Jump to content
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sibdane said:

Biden made a point to mention that if Trump loses he'll have to be forcibly removed. 

Very possible, he'll claim the vote was rigged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Very possible, he'll claim the vote was rigged.

The best thing that could happen would be for Trump to lose by a landslide. If it's anywhere near close we're going to have some issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Matt said:

Biden is spineless. His ineptitude is nearly as scary as Trump staying on. 

I also have more confidence in Biden surrounding himself with better people than Trump. Not that I like Biden, just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

I also have more confidence in Biden surrounding himself with better people than Trump. Not that I like Biden, just saying. 

Honestly I don’t see it. He’s playing a blatant game and fucking up the basics. If he gets to choose his peers, they’ll be in it for themselves just like the spineless republicans who are propping the tangerine thundercunt who’s currently in “control” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Honestly I don’t see it. He’s playing a blatant game and fucking up the basics. If he gets to choose his peers, they’ll be in it for themselves just like the spineless republicans who are propping the tangerine thundercunt who’s currently in “control” 

You know nothing about Biden then.  He’s a career politician from a poor rust belt city that is a shadow of what it used to be (a steel town).  He grew up blue collar working class and has worked in the senate for decades.  I’m not his biggest fan but I will give him respect on 3 fronts.  He knows politics and how the government works inside and out and can actually get stuff done.  To that effect he has worked with republicans before and was best buds with John McCain and other repubs.  Lastly, he is not overly selfish ala Trump where he would seek to improve himself.  This is a guy that can work with moderate Republicans and has the legacy of Obama with him.  He’s not ghandi or Jesus no, but he’s better than trump full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matt said:

I’m happy to be proven wrong lads. He just seems very opportunistic based on his latest actions.  

not at all he's always been very popular with blacks because he was obama's VP for 8 years and he and Obama were/are genuine friends.  The tabloids churned out bromance stories during their time in the white house.  He has always had strong support from blacks.  He was pretty much always going to choose a black woman as his VP.  Where he is weak is with Latinos and women, which Bernie and Warren were strong with.  He needs to win over the suburban mothers, i think the latinos will give him their vote over trump, the issue is they might not be as motivated to vote for him as they would bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the truth in the Republican’s claims that the Democrats are the original confederate’s, responsible for trying to hold on to slavery during the Civil War, and they are the ones that fought to abolish it. 
I’ve read and heard this said by Trump supporters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Your word “cult” is appropriate.  I have no expertise in explaining cult mindsets, but it strikes me as ironic that Trump supporters claim that Trump opponents are afflicted with “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  By which they mean, Trump just drives his opponents crazy.  The irony is that, by multiple objective measures, it is Trump supporters themselves who suffer from actual “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”  Trump’s most avid, boisterous supporters are deranged, militant members of a Trump cult.  The most extreme of the extreme are the nutty conspiracy theorists who advance the QAnon nonsense.  

My working motto, for some years now but especially these days, is: “Willful ignorance is dangerously stupid.”  Trump’s most avid supporters are willfully ignorant; e.g., like Trump, they refuse to “believe” expert medical and scientific evidence, and thus refuse to wear masks or socially distance.  Whenever a vaccine becomes available, many of them will refuse it.  Their willful ignorance is truly, literally, dangerously stupid.  Their cultish, willful ignorance endangers the rest of us.  If the scientific evidence says, “My mask protects you, and your mask protects me,” their smug, but dangerously stupid, response is “FU.”

Although relatively few Trump supporters wear masks, not quite all of them are necessarily totally committed to his reëlection.  Political and cultural commentators commonly refer to “Trump’s base,” but this is an oversimplification.  Understanding why this is too simplistic is one key to thinking about the 2020 election.  Trump’s “base” is actually 3, sometimes overlapping but nevertheless distinct, bases.  Think of a Venn diagram.

(1) White evangelical Christians.  I was raised in this tradition, but left it some years ago.  Their fealty to Trump is shocking, as he epitomizes values antithetical to historical, mainstream Christianity.  As one wag rhetorically asked, “Remind me, which of the Beatitudes does Mr. Trump exemplify?”  Many of Trump’s evangelical enthusiasts are sensible enough to be embarrassed by Trump, but they see him as useful to ending abortion and immigration.  In order to justify supporting a man whose character and personality are so patently un-Christian, they have glommed onto a psuedo-theory that “God uses awful men to advance His purposes.”  It’s pathetic, hypocritical, doesn’t pass the laugh test.  But they desperately need some justification, however ludicrous, for supporting someone whom they would otherwise be blasting non-stop.  Their hypocrisy is astounding.

(2) White working class.  Because neither of our 2 major parties has seriously addressed class issues such as decades-developing income inequality, these people were desperate enough in 2016 to vote for a vague slogan — Make America Great Again.  Millions of this group, too, harbor significant resentment over issues of “political correctness.”  Although Trump promised to help them economically — including building that wall to keep out economic competition from Mexicans — he has generally made things worse for them.

(3) Come-home-to-Trump-traditional-Republicans.  In the early stages (2015-early 2016) of Trump’s candidacy, most traditional Republicans didn’t take Trump seriously because, as various Republican candidates and leaders openly stated, he was a racist, homophobe, serial sexual predator, reality-tv charlatan, etc.  But as traditionalists were shocked to see Trump’s popularity rise among groups 1 and 2 above, they found themselves fretting that he might somehow win the nomination.  After many months of making fun of him, they shut up, voted for him as the lesser of two evils, assumed he’d lose, focused on the House and Senate.  His minority win via the electoral college stunned them.  They turned to the hope that a man they knew as a liar, narcissist, and fraud would “grow in office.”  The Presidency would surely make Trump presidential.  As Trump destroyed this hope (literally) day after day, month after month, Republican politicians — especially Republican Senators — have mostly withdrawn into their shells, avoiding reporters.  They fear Trump voters and value their own reëlection more than our Constitution, democratic norms, and the rule of law.  

An important, articulate minority of these longstanding Republicans, though, has become vocal in its criticism of the several ways in which Trump is destroying the Republican Party.  They are actual conservatives, as opposed to the conspiracy-theory mindset of the reactionary right-wingers who dominate the evangelicals.  They retain their self-respect, unlike Senate Republicans.  The most famous of these actual-conservative voices is the (wisely-named) Lincoln Project group, producing an ongoing series of maybe effective anti-Trump ads.  They’ve shown it’s pretty easy to ridicule a ridiculous fraud.

As to what all this means for the election of 2020, there is some evidence that Trump has lost support — at the margins — of 2 of his 3-part base.  To overgeneralize, in group 2, some elderly white folks think Trump’s handling of the pandemic is killing them, a few years before they’re ready to die.  And Trump’s pathological lying and daily displays of “manly” boorishness seem to have especially offended suburban white women, lots of them.

No way of knowing about the pandemic by next Fall.  Nor the economy.  Nor whether Biden will look competent.  Nor where Black Lives Matter/defund the police/Confederate flag issues will impact which states.  All indications are that in various swing states now under Republican control, voter suppression will be real.  It is commonly assumed, further, that Russia, China, maybe Iran, who knows who else, will attempt to hack our election.

Presumably Democrats will hope to run on decency/end the chaos/make America good again.  Trump will run on a revived economy (if it’s revived) and keeping America out of the clutches of atheistic communists (i.e., Democrats).

 

Fucking yes. The most sense I’ve ever read  online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Palfy said:

What’s the truth in the Republican’s claims that the Democrats are the original confederate’s, responsible for trying to hold on to slavery during the Civil War, and they are the ones that fought to abolish it. 
I’ve read and heard this said by Trump supporters. 

It’s accurate, but misleading.  I’d have to write a post as long as the one above to explain it fully, and nobody wants that!  So I’ll (try to) be brief.

Our 2 main political parties have essentially switched their conservative/liberal ideologies in the decades after the Civil War.  The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s as an antislavery (not quite the same as abolitionist) party.  The Democratic Party was, yes, a proslavery party.  Over the decades, into the 20th century, the Republicans became a more conservative, business-oriented party, and essentially allowed Southern Democrats to institutionalize Jim Crow segregation from the 1890s to the 1960s.

But Northern Democrats, especially under Franklin Roosevelt (1930s) became the party of labor, hence more liberal on some issues.  By the 1960s, Dems were full-on liberal, but with a segregationist wing in the South.  With the Civil Rights revolution, end of (legal) segregation, and black voting rights, Southern Dems gradually left the Dem party and became Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Elston Gunnn said:

It’s accurate, but misleading.  I’d have to write a post as long as the one above to explain it fully, and nobody wants that!  So I’ll (try to) be brief.

Our 2 main political parties have essentially switched their conservative/liberal ideologies in the decades after the Civil War.  The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s as an antislavery (not quite the same as abolitionist) party.  The Democratic Party was, yes, a proslavery party.  Over the decades, into the 20th century, the Republicans became a more conservative, business-oriented party, and essentially allowed Southern Democrats to institutionalize Jim Crow segregation from the 1890s to the 1960s.

But Northern Democrats, especially under Franklin Roosevelt (1930s) became the party of labor, hence more liberal on some issues.  By the 1960s, Dems were full-on liberal, but with a segregationist wing in the South.  With the Civil Rights revolution, end of (legal) segregation, and black voting rights, Southern Dems gradually left the Dem party and became Republicans.

Thanks mate I get that, nearly 180 degree turn around.

That maybe because the shift in financial wealth shifted from the South to the North, or am I ready to much into what happened to the Southern states after the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Thanks mate I get that, nearly 180 degree turn around.

That maybe because the shift in financial wealth shifted from the South to the North, or am I ready to much into what happened to the Southern states after the war. 

Yes, that’s part of the very gradual party transition.  The South was left behind economically for more than a hundred years.  Lost the war, economically and physically devastated, etc.  As the Republican Party became the “party of business,” it abandoned its black voters in the South to their horrible new fate — segregation, lynching, disfranchisement, various forms of terrorism and subjugation.  Northern Dems still needed white Southern Dem votes in Congress, and so until the 1950s-60s did not regularly or forcefully demand that discrimination be ended.  Truly shameful, both parties, really.

But a full-on liberal Dem party changed in the 1960s, to at least pass laws to end legal discrimination.  Over the last 50 years, Southern whites left the Dem Party and became Repubs.  Southern blacks are overwhelmingly Dems — yes, the “party of slavery,” but 150 years ago.

So when current Repubs claim the legacy of Lincoln, they’re fudging 150 years of complicated history.  They’re stating a single, if important, fact, to tell a much more insidious lie about the next 150 years, and especially about 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Yes, that’s part of the very gradual party transition.  The South was left behind economically for more than a hundred years.  Lost the war, economically and physically devastated, etc.  As the Republican Party became the “party of business,” it abandoned its black voters in the South to their horrible new fate — segregation, lynching, disfranchisement, various forms of terrorism and subjugation.  Northern Dems still needed white Southern Dem votes in Congress, and so until the 1950s-60s did not regularly or forcefully demand that discrimination be ended.  Truly shameful, both parties, really.

But a full-on liberal Dem party changed in the 1960s, to at least pass laws to end legal discrimination.  Over the last 50 years, Southern whites left the Dem Party and became Repubs.  Southern blacks are overwhelmingly Dems — yes, the “party of slavery,” but 150 years ago.

So when current Repubs claim the legacy of Lincoln, they’re fudging 150 years of complicated history.  They’re stating a single, if important, fact, to tell a much more insidious lie about the next 150 years, and especially about 2020.

Enjoyed reading your posts Elston very insightful mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Elston Gunnn said:

Yes, that’s part of the very gradual party transition.  The South was left behind economically for more than a hundred years.  Lost the war, economically and physically devastated, etc.  As the Republican Party became the “party of business,” it abandoned its black voters in the South to their horrible new fate — segregation, lynching, disfranchisement, various forms of terrorism and subjugation.  Northern Dems still needed white Southern Dem votes in Congress, and so until the 1950s-60s did not regularly or forcefully demand that discrimination be ended.  Truly shameful, both parties, really.

But a full-on liberal Dem party changed in the 1960s, to at least pass laws to end legal discrimination.  Over the last 50 years, Southern whites left the Dem Party and became Repubs.  Southern blacks are overwhelmingly Dems — yes, the “party of slavery,” but 150 years ago.

So when current Repubs claim the legacy of Lincoln, they’re fudging 150 years of complicated history.  They’re stating a single, if important, fact, to tell a much more insidious lie about the next 150 years, and especially about 2020.

It's extremely annoying/frustrating when today's Republicans claim this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/06/2020 at 07:00, Matt said:

I’m happy to be proven wrong lads. He just seems very opportunistic based on his latest actions.  

Thanks for mentioning this Matt. Biden is most certainly opportunistic. He's been pandering to Black voters since he was in the White House and from my perspective his appointment as a VP was an effort to bring more moderate white voters over to the Obama campaign. Biden is a liberal good ol boy; but once again the lesser of two evils in a political race.

On 13/06/2020 at 11:04, markjazzbassist said:

not at all he's always been very popular with blacks because he was obama's VP for 8 years and he and Obama were/are genuine friends.  The tabloids churned out bromance stories during their time in the white house.  He has always had strong support from blacks.  He was pretty much always going to choose a black woman as his VP.  Where he is weak is with Latinos and women, which Bernie and Warren were strong with.  He needs to win over the suburban mothers, i think the latinos will give him their vote over trump, the issue is they might not be as motivated to vote for him as they would bernie.

He's riding his proximity to Obama//blackness in the same way that de Blasio used his family as talking points during his mayoral campaign or the way Bloomberg tried to downplay his very intentional implementation of stop & frisk policies during his own tenure. These men are entrepreneurs first and their idea of success almost always involves someone else losing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nutmegwolf203 said:

Thanks for mentioning this Matt. Biden is most certainly opportunistic. He's been pandering to Black voters since he was in the White House and from my perspective his appointment as a VP was an effort to bring more moderate white voters over to the Obama campaign. Biden is a liberal good ol boy; but once again the lesser of two evils in a political race.

He's riding his proximity to Obama//blackness in the same way that de Blasio used his family as talking points during his mayoral campaign or the way Bloomberg tried to downplay his very intentional implementation of stop & frisk policies during his own tenure. These men are entrepreneurs first and their idea of success almost always involves someone else losing. 

 

no doubt.  but the frustration i have is with my minority friends (read black) who are saying biden isn't good enough so they are just gonna vote for ________ or not vote at all.  which is throwing away a vote.  it's something i've noticed of many minorities.  the blacks turned out bigtime for Obama, but when it's the lesser of 2 evils (read white) they dont' show up.  The latinos similarly aren't very motivated unless it's texas and it's one of their own running.  while i appreciate everyone can vote however they want.  it upsets me a bit.  the conservatives always come together around the repub candidate (see trump win, etc), but for some reason the "dem" voters feel like "lesser of two evils" is beneath them so they either don't vote or vote for someone else (mickey mouse, the rock, etc).  this pisses me off.  i get that biden is not white, he's not a great candidate, yeah i get that.  but FFS he's a hell of a lot better than Trump!  especially for minorities!  For starters he condemns white supremacists, something Trump just will not do.  It just pisses me off, because if the latinos and blacks would vote this country would never go repub ever again.  then we could start working on getting more minorities on the tickets and in goverment period.  instead we yo-yo back and forth with the dem/repub and the country is stuck in 1955 socially and culturally.  it's a fucking travesty.  and yes i understand there are barriers to voting for blacks and latinos, i'm not obtuse, but if the ones that weren't being impeded would actually vote i think we could get somewhere.  mobilizing the vote is the way forward for me, not trying to win demographics.  usa usually is some pitiful 33% or something vote.  FFS people get out and vote!  stop the social media BS and fucking vote.  instead i get people telling me at parties and the like how they feel politically and i ask "do you vote" and i get some BS reason for no.  honestly i'm getting fed up with the excuses,  you want change?  then vote.

 

apologies as i am a few sheets to the wind right now.  i will revisit upon sobriety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

Don’t rely on anything this site posts. Growing up it was something to be trusted but it’s become a Fox News for the left 

when I get to a computer I’ll explain why I’m scared by opportunistic  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking this https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president on a daily basis now. Current position according to their figures is 343/195 win for Biden and a Biden win overall chance of 89%. I'm hoping it's an unbiased source, sure one of you yanks will put me right if not.

And I know polls are unreliable and he wasn't expected to win last time but I need hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Checking this https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president on a daily basis now. Current position according to their figures is 343/195 win for Biden and a Biden win overall chance of 89%. I'm hoping it's an unbiased source, sure one of you yanks will put me right if not.

And I know polls are unreliable and he wasn't expected to win last time but I need hope.

It's not looking good for him. His responses to COVID-19 and the BLM/Defund Police movement hasn't been received well. It doesn't help him that the economy isn't doing as well as he claimed it would be at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53567681
 

great to see idiots be punished but I’m a little concerned about censorship of any kind. Might open a poll to see how people feel about the social media efforts. 

I thought you would have been an advocate of censorship, I say this only because you have threatened censorship on here in the past. I’m in favour of censorship especially when it comes to groups like I.S. 
Social media sites have shirked their responsibilities for some disturbing posts and images for far too long in my opinion, and it’s terrifying when you consider what impressionable people are being hit with, and our children and grandchildren are being desensitised to things we cannot truly imagine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matt said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53567681
 

great to see idiots be punished but I’m a little concerned about censorship of any kind. Might open a poll to see how people feel about the social media efforts. 

All for censorship, the twisted version of freedom in America where racism sexism etc are allowed due to “freedom” is stupid and something I don’t support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Palfy said:

I thought you would have been an advocate of censorship, I say this only because you have threatened censorship on here in the past. I’m in favour of censorship especially when it comes to groups like I.S. 
Social media sites have shirked their responsibilities for some disturbing posts and images for far too long in my opinion, and it’s terrifying when you consider what impressionable people are being hit with, and our children and grandchildren are being desensitised to things we cannot truly imagine. 

I hate censorship, but I get why you think that. In that sense, I recognize my hypocrisy. But there's a role to play with being a mod. I will try and respond properly when I've more time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Matt said:

I hate censorship, but I get why you think that. In that sense, I recognize my hypocrisy. But there's a role to play with being a mod. I will try and respond properly when I've more time

I get what you’re saying and I do agree with free speech, but and this I know is a bit rich coming from me, but free speech has to come with acceptable boundaries, and social media sites never set boundaries and allowed anything and everything.

So please don’t take my comments as a dig at you, but I genuinely had you down as someone who believed in censorship regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. 
It would be interesting to open the Poll you mentioned to see what the general feeling is with social media censorship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I get what you’re saying and I do agree with free speech, but and this I know is a bit rich coming from me, but free speech has to come with acceptable boundaries, and social media sites never set boundaries and allowed anything and everything.

So please don’t take my comments as a dig at you, but I genuinely had you down as someone who believed in censorship regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. 
It would be interesting to open the Poll you mentioned to see what the general feeling is with social media censorship. 

I think the lines are too blurred Palf; plainly some stuff should be off limits but who draws the line? Poll with two options would be daft and one with fifteen probably wouldn't be enough. The leader of the free World shouldn't be mocking women/people with disabilities/anyone who doesn't worship him but if these opinions weren't in the public domain we wouldn't know the sort of person he is.....and we need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MikeO said:

. The leader of the free World shouldn't be mocking women/people with disabilities/anyone who doesn't worship him but if these opinions weren't in the public domain we wouldn't know the sort of person he is.....and we need to.

That is a very good point and one I’m struggling to argue with, but possibly if his words were censored he may not have been such a draw to so many Americans, and therefore may not have been elected as President. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Palfy said:

That is a very good point and one I’m struggling to argue with, but possibly if his words were censored he may not have been such a draw to so many Americans, and therefore may not have been elected as President. 
 

Just goes to show more than half the people, well of those that vote, are scum. Same goes for the UK. 

It's hard to realise just how racist, homophobic or selfish the average person is when you're not like them and surround yourself by like minded people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pete0 said:

Just goes to show more than half the people, well of those that vote, are scum.

He actually only got 46.1% of the popular vote so less than half. Johnson got less, 43.6%.

Bit harsh to call them all scum, doubtless some are but a lot are just plain stupid. Stupid ≠ scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MikeO said:

He actually only got 46.1% of the popular vote so less than half. Johnson got less, 43.6%.

Bit harsh to call them all scum, doubtless some are but a lot are just plain stupid. Stupid ≠ scum.

When people are dying because of others stupidity I think it's fair to call them scum. Anyone over here who voted tory knew the consequences to the NHS, both Trump and Johnson are openly racist, fascist, or simply hateful. Anyone who voted for them would be aware of the things they've said, to then still support them goes beyond stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2020 at 10:21, Palfy said:

The desperation of a man who knows the end is near, how pitiful but lovely to see. 

The ironic thing is:

  • If the November election is canceled or postponed, the President's term ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Vice President, but his term also ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Speaker of the House, but her term also ends in January.
  • Members of the House would elect a new Speaker, but all their terms end in January.
  • Next in line is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, who today is Republican Chuck Grassley.
  • However, for one-third of Senators, their terms end in January.
  • A majority of those leaving are Republicans, and a majority of those remaining would be Democrats.
  • So, the Democratic President Pro Tempore, Patrick Leahy, would assume control and decide who becomes President.
  • And he would choose his party's presidential candidate: Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The ironic thing is:

  • If the November election is canceled or postponed, the President's term ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Vice President, but his term also ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Speaker of the House, but her term also ends in January.
  • Members of the House would elect a new Speaker, but all their terms end in January.
  • Next in line is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, who today is Republican Chuck Grassley.
  • However, for one-third of Senators, their terms end in January.
  • A majority of those leaving are Republicans, and a majority of those remaining would be Democrats.
  • So, the Democratic President Pro Tempore, Patrick Leahy, would assume control and decide who becomes President.
  • And he would choose his party's presidential candidate: Joe Biden.

Did he not know this, or was he going to try and change the rules on everyone’s electoral terms, after all he believes he can do what he wants, so I would guess that that was his intention. 
The world is a crazy place at the moment made even crazier by Trump and Johnson, let’s hope that one five year reign is about to end very soon, for the sake of all even Trump supporters though they may not realise it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The ironic thing is:

  • If the November election is canceled or postponed, the President's term ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Vice President, but his term also ends in January.
  • Next in line would be the Speaker of the House, but her term also ends in January.
  • Members of the House would elect a new Speaker, but all their terms end in January.
  • Next in line is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, who today is Republican Chuck Grassley.
  • However, for one-third of Senators, their terms end in January.
  • A majority of those leaving are Republicans, and a majority of those remaining would be Democrats.
  • So, the Democratic President Pro Tempore, Patrick Leahy, would assume control and decide who becomes President.
  • And he would choose his party's presidential candidate: Joe Biden.

Well now I’m desperate for it to be delayed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Palfy said:

Did he not know this, or was he going to try and change the rules on everyone’s electoral terms, after all he believes he can do what he wants, so I would guess that that was his intention. 
The world is a crazy place at the moment made even crazier by Trump and Johnson, let’s hope that one five year reign is about to end very soon, for the sake of all even Trump supporters though they may not realise it. 

There's no question that the man is ignorant of government processes. Today, for example, he claimed he would unilaterally reduce taxes on everyone, but he does not have that power. Before now, he threatened to pull funding to any schools that refuse to begin in-person classes for the coming term, but he doesn't have that power either. So, I doubt very much that he understands the chain of command so has no idea that delaying the election will bring to power his rival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

There's no question that the man is ignorant of government processes. Today, for example, he claimed he would unilaterally reduce taxes on everyone, but he does not have that power. Before now, he threatened to pull funding to any schools that refuse to begin in-person classes for the coming term, but he doesn't have that power either. So, I doubt very much that he understands the chain of command so has no idea that delaying the election will bring to power his rival.

Agreed he is just full of bluster and has to be the center of attention and “win” all the time so he just makes up stupid stuff constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...