Joe Biden Innocent or Not Guilty

Very close election and I pretty much agree with Lefty. I think in the next couple of days we will know definitively who won. I think once all these votes are counted Biden will win. It looks like the GOP will hold the Senate which points to more gridlock and not moving the country forward.

I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024? It's not that far off. To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion. And who will the Republicans put forth? I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.

lefty120 wrote:China: Fauci did in fact say Trump shouldn’t use the plan that the administration devised to ban China; Fauci said shut it all down. Trumps plan, which he continually touts saved ‘millions’ of lives from a virus he continually says isn’t that bad, is proven statistically to have only banned about 20% of people coming into the US from China, and that’s an aggressive number.

About 3 million people visited the US from China in 2018 and again in 2019.

In January of this year (before the ban you scoff at), 321,009 Chinese came.   In just one month.

In February and March another 40k or so came home... US citizens and legal residents.  What?  You think Trump would leave Americans stranded overseas?

Then
April 415 arrived
May 483 arrived
June 783
July 1024
Aug 2401
Sep 2007 (last month of data)

So after getting our people back, the China travel ban allowed 7113 Chinese in, versus 3 million.   .2%   Point 2 percent.  About the chances of me dying if I caught the ChinaVirus.

You might consider that the same source that told you the travel ban stopped less than 20% of China visitors is the same source that told you Trump did a bad job during the pandemic.

https://www.trade.gov/visitor-arrivals-program-i-94-data
I used "Country of Residence" tables versus "Country if Citizenship." if you want to "fact-check" me and try to give me some lumps...

lefty120 wrote:I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024?  It's not that far off.  To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion.  And who will the Republicans put forth?  I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.  

Pence will surely run in 2024. We'll find out whether he's running as a sitting VP or not in a couple days. Look for his VP to be someone like Ric Grennell or Nikki Haley. Woman/gay/latino/someone to check a box.

Hard telling who the Dems get. They're 0-2 on picking good candidates last two cycles.

BirdWatcher wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024?  It's not that far off.  To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion.  And who will the Republicans put forth?  I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.  

Pence will surely run in 2024.  We'll find out whether he's running as a sitting VP or not in a couple days.   Look for his VP to be someone like Ric Grennell or Nikki Haley.  Woman/gay/latino/someone to check a box.

Hard telling who the Dems get.   They're 0-2 on picking good candidates last two cycles.

AOC

BirdWatcher wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024?  It's not that far off.  To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion.  And who will the Republicans put forth?  I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.  

Pence will surely run in 2024.  We'll find out whether he's running as a sitting VP or not in a couple days.   Look for his VP to be someone like Ric Grennell or Nikki Haley.  Woman/gay/latino/someone to check a box.

Hard telling who the Dems get.   They're 0-2 on picking good candidates last two cycles.

I am not a Kamala Harris fan at all, but when watching the Vice Presidential debate, I found myself really wishing it was those two running for President...

OSUBucks wrote:Very close election and I pretty much agree with Lefty. I think in the next couple of days we will know definitively who won. I think once all these votes are counted Biden will win. It looks like the GOP will hold the Senate which points to more gridlock and not moving the country forward.

Trump's at 216. He's got a 500k vote lead in PA. I don't think the Dems can't print, fill out and back-date enough ballots in Philly to make up that gap.

He has to hold Michigan (14k lead) with 90% reporting

If he doesn't ultimately win GA and NC (up by 100k in both) then he doesn't deserve to be a Republican president.

On a much more important note/vote, my county passed the liquor referendum.. by TWO votes!

Head Idiot wrote:

BirdWatcher wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024?  It's not that far off.  To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion.  And who will the Republicans put forth?  I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.  

Pence will surely run in 2024.  We'll find out whether he's running as a sitting VP or not in a couple days.   Look for his VP to be someone like Ric Grennell or Nikki Haley.  Woman/gay/latino/someone to check a box.

Hard telling who the Dems get.   They're 0-2 on picking good candidates last two cycles.

AOC

Oh good Lord!

BirdWatcher wrote:

lefty120 wrote:China: Fauci did in fact say Trump shouldn’t use the plan that the administration devised to ban China; Fauci said shut it all down. Trumps plan, which he continually touts saved ‘millions’ of lives from a virus he continually says isn’t that bad, is proven statistically to have only banned about 20% of people coming into the US from China, and that’s an aggressive number.

About 3 million people visited the US from China in 2018 and again in 2019.

In January of this year (before the ban you scoff at), 321,009 Chinese came.   In just one month.

In February and March another 40k or so came home... US citizens and legal residents.  What?  You think Trump would leave Americans stranded overseas?

Then
April 415 arrived
May 483 arrived
June 783
July 1024
Aug 2401
Sep 2007 (last month of data)

So after getting our people back, the China travel ban allowed 7113 Chinese in, versus 3 million.   .2%   Point 2 percent.  About the chances of me dying if I caught the ChinaVirus.

You might consider that the same source that told you the travel ban stopped less than 20% of China visitors is the same source that told you Trump did a bad job during the pandemic.

https://www.trade.gov/visitor-arrivals-program-i-94-data
I used "Country of Residence" tables versus "Country if Citizenship." if you want to "fact-check" me and try to give me some lumps...

I apologize, I couldn't find the source that referenced my 20%; I'll own that one until I do.  The attached fake news article which details the China ban is from the Washington Post.  The newspaper outlet that has won the 2nd most Pulitzer Prizes of American newspapers.  None of us know if someone else could have or would be doing better; that's a fair statement.  I also think it's fair to question someone who has had 9 months to get this under control and has had the power of the U.S. government at his finger tips and has failed to do so.  I think we are beyond the point where we can say we should just ignore it and move on with life as if it's not here; ANY respected infectious disease expert in our nation has basically said that's a huge mistake. The number of false and misleading statements from our leader regarding the pandemic and the election itself for that matter are troubling to me; if it's not to you, that's your prerogative and I'll respect that.  Just like it's mine to think that Trump is completely overwhelmed by his responsibilities and has been since he took office.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/01/debate-early-travel-bans-china/

lefty120 wrote:I apologize, I couldn't find the source that referenced my 20%; I'll own that one until I do.  

Lumps for you!  

The newspaper outlet that has won the 2nd most Pulitzer Prizes of American newspapers.  

Ya, including one for their coverage of the Russia Hoax.   You're wasting previous ones and zeros posting WaPo as a credible source.

This is the wrong thread but maybe we didn't do as bad as Wapo tells you....

BirdWatcher wrote:

lefty120 wrote:I think the real question becomes, who runs in 2024?  It's not that far off.  To think that the Dems have a solid candidate that they'll be able to put forward is very shaky in my opinion.  And who will the Republicans put forth?  I'm not as familiar with them to know if there's someone who's waiting in the wings so to speak.  

Pence will surely run in 2024.  We'll find out whether he's running as a sitting VP or not in a couple days.   Look for his VP to be someone like Ric Grennell or Nikki Haley.  Woman/gay/latino/someone to check a box.

Hard telling who the Dems get.   They're 0-2 on picking good candidates last two cycles.

If the Dems pick AOC, they will be 0-3.

I'm not so sure Pence will (or should) run in 2024. Given the divisiness of Trump, the Republicans may be smart to distance themselves from those in his administration. I saw last night that Trump is doing extremely well among the Hispanic voters, he may not be winning the districts but the margin is 10-15 points closer than it was when he ran against Hillary. One talking head said it is because people are starting to vote more based upon the economic situation in their lives rather than the social situation. Not sure how true that really is.

For the Dems, I do not think any Squad member is a viable candidate, I've heard some rumblings that our guy JB may be potential candidate. Sanders could be a choice but he's getting up there in age and would probably get screwed over like the last two elections.

Either way, depending on the next 4 years go, it may be a good opportunity for a 3rd party candidate.

AOC will just be turning 35...I just can't see that. Of course, I never thought Trump would get elected either so anythings possible I guess.

Looks like the election is turning towards Biden. Without the Covid, Trump would have been re-elected easily. Also looks like Biden is going to win a clear majority of the popular vote. That's a pretty big deal.

How about Pritzker's progressive tax? Down in flames!

I think Trump may run again in 2024. He will want to remove this “L” from his resume.

If Joe makes it to 2024 I think he may retire.

I’d like to see Paul Ryan run. He seems like a strong candidate for the republicans. Adam Kinzinger seems like a good candidate.

I think Gavin Newsome would be a good candidate for the democrats and if she proves to be a real asset, maybe V-P Harris.

dusty7 wrote:Either way, depending on the next 4 years go, it may be a good opportunity for a 3rd party candidate.  

Speaking of third party candidate, the Libertarian candidate has received 1.6 million votes.  Think that Trump could have used some of those votes in those states where he lost and might still lose by razor thin margins?

If a Libertarian party voter had to vote red or blue, don't you think most of them would vote red?

The Trump campaign has just filed a lawsuit to stop ballot counting in Michigan. Reason being his team was allegedly not provided proper access to oversee the early and mail in ballots per Michigan election law.

Text from my buddy earlier today...'how in the hell can smart people support him.' My response was 'there's 66.9 million who do apparently'. Not much else I can respond to that.

BirdWatcher wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Very close election and I pretty much agree with Lefty. I think in the next couple of days we will know definitively who won. I think once all these votes are counted Biden will win. It looks like the GOP will hold the Senate which points to more gridlock and not moving the country forward.

Trump's at 216.  He's got a 500k vote lead in PA.  I don't think the Dems can't print, fill out and back-date enough ballots in Philly to make up that gap.

He has to hold Michigan (14k lead) with 90% reporting

If he doesn't ultimately win GA and NC (up by 100k in both) then he doesn't deserve to be a Republican president.

Trump's lead in PA is just under 400k now with 18% of the vote left to count. Biden also has a path to 270 electoral votes without PA.
I also agree with Delta that Trump would have been reelected if there was no COVID. He still could be reelected but I think Biden's path is easier.

Teetime wrote:I think Gavin Newsome would be a good candidate for the democrats and if she proves to be a real asset, maybe V-P Harris.

A very California heavy ticket from a state that is in the Dem's pocket to begin with.  Why not look to a popular Dem from electoral vote rich pink states like Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, or Ohio?

ramblinman wrote:

Teetime wrote:I think Gavin Newsome would be a good candidate for the democrats and if she proves to be a real asset, maybe V-P Harris.

A very California heavy ticket from a state that is in the Dem's pocket to begin with.  Why not look to a popular Dem from electoral vote rich states like Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, or Ohio?

I wrote that poorly. I meant either of those dems might be an attractive presidential candidate, not both on the same ticket.

Andrew Gillum is impressive and a Floridian...a little shy of experience, but so was Trump.

The Castro brothers from Texas are both sharp. They could be a Pres & V-P combo.

This just in, the Trump campaign is suing to stop the vote count in PA. That won't work.

lefty120 wrote: The attached fake news article which details the China ban is from the Washington Post.  The newspaper outlet that has won the 2nd most Pulitzer Prizes of American newspapers.

Milli Vanilli won a couple Grammys.

My point? Awards voted on and given out by people in that industry probably aren't the best way to verify someone or something.

OSUBucks wrote:This just in, the Trump campaign is suing to stop the vote count in PA. That won't work.

Nugget to this story: The Democratic Governor of PA tried a while back to get the state to change it's policy and count mail in, absentee, and early votes before the election; he was shot down by the G.O.P. legislature.

Head Idiot wrote:

lefty120 wrote: The attached fake news article which details the China ban is from the Washington Post.  The newspaper outlet that has won the 2nd most Pulitzer Prizes of American newspapers.

Milli Vanilli won a couple Grammys.

My point? Awards voted on and given out by people in that industry probably aren't the best way to verify someone or something.

Don't knock Milli Vanilli! I rocked out to them once upon a time on my Sony Walkman!

lefty120 wrote:
Text from my buddy earlier today...'how in the hell can smart people support him.'  My response was 'there's 66.9 million who do apparently'.  Not much else I can respond to that.  

Support him, or just support him as an option to the Democrat possibility? I don't support him at all, but certainly support him as opposed to the alternative.