The 2020 USA POTUS election politics, the civil war, and the world war (Part 1)

439

Biden will never be in a position which allows him to pardon anyone.

We elect a POTUS every four years. This allows for some turnover in the electorate as time passes. Younger people become eligible to vote, older voters pass away.

Biden has tried to become POTUS twice before. Both times he was rejected by the voters. It happened in 1988 and again in 2008:

In 1988 Biden won two delegates.
In 2008 Biden won zero delegates.

American voters in 1988, and again in 2008, were full of wisdom when rejecting Biden’s candidacy. Are today’s voters any less intelligent? I don’t think so.

Biden is a quintessential loser.

440

It’s not about rejecting a candidate, it’s about there being a more preferred candidate. If there’s not a more preferred candidate this time, there’s no reason to assume they’ll “reject” him again. The fact he’s the nominee (or presumed nominee) pretty much proves that.

Biden faces a number of challenges this election, but the fact he’s run before is not one of them.

1 Like
441

A CNN poll released on Wednesday found Mr. Biden leading the president by five percentage points nationwide, but trailing by seven points among voters in crucial battleground states. In that poll — conducted a week after Mr. Biden publicly denied allegations of sexual assault, to which he had initially hesitated to respond — the former vice president’s support among female voters and college graduates was badly diminished from recent months.

. . . . for some Democrats, the results of the CNN poll again raised the specter that Mr. Biden could win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College, as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both did.

No CNN poll has ever been conducted in an effort to bolster Trump’s candidacy.

442

If Biden were to become POTUS he would have the ability to pardon felons of federal offenses. That’s assuming Trump actually gets prosecuted. Trump has pardened over 2 dozen criminals during his election.

443

Anyone else find it weird that they have a formally designated Pardon Attorney? And that office has no less than 5 attorneys and an unspecified amount of clerical and paralegal staff?

444

Pardons are supposed to be for people who were wrongly convicted or otherwise fell through the cracks, not for “famous” criminals and criminals directly related to the president. Obviously it takes a staff to look into legitimate candidates for pardons.

Pardoning criminals directly related to the person approving the pardons is obviously a perturbation of justice. That’s not even addressing publicly offering pardons in advance of crimes to induce associates to commit said crimes.

1 Like
445

Well there is precedent for billionaire donors who are generous to related “charitable” foundations -

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-clinton-pardons-analysis-story.html

1 Like
446

Well sure it’s been abused before. Not sure if on the same scale. The prior question is why there would be multiple attorneys working in the office.

447

Biden’s virtual campaign runs into technical difficulties

2 Likes
448

Biden himself, his fossilized remains I mean, is a walking disaster. So will become anything with which he is associated. If he is elected POTUS America is finished!!

449

Woo hoo! Great news! The stock market is up and Trump’s polling is WAY up, too!

Rasmussen daily tracking is now showing POTUS at 48%! :smiley:

If Trump can hold onto that number it means nearly certain victory in November. Poor old Biden does not seem to be doing very much to improve his standing. And Obama’s attacks, which remind people of his eight years of purgatory and corruption, only strengthen Trump. Keep it up Barack, you are doing America a real service . . . perhaps for the first time in your life.

Obama campaigned his heart out for Hillary. We all know how that turned out! :rofl:

1 Like
450

This is just… sad.

1 Like
451

Say what you want, he walks the walk.

He’s taking zinc and Zpac too with the HCQ.

452

Does he? Both from your link:

“Mr Trump said he has taken the drug for “about a week and a half now,” adding: “I take a pill everyday” and has had “zero symptoms.””

How does that match up with: "The president said he has taken only an initial dose. "

453

I replaced the story link with a better one, that first one was a bit unclear on what he said. He’s apparently taking HCQ daily and only the initial dose of azithromycin.

1 Like
454

Why vote by mail, when you can vote by email? It’s the next logical step :).

455

The HCQ is safe beyond any doubt whatsoever . . . . provided the daily dose is correct. Take too much, though, and that stuff can mess up your heart and kill you.

But the azithromycin I’m a lot less sure. Some docs have substituted a different antibiotic to avoid azithromycin’s side effects.

Zinc, of course, is fine in the right dose. All this stuff needs to be taken under supervision of a doctor.

HCQ for certain has been, and continues to be, politicized to the max. But sadly, it might not all be politics. This is very troubling:

Sharyl Attkisson last Sunday had a segment on HCQ. She mentioned Trump, the politics, and all that. But her key revelation did not focus at all on Trump. HCQ is a very safe medicine which has been around for seventy, plus or minus, years. As such, it is quintessentially “off patent”. Said another way, HCQ is inexpensive and readily available. Big pharma makes no profit from HCQ. It is instead just another generic drug, made by several companies you’ve never heard of, and sold at small profit all around the world.

Attkisson then pointed to the fact HCQ’s competition comes from far, far newer drugs, all still on patent and selling at eye-popping prices. $$Profit $$Profit $$Profit Also, because the profitable drugs are so new, their efficacy and side effects are significantly more in question. But with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, big pharma is out to defend its turf and promote use of the newer drugs if at all possible, cost be damned.

Bear in mind Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner, and an RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award recipient. Her reporting is solid. What really grabbed me was toward the end of her piece she showed a list of supposedly neutral doctors who, in reality, had substantial financial interest in how coronavirus treatment options might eventuate. This almost regrettably is not anti-Trump politics. This is pure, unvarnished bias based principally on avarice.

Here is a link to Sharyl’s piece. The money part, which is where she shows the list of doctors by name, starts roughly seven minutes in. It’s remarkable stuff:

Sharyl Attkisson: The truth about HCQ; follow the money

1 Like
456

Thanks for the article shinobi. Wish I had heard her original piece. Very interesting…

457

It’s all a distraction. Can’t discuss opening safely. Pretend the “libral democrats” (which now refers to ALL scientists and infectious disease related professionals and doctors, including the Administration’s own task force and the CDC) are all “Don’t do anything. Don’t open up the economy. Stay in your houses forever. Don’t take HCQ. No, No, No.” rather than the actual discussion of “How do we resume activities safely, with the least inconvenience and best management of the risks??”

Successfully gets the media on all the networks to divert to the absurdities like injecting disinfectant and taking HCQ with zero evidence of a benefit rather than having to address the real issues. Injecting disinfectant or taking medicine without any evidence of benefit is not an argument that can be lost with Trump’s “base”, they don’t need any evidence, so it’s a no-lose distraction.

It’s a successful political strategy. It would be nice if the health of the nation and the health of the economy were the focus rather than just political maneuvering, but it’s not like anyone would expect that from this administration.

2 Likes
458

Another day, another attempt at distraction.

1 Like