By Hitch Go To PostIs this looking like the most one-sided election win in US history?Ronald was no punk
Remarkable how Mondale getting 40% of the popular vote results in that electoral map. Almost like the EC is a joke
He'll win. It just won't be a blowout. Seems impossible to get that nowadays considering how fractured the country seems to be.
i hope but if it's close there will be some major fuckery. he planted that voter fraud thing in the heads of his base for months now.
praying that biden takes florida convincingly since florida is a state that will probably be decided on election day.
Love how Biden is simultaneously a radical leftist out to destroy everything the Founding Fathers set out to do, and also the complete representation of the old system that Trump is out to destroy and bring us on the new path to humanity
By Xpike Go To PostLove how Biden is simultaneously a radical leftist out to destroy everything the Founding Fathers set out to do, and also the complete representation of the old system that Trump is out to destroy and bring us on the new path to humanity
By jjasper Go To PostHe is also senile and demented but also at the same time a criminal mastermind. Really impressive.it is funny because those are the same talking points for both sides..
By Perfect Blue Go To PostHispanic people are gonna fuck this up aren’t we
Luckily Trump has tried to deport most of us so maybe it balances out
The three had pinned their hopes for re-electing the president on a fourth guest, a straight-shooting Wall Street Journal White House reporter named Michael Bender. They delivered the goods to him there: a cache of emails detailing Hunter Biden’s business activities, and, on speaker phone, a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s named Tony Bobulinski. Mr. Bobulinski was willing to go on the record in The Journal with an explosive claim: that Joe Biden, the former vice president, had been aware of, and profited from, his son’s activities. The Trump team left believing that The Journal would blow the thing open and their excitement was conveyed to the president.
The Journal had seemed to be the perfect outlet for a story the Trump advisers believed could sink Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Its small-c conservatism in reporting means the work of its news pages carries credibility across the industry. And its readership leans further right than other big news outlets.
As the Trump team waited with excited anticipation for a Journal exposé, the newspaper did its due diligence: Mr. Bender and Mr. Beckett handed the story off to a well-regarded China correspondent, James Areddy, and a Capitol Hill reporter who had followed the Hunter Biden story, Andrew Duehren. Mr. Areddy interviewed Mr. Bobulinski. They began drafting an article.
While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal’s Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Mr. Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Mr. Biden trading on his family’s name — a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.
Mr. Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Mr. Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late — and could shape that week’s news cycle heading into the crucial final debate last Thursday. An “important piece” in The Journal would be coming soon, Mr. Trump told aides on a conference call that day.
His comment was not appreciated inside The Journal.
“The editors didn’t like Trump’s insinuation that we were being teed up to do this hit job,” a Journal reporter who wasn’t directly involved in the story told me. But the reporters continued to work on the draft as the Thursday debate approached, indifferent to the White House’s frantic timeline.
As the debate ended, The Wall Street Journal published a brief item, just the stub of Mr. Areddy and Mr. Duehren’s reporting. The core of it was that Mr. Bobulinski had failed to prove the central claim. “Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden,” The Journal reported.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html
By DY_nasty Go To PostAmy ain't even that bad. .
Wat?
What I said.
Out of all the shit the GOP could've easily forced on people, she's pretty much nothing and the biggest knocks against her are more manufactured theatrics over anything else. Amy the presidential candidate was worse than Amy the SC nom.
Out of all the shit the GOP could've easily forced on people, she's pretty much nothing and the biggest knocks against her are more manufactured theatrics over anything else. Amy the presidential candidate was worse than Amy the SC nom.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostThis gonna be good *gets popcorn*there's no world where we get an athiest, hard left SC nom when they won't even tolerate that out of their representatives. hell, if ruth didn't suddenly die and instead stepped down, half of the drama doesn't even get to build up.
its not too hard to imagine the democrats picking her on their own time too....
By FortuneFaded Go To PostSo that's why Trump has been complaining all day that the media only talks about Covid and that it should be a election law violation.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHypotheticals are fun.cmon you're older than me lol
it has to be hilarious how people can just simply be told to be outraged over any kind of selection/pick/candidate and some will go off raging like they've been against thhem their entire life
do you even know anyone who can name each supreme court justice? or even the black one?
By DY_nasty Go To Postcmon you're older than me lol
it has to be hilarious how people can just simply be told to be outraged over any kind of selection/pick/candidate and some will go off raging like they've been against thhem their entire life
do you even know anyone who can name each supreme court justice? or even the black one?
Well to be fair I feel Iike I’m the 1/1000 voter who really cared in 2016 lol
Barrett is bad though. For a lot of reasons. This ain’t another Gorsuch. She’s a fuckin’ radical and you should base your opinion of her in that rather than, “garland is ACB lite”
By DY_nasty Go To Postcmon you're older than me lol
it has to be hilarious how people can just simply be told to be outraged over any kind of selection/pick/candidate and some will go off raging like they've been against thhem their entire life
do you even know anyone who can name each supreme court justice? or even the black one?
lmao
By Fenderputty Go To PostWell to be fair I feel Iike I’m the 1/1000 voter who really cared in 2016 lola whole radical lol. if she's a radical then where does that put the average voter? shit, she's said more against qualified immunity then half of our candidates ffs
Barrett is bad though. For a lot of reasons. This ain’t another Gorsuch. She’s a fuckin’ radical and you should base your opinion of her in that rather than, “garland is ACB lite”
this kinda hyperbole is what leaves the party open to so much shit man...
If we actually gave a crap about objective and nonbiased judges the Supreme Court would run entirely differently. Presidents wouldn't appoint them and senates/houses wouldn't grand stand on voting for them. It's a joke.
By JesalR Go To PostThat 7% is gonna sting like a motherfucker, huhNot as bad as the 3%
oh well thats any left leaning reform dead in the water for some decades, not like any were passing anyways