Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

1…89111314…56

Comments

  • #302
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    martingriff wrote: »
    Not if he was using aid as leverage to get this. Why have we not heard of him doing same for others. Also if it was right and proper why the cover up why the refusals to testimony
    No coverup. And who in their right mind would voluntarily subject themselves to a predetermined lynching run in a sham kangaroo court?

    Is there any question that if Trump did what Biden did involving Ukraine he wouldn't already be impeached?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #303
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,510 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No coverup. And who in their right mind would voluntarily subject themselves to a predetermined lynching run in a sham kangaroo court?

    Is there any question that if Trump did what Biden did involving Ukraine he wouldn't already be impeached?

    Except yes there is a coverup, and no, there is no “predetermined lynching run in a sham kangaroo court.” The trial will happen in the Senate as you well know, being not obtuse.

    How would Trump have benefited personally from firing Shokin?


  • #304
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,668 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No coverup. And who in their right mind would voluntarily subject themselves to a predetermined lynching run in a sham kangaroo court?

    Is there any question that if Trump did what Biden did involving Ukraine he wouldn't already be impeached?

    There is no Kangaroo court yes the start was behind close doors as I am sure any other impeachment process started (I am up to correction) and there were republicans involved in those close door sessions. If it was such a sham why were they part of it and why have they not spoken out. However starting this very day it will all be open all on tv for everyone to watch.and if it goes to impeachment a trial in the senate so I see no Kangaroo court


  • #305
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    martingriff wrote: »
    There is no Kangaroo court yes the start was behind close doors as I am sure any other impeachment process started (I am up to correction) and there were republicans involved in those close door sessions. If it was such a sham why were they part of it and why have they not spoken out. However starting this very day it will all be open all on tv for everyone to watch.and if it goes to impeachment a trial in the senate so I see no Kangaroo court
    Republicans did protest. Where have you been? It's still a Shiffshow though as the rules laid down by Shifty Shiff make him lord and master over who the Republican can call as witnesses and he has control over what questions can be asked.

    Nunes said the House needs to get answers to three questions if the impeachment sham was to proceed…
    First, what is the full extent of the Democrats' prior coordination with the whistleblower, and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with? Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine's election meddling against the Trump campaign? And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden and what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration?

    Sounds like a more than reasonable request if there is any real interest in getting to the truth, as it would establish whether the Democrats are once again up to their dirty tricks, and if Trump had valid concerns in the public interest to ask for help from Zelensky in looking into corruption both in Ukraine and with elected US officials.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #306
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,668 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Republicans did protest. Where have you been? It's still a Shiffshow though as the rules laid down by Shifty Shiff make him lord and master over who the Republican can call as witnesses and he has control over what questions can be asked.

    Nunes said the House needs to get answers to three questions if the impeachment sham was to proceed…



    Sounds like a more than reasonable request if there is any real interest in getting to the truth, as it would establish whether the Democrats are once again up to their dirty tricks, and if Trump had valid concerns in the public interest to ask for help from Zelensky in looking into corruption both in Ukraine and with elected US officials.

    You mean the 40 that burst in to the closed session ya not the ones I was talking about and the ones who joined them when the tv came on were doing it to try and get elected as none up to then said anything.

    This is about what Trump did. Did he try to get political favors for himself by putting conditions on aid and try to use leverage for his own personal gain. This is not about the Bindens, Obama, or election meddling. Why should these be brought in to muddy the waters. In relation to the the whistle blower are you saying he and the Democrats made all this up. We have a summary of the phone call which confirms what he says


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    martingriff wrote: »
    You mean the 40 that burst in to the closed session ya not the ones I was talking about and the ones who joined them when the tv came on were doing it to try and get elected as none up to then said anything.

    This is about what Trump did. Did he try to get political favors for himself by putting conditions on aid and try to use leverage for his own personal gain. This is not about the Bindens, Obama, or election meddling. Why should these be brought in to muddy the waters. In relation to the the whistle blower are you saying he and the Democrats made all this up. We have a summary of the phone call which confirms what he says
    It is absolutely about election meddling and Biden. But I know why most of you refuse to believe it... because if there was election meddling on the part of Ukraine in 2016 and Joe Biden did participate in a quid pro quo to protect his son then the entire impeachment scam falls apart.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #308
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,668 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It is absolutely about election meddling and Biden. But I know why most of you refuse to believe it... because if there was election meddling on the part of Ukraine in 2016 and Joe Biden did participate in a quid pro quo to protect his son then the entire impeachment scam falls apart.

    Why is is all about Biden and election meddling and if Biden is guilty of that and should be punished then so should be Trump as he did the exact same. Now I don't think there is a chance in hell of the Senate Republicans voting for impeachments even if Trump said guilty so it will not happen plus he would rather walk then it be proven


  • #309
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    martingriff wrote: »
    Why is is all about Biden and election meddling and if Biden is guilty of that and should be punished then so should be Trump as he did the exact same. Now I don't think there is a chance in hell of the Senate Republicans voting for impeachments even if Trump said guilty so it will not happen plus he would rather walk then it be proven
    No, Trump, in his capacity, does have both the power and the responsibility to ask for another country’s help in investigating potential crimes of a US official if it has to do with that country.

    After today’s impeachment nonsense, with it’s star witnesses, Trump has already won as the Democrat's case is apparently built only on hearsay, which is in no way impeachable (As long as Trump doesn’t tweet anything crazy tonight, that is).

    Biden keeps dropping in the polls. Looks like Hillary will again be the Democrat candidate for POTUS.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #310
    Ihatewhahabies
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Ihatewhahabies


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No coverup. And who in their right mind would voluntarily subject themselves to a predetermined lynching run in a sham kangaroo court?

    Is there any question that if Trump did what Biden did involving Ukraine he wouldn't already be impeached?

    Perhaps not as what Biden did was not contrary to the war party's/US establishment policies of benefiting from other countries misery. He and his son did benefited from the US/Ukraine's corruption, as planned.

    Does anyone believe that powerful politicians any party any where will not use their leverage to get whatever they want either for their political advantage or their party's advantage.?


  • #311
    Ihatewhahabies
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Ihatewhahabies


    reg114 wrote: »
    American jobs figures have been in an upward trajectory since the summer of 2011... but job growth has actually fallen under Trump : http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/job-growth-remains-steady-totals-have-slipped-under-trump

    Manufacturing : in recession .. under Trump
    : https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-09/despite-trump-vow-manufacturing-in-recession

    As far as the markets are concerned, Trump as been a dream for big business primarily because he has de-regulated so many sectors they have been able to carry out their business with impunity, this applies primarily to the big Fossil fuel companies who have benefited from the unprecedented unraveling environmental protection legislation.

    The bull market we are currently experiencing started in 2011 and is not due to the one single politician or policy.

    I believe that the Bull market is there because money basically is v.v. cheap in the US, that investing in the stock market is a no brainer as losses are socialised and the profits are ring fenced for the wealthy 1%


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Ihatewhahabies
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Ihatewhahabies


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, Trump, in his capacity, does have both the power and the responsibility to ask for another country’s help in investigating potential crimes of a US official if it has to do with that country.

    After today’s impeachment nonsense, with it’s star witnesses, Trump has already won as the Democrat's case is apparently built only on hearsay, which is in no way impeachable (As long as Trump doesn’t tweet anything crazy tonight, that is).

    Biden keeps dropping in the polls. Looks like Hillary will again be the Democrat candidate for POTUS.

    Oh God this once hear me keep Hilary out of the 2020 election


  • #313
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    After watching highlights of the democrats Trump impeachment Shiff-Show it’s becoming evident the process is quicksand for Joe Biden. By Shiff not allowing Joe or his son Hunter to testify, it give the appearance democrats are protecting them from being exposed to some of their shady and corrupt dealings. In testimony, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, one of the democrats two star witnesses, made the case for launching an investigation into the Bidens and their involvement in Ukraine related to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Bazinga! Quid pro quo (Trumps’, not Bidens’) just got thrown out the window.

    If the entire case of Democrats is built on second, third, fourth and fifth-hand information, opinions, and mere beliefs there is no reason, other than political schenanigans, to impeach Trump. Democrats should just use the process to beg for donations and walk away before just about every one of their presidential candidates sinks below the quicksand.

    Question is which of the two paths trumps the democrat's decision... common sense or appeasing their radical Trump hating base?

    If democrats in the House impeach Trump in this purely political process then they should beware the republicans in the Senate could retaliate in kind. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, not? They will surely subpoena Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, and a few others the democrats are trying to protect from testifying in order to get to the truth. This will not be good for Biden, no matter what, in his bid for the presidency. In addition, the Senate could drag the process on for six weeks, five days a week and six hours a day. That would cause senators Warren, Sanders, Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar to be forced to attend the Senate impeachment hearings in Washington and be away from the campaign trail. Failure to attend would indicate to voters that democrats care more about running for the presidency than doing the job they were elected to do, and give the appearance they don’t really care about the sham impeachment.

    EJNqEjiXkAA1CUE.jpg

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #314
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, Trump, in his capacity, does have both the power and the responsibility to ask for another country’s help in investigating potential crimes of a US official if it has to do with that country.

    In exchange for military aid. And the "US official" is one of his key political opponents. You forgot that important context.

    Can you please share the examples of other US presidents exercising this?


  • #315
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,510 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If democrats in the House impeach Trump in this purely political process then they should beware the republicans in the Senate could retaliate in kind. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, not? They will surely subpoena Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, and a few others the democrats are trying to protect from testifying in order to get to the truth.]

    Retaliation against a federal whistleblower that will pan out smoothly for the ‘party of law and order’


  • #316
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Poor Joe. Biden’s campaign is a dead man walking. He keeps falling in the polls, he’s receiving minimal favorable press, and his suspect involvement in the Trump impeachment ‘inquiry’ is giving him a view that he’s little more than just another corrupt politician in the eyes of the voters that matter.

    The DNC and their media monkeys (who have given Trump 96% negative coverage since the impeachment sham started) are doing the only thing they can to bring down President Trump because they realize their ship of fools candidates can’t beat him in the general election. But the DNC now realizes their purely political ploy is having absolutely no impact whatsoever on changing the minds of voters, and people on the fence are becoming increasingly disillusioned by their Kabuki Theater.

    I don’t see much support currently for Biden from the DNC and it appears they are embracing Plan C with Michael Bloomberg submitting paperwork for the Alabama Democratic primary, and potentially Plan D with Hillary Clinton waiting to see how much she will be implicated in the Horowitz report (which is reported to be out next week) regarding the deceptions the Democrats and their political appointees in the FBI, State Department, CIA and DOJ used in obtaining wrongful FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

    At least Joe has enough time left to write a book or two, become the darling of the biased media political talk shows, and make load of money at speaking engagements. So it isn't a total loss for him.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #317
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Poor Joe. Biden’s campaign is a dead man walking. He keeps falling in the polls, he’s receiving minimal favorable press, and his suspect involvement in the Trump impeachment ‘inquiry’ is giving him a view that he’s little more than just another corrupt politician in the eyes of the voters that matter.

    The DNC and their media monkeys (who have given Trump 96% negative coverage since the impeachment sham started) are doing the only thing they can to bring down President Trump because they realize their ship of fools candidates can’t beat him in the general election. But the DNC now realizes their purely political ploy is having absolutely no impact whatsoever on changing the minds of voters, and people on the fence are becoming increasingly disillusioned by their Kabuki Theater.

    I don’t see much support currently for Biden from the DNC and it appears they are embracing Plan C with Michael Bloomberg submitting paperwork for the Alabama Democratic primary, and potentially Plan D with Hillary Clinton waiting to see how much she will be implicated in the Horowitz report (which is reported to be out next week) regarding the deceptions the Democrats and their political appointees in the FBI, State Department, CIA and DOJ used in obtaining wrongful FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

    At least Joe has enough time left to write a book or two, become the darling of the biased media political talk shows, and make load of money at speaking engagements. So it isn't a total loss for him.

    He's polling higher than Trump is almost every poll
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-poll-trump-e7070bcf-c1db-4d93-8fa6-ce6266ae686e.html


  • #318
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's polling higher than Trump is almost every poll
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-poll-trump-e7070bcf-c1db-4d93-8fa6-ce6266ae686e.html
    And he's way down in the first two primaries.

    Also, how did those polls work out last time around? Didn't just about all of them give Hillary Clinton a 90%-99% chance of winning right up to election day? Apparently the pollsters still continue to deny that the 'Shy Trump Voters' exist. I'm one... I refuse to participate in polls, or I provide inaccurate information if harassed... and I get approached quite often by them.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #319
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,510 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    How did those polls work out last time around? Didn't just about all of them give Hillary Clinton a 90%-99% chance of winning right up to Election Day?.

    No. Categorically no. No they did not.


  • #320
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,403 ✭✭✭Harika


    Overheal wrote: »
    No. Categorically no. No they did not.

    They gave a 60 percent chance, what means that, hold your breath, it was a bit better than a coin toss. Press ofc made a guaranteed win out of it.


  • #321
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Harika wrote: »
    They gave a 60 percent chance, what means that, hold your breath, it was a bit better than a coin toss. Press ofc made a guaranteed win out of it.
    Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when...

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reuters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1
    https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

    Need more?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #322
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And he's way down in the first two primaries.

    Also, how did those polls work out last time around? Didn't just about all of them give Hillary Clinton a 90%-99% chance of winning right up to election day? Apparently the pollsters still continue to deny that the 'Shy Trump Voters' exist. I'm one... I refuse to participate in polls, or I provide inaccurate information if harassed... and I get approached quite often by them.

    I am confused. You are using polling data to say Biden is done vs other Dems (even though he leads majority) and ignoring polling regarding Trump.

    And btw polls nationally were almost spot on in 2016. Average had Clinton winning by 3.2, she won by 2.1, well within margin of error. It was two state polls ie Michigan and Wisconsin that were wrong.

    Shy Trump voters stuff isn't valid excuse. Trumps popularity has nosedived across rust belt since January/February 2017. In January 17 he was +6 in Wisconsin, in October 19 he is - 17.

    He is struggling to keep his head over water in states he should be comfortable like Georgia/North Carolina even Texas. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/


  • #323
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,510 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when...

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reuters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1
    https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

    Need more?

    PSSSSSSSSST (those aren’t polls!)


  • #324
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    I am confused. You are using polling data to say Biden is done vs other Dems (even though he leads majority) and ignoring polling regarding Trump.

    And btw polls nationally were almost spot on in 2016. Average had Clinton winning by 3.2, she won by 2.1, well within margin of error. It was two state polls ie Michigan and Wisconsin that were wrong.

    Shy Trump voters stuff isn't valid excuse. Trumps popularity has nosedived across rust belt since January/February 2017. In January 17 he was +6 in Wisconsin, in October 19 he is - 17.

    He is struggling to keep his head over water in states he should be comfortable like Georgia/North Carolina even Texas. https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
    I'm simply saying the polls have been proven to be suspect in regards to Trump.

    Don't forget every poll, except one, in Pennsylvania (my state) had Clinton beating Trump by a comfortable margin.

    Also, popular vote doesn't elect our president.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #325
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And he's way down in the first two primaries.

    Also, how did those polls work out last time around? Didn't just about all of them give Hillary Clinton a 90%-99% chance of winning right up to election day? Apparently the pollsters still continue to deny that the 'Shy Trump Voters' exist. I'm one... I refuse to participate in polls, or I provide inaccurate information if harassed... and I get approached quite often by them.

    You point to polls being down for Biden, but suggest that polls are useless

    Which is it?


  • #326
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,341 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    The last few polls taken in Pennsylvania were close e.g http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

    And no popular vote doesn't but normally if you lead nationally you win election. Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by combined 80,000 votes a feat never likely to be repeated and one which polling data would never pick up


  • #327
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You point to polls being down for Biden, but suggest that polls are useless

    Which is it?
    Again, polls REGARDING TRUMP are suspect due to the effect of the 'SHY TRUMP VOTERS.' Can I not be any clearer?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #328
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    The last few polls taken in Pennsylvania were close e.g http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

    And no popular vote doesn't but normally if you lead nationally you win election. Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by combined 80,000 votes a feat never likely to be repeated and one which polling data would never pick up
    Never pick up because of the effect of the 'Shy Trump Voters' I would argue. An it appears they are ignoring them once again.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #329
    KSU
    Registered Users Posts: 946 ✭✭✭KSU


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's polling higher than Trump is almost every poll
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    https://www.axios.com/2020-presidential-election-joe-biden-poll-trump-e7070bcf-c1db-4d93-8fa6-ce6266ae686e.html

    Problem is if Bloomberg does enter the race it splits the voter base as the more moderate DNC candidate.


  • #330
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,510 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    KSU wrote: »
    Problem is if Bloomberg does enter the race it splits the voter base as the more moderate DNC candidate.

    Only in terms of the primary


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    KSU
    Registered Users Posts: 946 ✭✭✭KSU


    Overheal wrote: »
    Only in terms of the primary

    Given that Warren is currently ahead marginally that makes a huge difference as her polling numbers aren't as strong vs Trump as Biden's


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement