The US 2020 Presidential Election

[DOR]

Yes there was, the idea of bipartisanship here means do no harm. That's what makes you great.

Even though Gingrich & Clinton hated each other they brought about the contract with America and you got the economic revolution that happened.

With Obama the moment opposition said anything they were slammed as anti Obama and anti black. Racist.

This is the point where he attributes the decline in bipartisanship. His opinion.

It got aggravated during Trump's time as he's hitting at the swamp. So the never Trumpers.

bluesman, his line, worse than Carter.

Somehow bluesman worded things in a way that made it impossible to challenge and he'd come back later and say told ya. Should have had a side business as a fortune teller.

Vibhuti calls out Obama's policies as not working.

Interesting alternative history.

In the universe in which I reside, the GOPers actually blocked efforts to rescue the global financial system and use government shut-down to prevent any meaningful stimulus package (noting that the banking rescue – repaid in full – was not related to the stimulus package). And, in that same universe, Mitt Romney's version of medical care insurance was blocked every step of the way, simply because it was proposed by a Democrat; since then, multiple failed efforts to derail the ACA. I also seem to recall some guy saying, "My job is to make sure Obama is a one-term president."

[astralis]

DE,

Yes there was, the idea of bipartisanship here means do no harm. That's what makes you great.

Even though Gingrich & Clinton hated each other they brought about the contract with America and you got the economic revolution that happened.

for godssakes, before you opine about American political history....please learn about American political history.

the Contract with America consisted of 10 bills, advertised by Newt Gingrich. the major ones included a balanced budget amendment, Congressional term limits amendment, and cutting welfare. none of those passed.

in the end, 3 minor bills passed-- a Congressional workplace law, a reduction in required paperwork, and a restriction on Congress passing unfunded mandates on states.

the Contract with America was pure politics, Gingrich promising the moon while demonizing his opponents (and proving massively unpopular at that; there's a reason why Clinton won by a massive landslide in '96). there was nothing bipartisan about the Contract.

the economic boom of the late '90s was largely a result of tech (computers) and globalization. if you want to talk bipartisanship, the free trade pacts were a product of that, not the Contract with America.

[Albany Rifles]

He's old enough and he did mention Gingrich

He added there was still bipartisanship back then.

In the Senate, not in the House

[tbm3fan]

Yes there was, the idea of bipartisanship here means do no harm. That's what makes you great.

Even though Gingrich & Clinton hated each other they brought about the contract with America and you got the economic revolution that happened.

With Obama the moment opposition said anything they were slammed as anti Obama and anti black. Racist.

This is the point where he attributes the decline in bipartisanship. His opinion.

It got aggravated during Trump's time as he's hitting at the swamp. So the never Trumpers.

bluesman, his line, worse than Carter.

Somehow bluesman worded things in a way that made it impossible to challenge and he'd come back later and say told ya. Should have had a side business as a fortune teller.

Vibhuti calls out Obama's policies as not working.

When a phone rings do you actually hear the bell?

[surfgun]

Remember what side the drug cartels are pulling for. Trump is bad for business.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ls/ar-BB16Riho

[TopHatter]

How Donald Trump Plans to Overthrow American Democracy

Unless we awaken, the American people may well be sleepwalking into an electoral coup d’etat.

If their own words are to be believed, Donald Trump and his operatives have been preparing for the election heist for some time. The rough model will be the 2000 Bush V. Gore election, when, by a single vote, the Supreme Court halted the counting of ballots in Florida, thereby stealing the presidency for George W. Bush.

So ludicrous was that court’s stated rationale, based on a tortured reading of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, that even Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision, later called it “a piece of shit.” But if today’s court follows the reasoning of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a recent important vote-tallying case, the result will be worse than that “shit.” According to Kavanaugh, the counting of absentee ballots ought not to be continued too far after Election Day lest the final tally “flip” the results. This is what Trump has been saying — jaw-dropping in its anti-democratic arrogance even from Trump, but even more shocking coming from an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, had to point out, as if to a schoolchild: “There are no results to ‘flip’ until all the valid votes are counted.” Well, Mr. Justice Kavanaugh: Duh. Trump and his cronies know that advance and mail-in voting are heavily favoring Biden. Yet if and when the election comes before the court, Kavanaugh will prevail, and Kagan — and the majority of the voters — will be likely on the wrong side of a partisan 6 to 3 decision.

The tricky part, for Trump, is how to manufacture something like the conditions that led to the Supreme Court intervention twenty years ago. One gambit would be for Trump simply to declare victory on Election Night, whether or not he held any kind of lead, to give the impression that the Democrats are trying to overturn the results. But the key will be to disrupt by any means possible the counting of votes in states where the vote is close: enough states to keep either candidate from winning an electoral college majority. This could be done with squads of lawyers deployed in state capitals, jamming up the counting, while other lawyers prepare to delay official state certification of any and all close Biden victories. If need be, it could also be done by shutting down the counting by force. In 2000, the notorious “Brooks Brothers riot” staged by a band of geeky but noisy Republican operatives and staff members was enough to shut down the counting of votes in Florida’s Miami-Dade County at a crucial juncture. After seeing the scenes last spring in Michigan — of armed and highly-organized right-wing paramilitaries shutting down the state legislature to protest Covid-19 restrictions, with some of their number plotting to kidnap and execute the state’s Democratic governor, (now under arrest), all as Trump tweeted: “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” — can anyone, after all of that, doubt that that this time the interference would be much better coordinated and much more violent?

The goal would not be to manufacture an outright Trump electoral victory but only to prevent Biden from being named the official victor in enough states to carry the Electoral College. If Trump succeeds in doing that, he his coup would almost certainly succeed. Under the Constitution, if no candidate for president wins a majority of electoral votes by the assigned date for the Electoral College to cast its votes, this year on December 14th, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives. In that election, the Constitution stipulates, each state is entitled to one vote. Even though the Democrats hold a clear majority in the House overall, the Republicans control more state delegations, meaning that Trump, even if he loses in the popular vote and the Electoral College, would win with 26 out of 50 states. Alternatively, Trump’s phalanx of lawyers could succeed in throwing the election into the courts, which will speed the matter to the Supreme Court. Thanks now to the last-minute addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was a Republican lawyer-operative working with Kavanaugh in Florida in 2000, the Court will elect Trump, six votes to three. These would be the only votes that count in the 2020 election: six of them.

If the opinion polls hold, with some possible variations in details, this is Trump’s plan, his only hope for holding on to the presidency—and not incidentally, avoiding prosecution for his many crimes. Evidently, he thinks the courts are his best shot. How do we know? He has said so: “I think this will go to the Supreme Court,” he told reporters during the run-up to Barrett’s appointment. “This scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court.” At 3 a.m., the Friday before the election, Trump desperately tweeted out a warning to the Court not to give Biden a “ridiculous win.”

Trump cries, “Scam!” but he is the one staging a scam, just more of his big lies told with no shred of evidence. The “scam,” according to Trump, is really democracy itself, which, if heeded, would make Trump a loser next Tuesday, perhaps of historic proportions. But after he loses the election, Trump — having turned the American politics and government as nearly as possible into the tinpot dictatorship of a banana republic — could still steal the presidency.

One way to stop him would be for voters who have not yet voted to do everything they can to insure their ballots count, either by casting their votes in person or doing everything possible to insure they arrive by Tuesday. Amassing the biggest possible margins, even in non-battleground states, would make it harder for Trump to cry foul and interfere. But just as important, we need to wake up and call Trump’s attempted coup d’etat — which is occurring in real time, right before our eyes — exactly what it is, the greatest assault on American democracy since the Southern slaveholders seceded in 1860-61, touching off the Civil War. Those secessionists couldn’t be stopped. It’s still not too late to stop Donald Trump.
_____________

This is the nightmare scenario that could put Trump in office for another 4 years...his brownshirts storming the polling centers, creating enough havoc and confusion to bring the whole mess before Trump and McConnell's kangaroo Supreme Court.

[Double Edge]

George Lopez. The man doing the interviewing. It's not a gaffe to know the name of the person interviewing you. It's called basic human manners.

This crap was debunked on Monday. Try to keep up.

He did stumble, four more years of George... ? and then he gets it

[TopHatter]

He did stumble, four more years of George... ? and then he gets it

The man is a stutterer, and has been his entire life. Yes, those are "stumbles", but not that of someone losing his cognitive marbles.

At the very worst, they're in the "57 states" category of "stumbles".

Now, hypothetically speaking: If Joe Biden had been repeatedly insisting that his father Joseph Sr was born in, let’s say Germany, instead of the correct location, which is Baltimore, then I would say you have a case for failing memory and confusion, trending toward early-onset dementia.

[Double Edge]

DE,



for godssakes, before you opine about American political history....please learn about American political history.

the Contract with America consisted of 10 bills, advertised by Newt Gingrich. the major ones included a balanced budget amendment, Congressional term limits amendment, and cutting welfare. none of those passed.

in the end, 3 minor bills passed-- a Congressional workplace law, a reduction in required paperwork, and a restriction on Congress passing unfunded mandates on states.

the Contract with America was pure politics, Gingrich promising the moon while demonizing his opponents (and proving massively unpopular at that; there's a reason why Clinton won by a massive landslide in '96). there was nothing bipartisan about the Contract.

the economic boom of the late '90s was largely a result of tech (computers) and globalization. if you want to talk bipartisanship, the free trade pacts were a product of that, not the Contract with America.

Do you agree that bipartisanship existed in that period though ?

[Double Edge]

When a phone rings do you actually hear the bell?

Do you have a counter argument ? others did.

[Double Edge]

The man is a stutterer, and has been his entire life. Yes, those are "stumbles", but not that of someone losing his cognitive marbles.

At the very worst, they're in the "57 states" category of "stumbles".

Now, hypothetically speaking: If Joe Biden had been repeatedly insisting that his father Joseph Sr was born in, let’s say Germany, instead of the correct location, which is Baltimore, then I would say you have a case for failing memory and confusion, trending toward early-onset dementia.

OK, now these articles talk about stuttering and a history of it but that AP one you posted was gaslighting nonsense.

We'll keep this stutter thing in mind if he becomes President.

I remember one instance when Reagan was in some country and in the middle of his speech he has to ask his assistant to tell him which country they are in.

[tbm3fan]

Do you have a counter argument ? others did.

No need as I saw first hand. You never saw anything first hand since you weren't there. You pretty much need to prove a negative. In the meantime others have said exactly what we all saw back then so should I repeat it for you?

[Double Edge]

In the Senate, not in the House

Any change from today ?

Part of the reason I think that Biden story did not get any traction is the two senate committees cleared Biden last month.

Some may object the word 'clear' but no further action required means just that for me

[Bigfella]

No need as I saw first hand. You never saw anything first hand since you weren't there. You pretty much need to prove a negative. In the meantime others have said exactly what we all saw back then so should I repeat it for you?

The idea that Gingrich presided over some sort of bipartisan era is laugh out loud funny. You have to work pretty hard to be that ignorant.

[Double Edge]

No need as I saw first hand. You never saw anything first hand since you weren't there. You pretty much need to prove a negative. In the meantime others have said exactly what we all saw back then so should I repeat it for you?

I don't need to be there the guy i quoted was. You disagree and can't offer more than that.