

Brussels Sprout · 26-09-2020 2:16pm

It's quite telling that after Trump's comments about being unwilling to commit to a transfer of power, several Republicans have come out with the line "We will abide with whatever the courts decide" rather than the traditional "We will abide with whatever the people decide".

It's quite likely that Trump will be ahead on election night given that more Democrats than Republicans appear to be going for mail-in options. As the days proceed and those mail-in votes are counted, more and more states will tip in the favour of Biden. The nightmare scenario for him is where it all hinges one 1 state, for example Pennsylvania, and the Republicans go to the courts to stop the counting for some reason. Given the upcoming appointment of ACB, Biden really does not want to be in a Gore v Bush scenario with the makeup of that Supreme Court.

The only way to avoid it is for him to win comprehensively, ideally with the votes that are counted on election night.

rossie1977 · 26-09-2020 6:08pm

stefanovich wrote: »

I doubt if he even checks one of those boxes.

I saw the "peaceful transfer of power" exchange for myself and what is being reported is a misrepresentation at best.

How is he controlling the media? 90% of TV stations in the US are against him.

He attempts to control the media. Calling anything not favourable to him fake. Removing press from White House he does not like. Adding niche far right news teams that he does..

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
America has always been a patriotic country. The left are openly expressing hatred for the US.

What left?

And how exactly does Bernie or AOC hate America, please explain?

Trump goes overboard with nationalism, his 4th of July looked like a freaking Nuremburg rally.

2. Disdain for human rights
Any example of this? Enforcing immigration law?

Completely ignoring the UN charter on asylum seekers, gassing immigrants at the border, children in cages, huge rise in civilian drone deaths that then he wants no longer reported. This sort of stuff is not normal https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/ICE-hysterectomies-whistleblower-georgia.html

3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
Which enemies are you talking about? Violent antifa or ISIS?

Take your pick from Mexicans being all dogs and rapists, other Hispanics being all ms13, Muslims, the left, democrats

Trump has created multiple enemies and used them as way to unify hatred.

4. Rampant sexism
He is about to appoint a female supreme court judge.

And look at the way he has treated other women and what he has called them. He told the four Democrats to go back to their own country yet said nothing to Democrat men holding same ideals.

5. Controlled mass media
No example of this... Unless you are talking about social media. What he is attempting to do in that space is admirable and in everyone's best interests

Been explained in first paragraph. No question Trump is attempting to control the media in his favour. And it's wearing down the public too. If you shout loud enough something is fake and a fraud eventually people will believe it.

6. Obsession with national security
More obsessed than any previous President? Obama? No. He has tried hard to deescalate tensions with historical enemies.

Obama didn't ban Muslims from entering. He did want to waste money on a wall. Obama didn't massively increase military spending either.

7. Religion and government intertwined
This has always been a part of American politics.

To the extent it is now.. no

Trump has already put too extremely conservative judges on the SC. He is now in process of appointing a person with 'Handmaid Tales' ideology who believes women should be subservient to men.

Not to mention under say Obama he didn't cater to the evangelicals like Trump is doing.

8. Corporate power protected
Most americans are invested in the stock market.

Actually they are not and that's not the point being made. Trump and his team have massively cut taxes, eliminated regulations so now huge corporations can do whatever they like without consequence. Drill on Indian owned land, on national park sites..

Even the Covid rescue package Trump tried to get most of the money for corporations until the Dems stopped him.

9. Labor power suppressed
Not sure what you mean by this? Are you a marxist?

Its clear what is means.

Worker rights and power.

Are they weaker or stronger under Trump? Clearly weaker given corporations have all the power now.

10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
Hmm, I think the people smashing up national monuments tick that box

What national monuments?

We are talking Trump here who goes out of his way to ignore science and actually destroy it given he put Pruitt in environment.

11. Obsession with crime and punishment
The police in democrat run states are literally not enforcing the law. People's businesses and homes are being wrecked.

Completely false but again not point being made.

Why are police being heavy handed on peaceful protesters to begin with. The police didn't deal with those anti lock down supporters like they did BLM initially.

12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Any proof? Please take a look at Hunter Biden.

Biden is a hugely qualified businessman with degrees from the top ivy league schools in the world. At no point did Hunter Biden get top job in the US government..

On flipside Ivanka and Kushner have zero experience yet both are in top jobs in white House...illegal btw.

Kusher is arguably #2 guy in the White House right now.

Manic Moran · 26-09-2020 8:37pm

everlast75 wrote: »

This is something Trump and his entourage benefit from.

They are full of absolute BS. Trump can say something and when he is called on it, excuse it away as hyperbole.

He got Daniel's defamation case dismissed on that basis.

Corsi wasn't pursued as he is all over the place.

Carlson got McDougal's case struck out. On what basis? That people understand and expect bo**ox from him.
https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/1309337507918741510?s=19

Think about that. Carlson got away with it because people should not believe his show.

Fox news everybody.

Reminds me of the case a few months back where Rachel Maddow won her case on the grounds In the words of the judge, “a reasonable factfinder could only conclude that the statement was one of opinion not fact“.

Unfortunately, as we all know, much of the “news” sources are anything but and are just opinion platforms.

StringerBell · 26-09-2020 8:44pm

Pretty sure the Maddow one was quite different from memory?

I'll look into it.

Edit: the broader point is fine. The opinion shows on these mainstream media channels are just that. The news shows are supposed to be different obviously.

What seems to be a problem is that too many of the public don't understand they are opinion shows and too many of the opinion shows are happy to pass themselves off as news shows.

everlast75 · 26-09-2020 10:45pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Reminds me of the case a few months back where Rachel Maddow won her case on the grounds In the words of the judge, “a reasonable factfinder could only conclude that the statement was one of opinion not fact“.

Unfortunately, as we all know, much of the “news” sources are anything but and are just opinion platforms.

"A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rachel Maddow, finding she did not defame One America News when she said it was “Russian propaganda.”

Herring Networks, the parent company of OAN, claimed that Maddow had defamed the company in July 2019, when she discussed a Daily Beast article reporting that an OAN contributor was also on the payroll of Sputnik, a Kremlin-backed news site.

Maddow said OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Herring Networks alleged that she made a false statement, in that OAN is not paid by the Russian government.

In dismissing the suit on Friday, U.S. Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that Maddow was giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article."

Vs

"U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York sided with the network in finding that Carlson's statements were "nonactionable hyperbole," and that the "general tenor" of his show should make it clear that he was not "stating actual facts" or accusing McDougal of a crime."

There's a difference.

eire4 · 26-09-2020 11:08pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It's quite telling that after Trump's comments about being unwilling to commit to a transfer of power, several Republicans have come out with the line "We will abide with whatever the courts decide" rather than the traditional "We will abide with whatever the people decide".

It's quite likely that Trump will be ahead on election night given that more Democrats than Republicans appear to be going for mail-in options. As the days proceed and those mail-in votes are counted, more and more states will tip in the favour of Biden. The nightmare scenario for him is where it all hinges one 1 state, for example Pennsylvania, and the Republicans go to the courts to stop the counting for some reason. Given the upcoming appointment of ACB, Biden really does not want to be in a Gore v Bush scenario with the makeup of that Supreme Court.

The only way to avoid it is for him to win comprehensively, ideally with the votes that are counted on election night.

Just a further example of how the Republican party slides more towards authoritarianism and away from being a democratic party. The other comment I hear a lot is when Republicans are asked will you support a peaceful transition of power? The response is to refuse to say yes but instead say "we will respect the results of a free and fair election. The answer to the question clearly should be yes. The Republican response is instead a subtle way of saying if we win yes if not no.

Manic Moran · 27-09-2020 3:22pm

everlast75 wrote: »

"A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rachel Maddow, finding she did not defame One America News when she said it was “Russian propaganda.”

Herring Networks, the parent company of OAN, claimed that Maddow had defamed the company in July 2019, when she discussed a Daily Beast article reporting that an OAN contributor was also on the payroll of Sputnik, a Kremlin-backed news site.

Maddow said OAN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Herring Networks alleged that she made a false statement, in that OAN is not paid by the Russian government.

In dismissing the suit on Friday, U.S. Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that Maddow was giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article."

Vs

"U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York sided with the network in finding that Carlson's statements were "nonactionable hyperbole," and that the "general tenor" of his show should make it clear that he was not "stating actual facts" or accusing McDougal of a crime."

There's a difference.

There is in what you quote, yes. I would suggest, however, as opposed to just taking soundbites as identified by news reports which unsurprisingly are not word-for-word identical, actually reading what the judges wrote. (Why do I occasionally feel like I'm the only person to actually take the time dig into court opinions and legislation on this board as opposed to taking news articles on their shallow faces?)

Both cases revolve around the use of terminology which on its face is factually incorrect, most specifically in the Carlson case "a classic case of extortion", and in the Maddow case, "literally paid Russian propoganda". In both cases, the court distinguishes between the relating of the basic facts framing the discussion which in both cases are true and are preceding the offending phrases, and the opinion commentary which accompanied it both of which use phrases which are being claimed to be factual, incorrect statements. Both judges specifically define the verbiage as hyperbole which people are not to be taking as fact, and both cite in common some cases as precedent to follow.

Here's the Carlson one.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDougal-v-Fox-Opinion.pdf

"But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern. As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation"

Here's the Maddow one.
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf

A hyperbole is an exaggeration especially “to an excessive degree” or “a manner of speaking that depicts something as being much bigger, smaller, worse, etc. than it really is.” HYPERBOLE, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Hyperbolic statements are not actionable because the listener knows that he or she should not accept the statements as fact

In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment."

...by way of one obvious example of similarity.

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 5:03pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is in what you quote, yes. I would suggest, however, as opposed to just taking soundbites as identified by news reports which unsurprisingly are not word-for-word identical, actually reading what the judges wrote. (Why do I occasionally feel like I'm the only person to actually take the time dig into court opinions and legislation on this board as opposed to taking news articles on their shallow faces?)

Both cases revolve around the use of terminology which on its face is factually incorrect, most specifically in the Carlson case "a classic case of extortion", and in the Maddow case, "literally paid Russian propoganda". In both cases, the court distinguishes between the relating of the basic facts framing the discussion which in both cases are true and are preceding the offending phrases, and the opinion commentary which accompanied it both of which use phrases which are being claimed to be factual, incorrect statements. Both judges specifically define the verbiage as hyperbole which people are not to be taking as fact, and both cite in common some cases as precedent to follow.

Here's the Carlson one.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7216968/9-24-20-McDougal-v-Fox-Opinion.pdf

"But there can be no doubt that Mr. Carlson did so as hyperbole to promote debate on a matter of public concern. As a result, the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual representations and, therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation"

Here's the Maddow one.
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDOW-DISMISS.pdf

A hyperbole is an exaggeration especially “to an excessive degree” or “a manner of speaking that depicts something as being much bigger, smaller, worse, etc. than it really is.” HYPERBOLE, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Hyperbolic statements are not actionable because the listener knows that he or she should not accept the statements as fact

In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment."

...by way of one obvious example of similarity.

Let's look at Rachel's academic and professional achievements, reputation and standing.

2017 Emmy Award in the Outstanding Live Interview category for The Rachel Maddow Show segment "One-on-One with Kellyanne Conway".[75]

2017 Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion & Analysis category for The Rachel Maddow Show story "An American Disaster: The Crisis in Flint".[76]

2011 Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion & Analysis category for The Rachel Maddow Show segments "Good Morning Landlocked Central Asia!".[77]

Maddow was named in Out magazine's "Out 100" list of the "gay men and women who moved culture" in 2008.[78]

Maddow was voted "Lesbian/Bi Woman of the Year (American)" in AfterEllen's 2008 Visibility Awards.[79]

Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.[80]

In 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.[81]

On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno.[82]

Maddow was included on a list of openly gay media professionals in The Advocate's "Forty under 40" issue of June/July 2009.[86]

In 1994, Maddow received an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.[87]

In June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.[88]

In March 2010, Maddow won at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in the category of Outstanding TV Journalism—Newsmagazine for her segment, "Uganda Be Kidding Me".[89]

In May 2010, Maddow was the 2010 commencement speaker and was given an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts.[90]
In July 2010, Maddow was presented with a Maggie Award for her ongoing reporting of healthcare reform, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the anti-abortion movement.[91]

In August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award, which was presented by the Interfaith Alliance.[57] Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.[57]

In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.[92]

Maddow was named Outstanding Host at the 2012 Gracie Allen Awards[93]

In December 2012, the audio book version of Maddow's Drift was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.
On October 5, 2017, her MSNBC show won two Emmy Awards, for coverage of the tainted water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and for Maddow's interview with White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.[94]

In December 2017 The Advocate named her as a finalist for its "Person of the Year".[95]

She has a Batchelor of Arts from Stanford, a doctorate of philosophy from Oxford.

Feel free to compare it with Carlson's level of discourse, research and overall intelligence and analysis.

Manic Moran · 27-09-2020 5:09pm

Feel free to compare it with Carlson's level of discourse, research and overall intelligence and analysis.

Which has what, exactly, to do with the similarities between the two court cases or their current programming which is coloured significantly by opinion vs pure news reporting?

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 5:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which has what, exactly, to do with the similarities between the two court cases or their current programming which is coloured significantly by opinion vs pure news reporting?

It has to do with the standard of broadcasting.

In Maddow's case, the judge held it was her opinion. There was no disparaging remarks and understandably so, considering her reputation.

In Carlson's case, it was held that he was a BS artist (paraphrasing), understandably so, considering his reputation.

The similarities are far outweighed by the differences in the two.

pixelburp · 27-09-2020 5:32pm

At the risk of reduction, any comparison between the two figures feels arbitrary: Maddow is a journalist prone to hyperbole when a subject moves her; while Carlson a performative demagogue, who delights in taking intentionally vulgar stances. The only unifying aspect is their presence on cable news TV. But as it is with the reading of American liberals, Maddow fails the Purity Test only by dint of her actually being a journalist - as opposed to Carlson's stature as conservative troll getting a pass because we know he's playing a game.

Manic Moran · 27-09-2020 6:09pm

everlast75 wrote: »

It has to do with the standard of broadcasting.

In Maddow's case, the judge held it was her opinion. There was no disparaging remarks and understandably so, considering her reputation.

In Carlson's case, it was held that he was a BS artist (paraphrasing), understandably so, considering his reputation.

The similarities are far outweighed by the differences in the two.

You didn't actually read the cases I helpfully linked to you, did you?

In both cases, the judges held that the commentary in question was hyperbole, framed by preceding factual information. Whether Maddow has a prior reputation as being a better reporter to Carlson is irrelevant to the court findings in those cases, which is why I said the two cases reminded me of each other.

Or, at the larger scale, attempting to claim that news source A is better than news source B when both are considered by the judge to use hypebole is a bit silly if one cares about news unfiltered by opinion. People watch Maddow because they agree with her opinions, not because she reports the news. And the same for Carlson. If they just want the neutral news, there are other broadcasts to watch. I somehow manage to remain informed without watching either.

Edit. Put this another way. One one hand, we apparently have a news commentary program which is hyperbolic some of the time, vs a news commentary program which is hyperbolic all of the time. (Presumably, as I said, I don't watch either). Neither is a good, neutral place for getting news, IMO. And at least with the latter, one has to apply less of an analysis to figure out when it's being hyperbolic or not.

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 6:25pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

You didn't actually read the cases I helpfully linked to you, did you?

In both cases, the judges held that the commentary in question was hyperbole, framed by preceding factual information. Whether Maddow has a prior reputation as being a better reporter to Carlson is irrelevant to the court findings in those cases, which is why I said the two cases reminded me of each other.

Or, at the larger scale, attempting to claim that news source A is better than news source B when both are considered by the judge to use hypebole is a bit silly if one cares about news unfiltered by opinion. People watch Maddow because they agree with her opinions, not because she reports the news. And the same for Carlson. If they just want the neutral news, there are other broadcasts to watch. I somehow manage to remain informed without watching either.

Edit. Put this another way. One one hand, we apparently have a news commentary program which is hyperbolic some of the time, vs a news commentary program which is hyperbolic all of the time. (Presumably, as I said, I don't watch either). Neither is a good, neutral place for getting news, IMO. And at least with the latter, one has to apply less of an analysis to figure out when it's being hyperbolic or not.

I did read it, thanks.

Did you read what I posted?

In dismissing the suit on Friday, U.S. Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled that Maddow was giving her opinion based on an accurate summation of the article."

Vs

"U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of New York sided with the network in finding that Carlson's statements were "nonactionable hyperbole," and that the "general tenor" of his show should make it clear that he was not "stating actual facts" or accusing McDougal

Both were considered hyperbolic, but there was additional commentary concerning Carlson's show as a whole.

That's very clear to me.

StringerBell · 27-09-2020 7:07pm

I don't think so, I'm sure you'd agree, hell I'm sure everyone would agree that America is in a much worse state than it was on the day trump was inaugurated. Gotta give the old man a go I think to make America great again. He literally could do no worse than trump, came in to break the system up alright. Well and truly succeeded in breaking the country within 4 years! Hopefully it isn't too late for Joe to fix the mess.

briany · 27-09-2020 7:19pm

It wasn't as if Trump waved a magic wand in January 2017 and all of a sudden the U.S. had some sort of booming economy. What about the work done under Obama to take the country out of a bad long-term recession and back into economic stability? I know why diehard Trump supporters overlook this fact, but anyone with a bit of objectivity can see that Trump taking sole credit is a complete crock. I will give Trump a bit of credit, though, because he certainly didn't do much to disrupt this economic progress but he also did little to pragmatically tackle the Covid crisis which has threatened to upend it. His whole thing has been 1. pretend it's not happening, 2. blame others when he could no longer ignore it, 3. promise false hope with a widespread rolling-out of a vaccine before November (before November, because what could be possibly happening in November that a vaccine would help him with?). If he'd just gone with the science in the first place and got his supporters onside to take sensible measures, the country would probably be in a better position.

This is the biggest worry with Trump - the worry that there's no crisis too big for him to cravenly politicise and turn into a red v blue thing, and absolutely paralyse the country's ability to deal because it's too busy fighting with itself. An asteroid could be hurtling towards the USA, and Trump's main thought would be, "Please hit a blue state, please hit a blue state, please hit a blue state!".

Manic Moran · 27-09-2020 9:56pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I did read it, thanks.

Did you read what I posted?

I did.

And forgive me for not thinking that a one-line extracts from news sites is somehow more correct than, you know, reading the full multi-page legal analysis written by the judges. BLUF. Both broadcasters were given immunity from lawsuit for use of hyperbole.

Five simple, yes/no questions, all of which can be answered from the legal opinions. Consider it an open-book test.

Both Carlson and Maddow described things which actually happened, before getting to the more contentious commentary which formed the basis of the lawsuits. True?

After having framed the context (To use the Carlson judge's term), both Carlson and Maddow said things which, on their face of things, were libelous and untrue, which occasioned the two respective lawsuits. True?

Both judges referred to the two shows as being of such a nature that a reasonable person would "not conclude that all statements are assertions of absolute fact", (or words to that effect for the Carlson judge), and that in the context, "reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual" (Again, quoting the Maddow case). True?

Both judges described those untrue things which were said as 'hyberbole' and which no reasonable person was expected to take seriously. True?

Both judges rules that the plantiff's claims against hyperbolic statements must fail. True?

In other words, no matter the one-line extracts found from news articles which you quoted, both courts found that the broadcasters were not liable due to the same principles of immunity, true? (I'll even quote the entire summary section of the Maddow opinion, I'm making this really easy for you:
"By protecting speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as
allegations of fact, courts “provide[ ] assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (quoting Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53–55 (1988)). That is the case here.
Considering the totality of the circumstances—including the general context of the statements, the specific context of the statements, and the statements’ susceptibility of being proven true or false—a reasonable factfinder could only conclude that the statement was one of opinion not fact")

Given all this, is there any wonder that I would conclude that the reason that Carlson was found not liable in court is basically the same reason that Maddow was found not liable, that both people were using opinion-based hyperbole that nobody watching the show had a reasonable expectation to be true?

ancapailldorcha · 27-09-2020 10:15pm

Please post in a constructive and civil manner. Several posts deleted.

droidus · 27-09-2020 10:51pm

His tax records have finally been leaked.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

Basically, he's broke. If he loses he's facing potential imprisonment and bankruptcy (again).

droidus · 27-09-2020 11:03pm

Its a very detailed piece, jibes with much of the other reporting we've seen. The bottom line:

This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.

droidus · 27-09-2020 11:11pm

droidus wrote: »

Yup. The curious thing about the Belleau woods scandal is that it happened in 2018 and only came out now. They sat on the story for 2 years, which, to me, indicates that people have been waiting until it could do the most damage.

Hopefully there'll be more where that came from.

I think what we're seeing now is concerted attempt to attack Trump on multiple, substantive issues in the run up to the election. Some minor compensation for the deeply reckless media behaviour that handed him the election.

Headshot · 27-09-2020 11:16pm

droidus wrote: »

His tax records have finally been leaked.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

Basically, he's broke. If he loses he's facing potential imprisonment and bankruptcy (again).

Explains why he's desperate to stay in the office other wise he'll be in deep ****

droidus · 27-09-2020 11:27pm

droidus wrote: »

I think what we're seeing now is concerted attempt to attack Trump on multiple, substantive issues in the run up to the election. Some minor compensation for the deeply reckless media behaviour that handed him the election.

And sorry to labour the point, but we've had the flag, and now money. Betcha anything the next big revelation will be about sex.

Its the American trifecta.

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 11:27pm

His followers won't give two sh1ts about his lack of tax payments.

They'll just call him clever, or wiley or some nonsense.

Heaven forbid the Emperor can't afford new clothes...

LuckyLloyd · 27-09-2020 11:30pm

everlast75 wrote: »

His followers won't give two sh1ts about his lack of tax payments.

They'll just call him clever, or wiley or some nonsense.

Heaven forbid the Emperor can't afford new clothes...

Yeah but his followers aren’t numerous enough for him to actually win the election. He needs undecideds and Biden voters.

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 11:32pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah but his followers aren’t numerous enough for him to actually win the election. He needs undecideds and Biden voters.

Just pointing out that they are a list cause, even with this bombshell.

Hopefully, it'll motivate those that previously weren't gonna get up off their ass to vote to vote for Biden.

everlast75 · 27-09-2020 11:38pm

There really is always a tweet....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/190866856624668672?s=19

StringerBell · 28-09-2020 12:39am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah but his followers aren’t numerous enough for him to actually win the election. He needs undecideds and Biden voters.

He shouldn't be able to get enough, undecideds most often break for the change option. I can't see trump swaying any Biden supporter at all, the protest vote from 2016 has surely eaten enough **** in the last 4 years to not be so incredibly stupid again and I know in my head he should be voted out of office quite comprehensively, I just don't trust it to happen given how things are in the country.

droidus · 28-09-2020 12:46am

I prefer to hope. All Biden has to do is hold what he has, and if the hammer blows of revelations keep coming, each peeling off a small percentage of undecideds or Trump waverers, then we're looking at a landslide, 340+ win.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments