johnnybangkok

44 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Clearly, he's also just announced that 200 million have died from the virus. So clearly sharp and on the ball.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say Biden is literally insane, but to claim 200 million people have died from Covid 19 shows he's maybe not the right choice to lead the country.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754233/Joe-Biden-makes-gaffe-saying-200-million-Americans-died-COVID-19.html

Don't you love it when Trump fans always pick up on the VERY FEW gaffes that Biden makes but conveniently ignore Trumps? I mean Trump can hardly get a coherant sentance together; gets simple words completely wrong (Thigh Land, Covfefe anyone?) and even Tweets with terrible grammar, spelling and comprehension. 

If the debate is about verbal dexterity may I suggest you stop bringing a dull knife to a gun fight? 

14 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

I'm not necessarily saying he "needs" to. But obviously, it would show engagement with what is going on in the country. So you don't think a presidential candidate should have ideas on how to solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president. I disagree.

Your point about Biden producing a list of nominees is an obvious deflection but since you are so fond of playing politics to the detriment of the common good, hopefully you'll appreciate his reasons for not doing so   https://apnews.com/bd03c1a07a7cc00c5c412eba49a04202

Also, if you are genuinely interested in how Biden will 'solve issues and situations likely to arise when he becomes president' he has a detailed manifesto which can be viewed at https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/. In stark contrast to Biden, Trump only lists his accomplishments rather than his 'vision' in a cherry picked manner that paints a very different story to the dystopian America we see today https://www.promiseskept.com. He doesn't have a manifesto other than 'more of the same' on his site or if he does it's certainly well hidden.

Can any of you Trump fans show me where on his site he lays out his 'vision', post 2020 election?

7 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

They were being the partisan hacks we expected them to be. But honestly, now that the circumstances are in my hacks' favor, I can now take a moral stand and declare these delaying tactics wrong. And that right there is the most honesty you'll get here all day.  ????

Whilst it is appreciated that you are finally being honest and admitting you're hypocritical stance, there's nothing moral about it. A better description would be 'self-serving'.

But you knew that.

12 hours ago, bluehippie said:

Who are you referring to?

Sounds like u just described Biden and most democrats. Oh, wait Bill and his cigar insertion "I never had sex with that woman" Clinton! Johnny, you don't need to worry Trump's SCOTUS picks, it don't concern you.

 

Really? You are going to bang that drum whilst supporting Trump? 

These guys are priests compared to Trump.

9 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

It isn't about what's fair. It is about what is possible. Under Obama it was impossible for him to get it done. Now it is possible for Trump. You know, because, like, I am simply stating, the obvious,

You're right. It's not about 'what's fair'. Fair went out the GOP window as soon as Obama was elected. What it is about though is the continued erosion of whatever small amount of cross-party consensus there ever used to be, to the point now that everything the Dems do is immediately countered by the GOP and vice versa. 

The GOP used to have some integrity when it came to what was good for the country and could at least be counted on to keep it's word; that's all gone now with it's obsession with Trump and it's self serving agenda. 

If you cannot see how dangerous that is then there really is no hope for you.

53 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

You could be right. So you are saying the GOP actually changed it to make confirmation simpler at a time Obama was appointing a potential SJC? It occurs to me the only real difference in all of this is not the time line involved. The MAJOR difference is the GOP hold both the senate and the WH. If the dems had the same situation their pick would have gone through.

Top marks for stating the obvious. Problem being it was the GOP who had the majority and they were VERY clear about why they would not allow an appointment 11 months before Obama's departure. To now say everything is fine with less than 2 months to go is the whole point of this thread.

The battle was started by the GOP (again) and was one of the final shots in a battle of obstruction that had started way back at the beginning of Obama's precidency. This further example of Republican intransigence and making up the rules as you go along is why American politics now feel like a war of attrition rather than a healthy democratic process. 

It was tolerated then (as was many GOP antics) on the proviso the GOP would at least be somewhat consistent in similar situations but as this clearly shows, there are no morals with the GOP and there's certainly no rules. The only rules they like are the ones they can bend or the ones they make up themselves. And even then they can simply ignore their own rules with no thought to anything other than their own selfish cause.

There is no trust to be had with the GOP and as soon as the Dems start fighting fire with fire the better. 

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I suspect it will be a black woman, thoroughly vetted, beyond reproach and conservative to the max. You have to play the race and sex card here. It most certainly can't be a man or no matter who it is somebody will come forward with some hazy memory from 20 years ago. To hide behind sex and race is a move right out of the dems playbook.

 

Just try submitting somneone without a dodgy/criminal sexual past. It;s not that hard and only seems difficult to do for the GOP.

3 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You say all this like the Democrats wouldn’t do the exact same thing if given half the chance. 

That's NOT your argument and it certainly isn't mine but yeah, Dems would probably do it but that's not the point is it?

The point is the GOP are trying to do it now and more importantly, you're defending it with some made up nonsense about outgoing Presidents and the likes.

10 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Because the reason it was held up last time is that Obama was on his way out, completing 2 full terms, and the Senate and WH were controlled by different parties. 

This time, Trump is an incumbent running for re-election and the senate and WH are controlled by the same party. 

 

It was not a simple matter of "in an election year" it was stinging in a seat while you're on your way out, completing 2 terms. 

 

Those are the facts amigo, you may not like it, it may upset you, but thats your problem. 

So is this the official GOP stance now or just more of your mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible?

4 years ago McConnell clearly stated the responsibility of a new nomination had to be given to the incoming POTUS. This was backed by many, many GOPers, all singing obediantly to McConnels tune. It's was never mentioned that this 'rule' only worked for departing Presidents; it also wasn't mentioned about the WH and Senate being 'controlled by the same party' but here you are trying to pass these things off as 'facts' when they are nothing of the sort.

I just wish you Trump fans could just be honest and fess up to what everyone can see is clearly happening; 4 years ago McConnell and the GOP managed to prevent Obama from nominating a SCJ by childishly throwing their toys out of the pram but now it doesn't suit them, they are just going to be complete hyocrites and do exactly the reverse of what they preached 4 years ago.

I think you would get more respect from Biden fans if you did this rather than your usual vacuos 'explaining'. 

2 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

I’m pretty sure Biden and Harris really don’t need any misinformation from the likes of Russia to lose this election. The Dems are a joke . So bad that they can’t even win an election against Trump. Always blaming some other entity for their failures. The country is literally burning down and there’s only one man that seems to want to do anything about it . And he’s off his trolley! The Dems however are so woke it’s embarrassing. Trump is by far the best choice of the two and that’s saying something!

I really don't understand this line of argument but I see it all the time from Trump fans (not saying you are one of course); 'Always blaming some other entity for their failures' - That's literally what Trump does on a daily basis. 'The country is literally burning down and there’s only one man that seems to want to do anything about it." Again Trump is the POTUS so therefore it's his job to do something about it (not to mention him stoking the flames with glee), so how come Biden and Harris get the blame? It's the equivalent of Coca Cola tampering with Cokes formula, trashing the company and then blaming Pepsi.

Or am I missing something? Is this how Fox and Breitbart or OANN are explaining Trumps tragedies to the faithful these days? I know he and his marketing department are trying to pin all his troubles on Dem cities but is all of Trumps failures now Bidens/Harris's fault?

49 minutes ago, Geoffggi said:

You have to admire them, only our friends the Americans can be one of the instigators in such a situation, {Some people really are their own worst enemy} If only some government workers would work as hard at working for the country as opposed to working against the incumbent government (No matter who they are) the population as a whole benefit & progress in leaps and bounds .....!!!!!

Many would argue that investigating electorial interference from a foreign country IS working for your country. 

And perhaps there wouldn't be a need for this in the first place if the incumbert government would get behind their own intelligence services and assist (rather than obstruct) their investigations.  

Just now, shdmn said:

It's an anti-intellectual movement because sadly, this is the most these people could ever hope to achieve in their pathetic lives.  They celebrate wallowing in their ignorance.

'“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Isaac Asimov - American writer

49 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Our recollections differ vastly. The way I remember it is Bob "15 wiped smartphones" Mueller found no collusion and no obstruction, and the Russia, Russia, Russia narrative died a sudden death never to be spoken of again. Did you have some other evidence to share with us? I guess after the millions and millions spent and 3 years wasted, including causing the distraction when corona started, we would have had some evidence if it existed. The closest evidence for the collusion I heard in the trial was when they dragged out Pamela Karlan to abuse Trumps child and testify she would cross the road to walk past Trump Tower oh boohoo. If they had stronger - or any - evidence that Trump colluded with Russia they would probably have used it during the impeachment trial, right?

  

I think Morch and Sujo have done a good enough job in explaining this to you but it does tell us everything we need to know about you that they had to explain this to you in the first place. I mean, what kind of foxhole (pun intended) are you living in to not know that Russia interferance in the 2016 election is absolute, proven and verifiable? The fact ol' teflon Don got away with it (and again the Mueller investigation did not say he was innocent) has nothing to do with the fact it definately happened. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/senate-panel-confirms-russian-interference-2016-election-200421162844869.html

This willful ignorance of facts really is something to behold and is obviously why you are a Trump fan in the first place but come on, add a little credibility to your cause by at least acknowledging what is common knowledge to literally billions of people.   

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

And here we go again. Reuters are intentionally conflating absentee voting(where the eligible voter requests a ballot by mail, fair enough) with the democrats plan to willy-nilly universal mail out up to 80 million ballots to all on the register without proper checks into who actually receives and fills the ballots. A scheme seemingly designed to help fraud with no benefit whatsoever - seeing as all real voters that want a mail in ballot can request one in a system that works well already.

 

Quick proof that the Reuters article is deeply flawed(I am being generous and polite).

 

"A New Jersey judge invalidated a city council election and ordered a new one after allegations of voter fraud, according to a ruling issued Wednesday.

The May 12 election for Paterson's Third Ward city council was "rife with mail in vote procedural violations," Judge Ernest Caposela said in his ruling, though he left the decision on whether there was voter fraud to the criminal courts."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/paterson-new-jersey-city-council-voter-fraud/index.html

 

As for the main thrust of the OP. Russian friends tell me the narrative is nonsense. Why on earth would Russia want to help Trump win a re-election? They tell me Trump has been very hard on Russia and it has been painful. They want another corrupt globalist swamp beast back at the reigns in the US, not a maverick outsider like Trump. 

You best be careful TDS or the FBI will be looking into your continual sycophantic defence of Trump before too long.

What I don't understand from Trump fans is why are these matters so partisan; shouldn't ALL parties and law abiding citizens be concerned with election interferance? The FBI have proven without a doubt the 2016 election was heavily influenced by Russia (as was Brexit and the UK general election and many, many other countries I'm sure) so why doesn't the GOP come out and strongly back these findings? China is of course just as guilty so the concern for all should be to stop ALL election inteference never mind just the one that suits your party.

Oh and by the way, if you really cannot see why Russia would want a 'maverick outsider like Trump' to win, then you really haven't been paying attention. 

"completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that" adding: "Here were like seven people on the plane like this person and then a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage."

In other news:- severa famous Goth bands to include 7 person band Siouxsie and the Banshees have cancelled their forthcoming Washington gig siteing 'security issues'.   

19 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Do you really think that all the unrest would stop , just because Trump asked them to keep calm ?

No I don’t but I also don’t think he is helping in any way shape or form. 
there’s a difference between calming and inflaming and all he’s doing is inflaming for VERY obvious reasons. 
He now sees this as his best chance at re-election and calm doesn’t work for that. It’s not only shameful it’s also very dangerous. 

1 hour ago, CorpusChristie said:

Trump merely gave his opinion, as we all have done .

Many of us have the same opinion as Trump does .

Rest assured, Trump didnt find him to be not guilty in a Court of law

This is the kind of dogmatic, myopic nonsense that gets people riled up. 
He’s the President of The United States for gods sake not just some guy down the pub. His words carry weight and consequences; he can either help a situation or make it a great deal worse and his “opinion” on this matter is obviously and very purposely throwing fuel on the fire. 
A correct response to this would have been along the lines of “I’m sure the American justice system will prevail and determine the fate of this young man.... in the meantime I would like to call for calm and reason .....blah, blah”

You all love his straight talking; I wonder how much you will love it when the whole country is involved in a race war just because he couldn’t be presidential.