pray for the victims

[idhawkman]

One thing that I think we can all agree on is that the police in Dayton that responded to the shooting demonstrated some of the most heroic and finest example of exemplary law enforcement work we've ever witnessed.

6 policemen, 5 with less than 3 years experience, responded to the shooting by running INTO the gunfire even though they were out gunned and under protected. They took out that POS in under 30 seconds with no collateral injuries and without a doubt saved dozens of lives. Sometimes actions like those get lost in all our debates as to how to resolve these problems.

Kind of demonstrates vividly Asea and My position on larger numbers with smaller arms overwhelming a smaller force with better arms, doesn't it?

[RiverDog]

Kind of demonstrates vividly Asea and My position on larger numbers with smaller arms overwhelming a smaller force with better arms, doesn't it?

If firearms were the only weapons available to the US military, then yes, the analogy would make sense.

[RiverDog]

Option three again. Something else on his mind. Prove me wrong.

Something else distracted his mind from what was supposed to be a speech expressing his heartfelt condolences, in other words, confused? Sounds like you're opting for senility.

[idhawkman]

Something else distracted his mind from what was supposed to be a speech expressing his heartfelt condolences, in other words, confused? Sounds like you're opting for senility.

Nope, that's your analogy and you didn't prove me wrong.

[RiverDog]

Something else distracted his mind from what was supposed to be a speech expressing his heartfelt condolences, in other words, confused? Sounds like you're opting for senility.

Nope, that's your analogy and you didn't prove me wrong.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I was trying to see if you had an explanation for Trump's mistake. You seemed to have suggested that he might have had something else on his mind, ie conflicting thoughts, or in other words, confusion, which is a symptom of dementia, or what we used to call senility.

Although your suggestion is a definite possibility, I'm leaning towards the head-up-arse explanation. After all, if your theory is true, he wouldn't be fit for office. Don't ever say that I don't support the President!

[Aseahawkfan]

Riverdog puts in the quarter and IDhawkman provides the excuse, as expected. I guess he has endless excuses for Crazy Uncle Trump, Riverdog.

Too bad the Democrats are your nutty, unrealistic liberal cousins, aunts, and other uncle that are even dumber.

[Aseahawkfan]

Kind of demonstrates vividly Asea and My position on larger numbers with smaller arms overwhelming a smaller force with better arms, doesn't it?

I figured we would see eye to eye on the Second Amendment. I don't quite understand folks that look at a document written by revolutionaries fully intent on empowering a group of people to govern themselves not supplying said group of people with the means to ensure the ability to protect those rights.

The only thing I can think is that Riverdog seems to have answered the question of whether he thinks citizens should be able to violently revolt against the government in the negative. He seems to believe we have no chance of winning, thus shouldn't fight if tyranny raises its ugly head in the extreme in America. I don't agree with it. No idea why he thinks that is ok.

I know fully well if this nation becomes tyrannical, it's up to us to tear it down. We won't do that without arms. The Founders made sure ensure the ability to do so was clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

You never enter a war sure you're going to win. You don't even fight a war for anything less than the gravest and most serous of reasons unless you're a tyrannical scumbag. There is never any assurance it will end in your favor. You fight because you want to defend something vitally important to you and your family, friends, and nation. You cannot fight a true tyrant with just words as has been proven endless times. I will never willingly agree to let the American people be disarmed.

[b]Riverdog[[/b[ reasoning of the Founders is utterly false. They never included the 2nd Amendment because of they thought weaponry would not advance. They included it because they knew human behavior would not change and that man would always have to fear tyranny, and thus the citizens would always require the means to fight against it regardless of the nature of our weaponry.

[RiverDog]

Riverdog puts in the quarter and IDhawkman provides the excuse, as expected. I guess he has endless excuses for Crazy Uncle Trump, Riverdog.

Too bad the Democrats are your nutty, unrealistic liberal cousins, aunts, and other uncle that are even dumber.

Entertaining, isn't it?

The Democrats are, indeed, not much better if at all. As a matter of fact, Joe Biden made a mistake every bit as bad as Trump's:

Biden at a fundraiser tonight almost immediately spoke of the two recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, at first referring to them as “the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before” but later correcting himself.

The two of them make a good argument for age limitations on being elected POTUS.

[RiverDog]

[b]Riverdog[[/b[ reasoning of the Founders is utterly false. They never included the 2nd Amendment because of they thought weaponry would not advance. They included it because they knew human behavior would not change and that man would always have to fear tyranny, and thus the citizens would always require the means to fight against it regardless of the nature of our weaponry.

The Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution should be a living document, not like the 10 Commandments that are written in stone. That's why they gave us the ability to amend it. They foresaw that conditions would change, and that the Constitution would need to change with them.

There are lots of things in the Constitution that are not applicable to today's society, at least not part of the same rationalizations that some of the founding fathers gave when they wrote it. The Electoral College is one of them. One of the problems they had with conducing a nation wide election based on a popular vote was polling. With no electronic communication like telegraph or telephone, all of the results would have had to been collected at hundreds of polling places then taken by horseback to a central location for tabulation. It could have taken many, many months to determine the final results. It was much more efficient to elect people, ie Electors, to cast votes for them.

IMO the electoral college is a good thing as it forces candidates to appeal nation wide instead of localized centers of population or some regional candidate like George Wallace winning overwhelmingly in one section of the country. That's a side benefit that the founding fathers never envisioned.

Same goes with the 2nd amendment. The part about a well regulated militia no longer applies due to advances in the technology of warfare since the times that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

I'm with ya regarding the defense of 2A, just for different reasons.

[idhawkman]

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I was trying to see if you had an explanation for Trump's mistake. You seemed to have suggested that he might have had something else on his mind, ie conflicting thoughts, or in other words, confusion, which is a symptom of dementia, or what we used to call senility.

No you were not! When you give only two answers - both supporting views you have - you are not looking for an explanation, you are looking to trap someone into saying something you want them to say. I think you know this and by writing what you did above, you therefore know you are lying. You also seem to suggest that you are a psychologist but we know that can't possibly be true because if you were, you would lose your license for diagnosing a patient without examining them personally. Your credibility on these subjects is in shambles.

Although your suggestion is a definite possibility, I'm leaning towards the head-up-arse explanation. After all, if your theory is true, he wouldn't be fit for office. Don't ever say that I don't support the President!

Yep, more diagnosis - we know where your head is already.

[idhawkman]

I figured we would see eye to eye on the Second Amendment. I don't quite understand folks that look at a document written by revolutionaries fully intent on empowering a group of people to govern themselves not supplying said group of people with the means to ensure the ability to protect those rights.

The only thing I can think is that Riverdog seems to have answered the question of whether he thinks citizens should be able to violently revolt against the government in the negative. He seems to believe we have no chance of winning, thus shouldn't fight if tyranny raises its ugly head in the extreme in America. I don't agree with it. No idea why he thinks that is ok.

Every society has its sheep that will follow the masters when commanded to.

I know fully well if this nation becomes tyrannical, it's up to us to tear it down. We won't do that without arms. The Founders made sure ensure the ability to do so was clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

You never enter a war sure you're going to win. You don't even fight a war for anything less than the gravest and most serous of reasons unless you're a tyrannical scumbag. There is never any assurance it will end in your favor. You fight because you want to defend something vitally important to you and your family, friends, and nation. You cannot fight a true tyrant with just words as has been proven endless times. I will never willingly agree to let the American people be disarmed.

A great example of this is Hong Kong today. Thousands of armed Chinese military are massing on the border of Hong Kong yet they are still rioting to preserve their legal system from being overtaken by the mainland Chinese govt.

[b]Riverdog[[/b[ reasoning of the Founders is utterly false. They never included the 2nd Amendment because of they thought weaponry would not advance. They included it because they knew human behavior would not change and that man would always have to fear tyranny, and thus the citizens would always require the means to fight against it regardless of the nature of our weaponry.

Agreed. The only way to ensure they don't get overthrown by the citizenry is to kill everyone in it. They can't do that because they will kill off the people they want to lead and there won't be anyone left to exploit. By empowering the citizenry the founders gave us the will and fortitude to fight for our freedoms and they will never be able to kill that off. Masses will always overcome might in a drawn out fight.

[idhawkman]

There are lots of things in the Constitution that are not applicable to today's society, at least not part of the same rationalizations that some of the founding fathers gave when they wrote it. The Electoral College is one of them. One of the problems they had with conducing a nation wide election based on a popular vote was polling. With no electronic communication like telegraph or telephone, all of the results would have had to been collected at hundreds of polling places then taken by horseback to a central location for tabulation. It could have taken many, many months to determine the final results. It was much more efficient to elect people, ie Electors, to cast votes for them.

That's a ridiculous statement by you that the electoral college is not applicable in today's society. The founders knew the problem with a democracy and therefore purposefully established a representative republic. The electoral college is just as applicable today as it ever was if not more.

IMO the electoral college is a good thing as it forces candidates to appeal nation wide instead of localized centers of population or some regional candidate like George Wallace winning overwhelmingly in one section of the country. That's a side benefit that the founding fathers never envisioned.

So now that you have crushed your own argument that the electoral college is one of the "Non-applicable Constitutional pieces", what in the current constitution is not applicable? Please give an example that you don't then turn around and contradict. Of course I could use your example of:

Are you experiencing:
A. Dementia
B. Stupidity
C. Head up ass
D. All of the above

Same goes with the 2nd amendment. The part about a well regulated militia no longer applies due to advances in the technology of warfare since the times that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

I'm with ya regarding the defense of 2A, just for different reasons.

We've already debunked this argument so again, which one are you experiencing?

[RiverDog]

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong. I was trying to see if you had an explanation for Trump's mistake. You seemed to have suggested that he might have had something else on his mind, ie conflicting thoughts, or in other words, confusion, which is a symptom of dementia, or what we used to call senility.

No you were not! When you give only two answers - both supporting views you have - you are not looking for an explanation, you are looking to trap someone into saying something you want them to say.

I wasn't trying to "trap" you. All I did was to read back to you your own answer that you came up with by yourself, which was that there was "something else on his mind", and I agree, what you are suggesting is a definite possibility. Trump was thinking about one thing while talking about another.

How would you describe that phenomena? Do you know of any mental conditions that might explain those kinds of mistakes?

[I-5]

At risk of asking a stupid question, would we even be having a conversation like this if the shooter were a citizen and person of color, or worse, a foreign national?

[I-5]

Option three again. Something else on his mind. Prove me wrong.

'Something else' can't really justify all the misstatements and lies from this president....

U.S. farmers are receiving $16 billion "out of the tariffs that we’ve gotten from China." - Aug 2, 2019 (China doesn't pay tariffs)

"Mexico, they took 30% of our automobile business." - July 23, 2019 (Zero US plants have closed and moved to Mexico)

"When I became president, President Obama had a separation policy. I didn’t have it. He had it." - June 21, 2019 (No)

"The FBI said (former national security adviser Michael Flynn) wasn't lying." - March 28, 2019 (Flynn admits lying)

"At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall." - Jan 9, 2019 (no such request)

"Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy" about U.S. troops leaving Syria. - Dec 21, 2018 (Putin calls it 'the right decision')

We can do this all day long.

[RiverDog]

Option three again. Something else on his mind. Prove me wrong.

'Something else' can't really justify all the misstatements and lies from this president....

U.S. farmers are receiving $16 billion "out of the tariffs that we’ve gotten from China." - Aug 2, 2019 (China doesn't pay tariffs)

"Mexico, they took 30% of our automobile business." - July 23, 2019 (Zero US plants have closed and moved to Mexico)

"When I became president, President Obama had a separation policy. I didn’t have it. He had it." - June 21, 2019 (No)

"The FBI said (former national security adviser Michael Flynn) wasn't lying." - March 28, 2019 (Flynn admits lying)

"At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall." - Jan 9, 2019 (no such request)

"Russia, Iran, Syria & many others are not happy" about U.S. troops leaving Syria. - Dec 21, 2018 (Putin calls it 'the right decision')

We can do this all day long.

And then there's the 4th of July speech where he credited the Continental Army with the taking of airports during the Revolutionary War, a statement that would keep a child from getting promoted out of grade school, then blamed it on the teleprompter going out yet claimed that he knew the speech by heart. And we laughed at Dan Quayle misspelling "potato".

Trump's behavior is truly bizarre. You couldn't write a script for Goober Pyle or Jethro Clampit with that many goofy, buffoonish statements in it that Trump makes almost daily. I honestly can't come up with an explanation outside of stupidity, senility, or a combination of the two. There's definitely something not right with him. A normal person isn't going to make those kinds of mistakes.

[idhawkman]

I wasn't trying to "trap" you. All I did was to read back to you your own answer that you came up with by yourself, which was that there was "something else on his mind", and I agree, what you are suggesting is a definite possibility. Trump was thinking about one thing while talking about another.

How would you describe that phenomena? Do you know of any mental conditions that might explain those kinds of mistakes?

Him being the leader of the free world with literally thousands of things being briefed to him daily, you, nor I, could possibly know what that is. Just maybe, they know about a larger issue in Toledo that is about to explode. Again, you don't know and only a select few in the inner circle actually do know. So again, without being a qualified Psychologist and examining him directly, you can't possibly make a diagnosis as to why it happened. That is my point and you know it.

[idhawkman]

At risk of asking a stupid question, would we even be having a conversation like this if the shooter were a citizen and person of color, or worse, a foreign national?

Actually, that's a great question. My first reaction was yes we would. Since the shooter was in Ohio and a democrat with Antifa affiliation we know he isn't acting on the words of Trump. That said, the conversation isn't because of who he is or what he did, it is on one word Trump said in his statement of grief on the subject about which city it was in. I wish he had said Chicago instead of Toledo.

Then I have to ask myself why no one is talking about the 59 people shot in Chicago over the weekend in their mass shootings. Is it because those were people of color? Is that why no one cares about them? Quite a sad situation when the news only reports the tragedies that progress a one sided narrative isn't it?

I still can't believe the dem hopefuls trying to gain political points on this and doing fund raisers instead of trying to work something with the republicans who have said they are in favor of some legislation. I think a bigger question is why aren't the dems gobbling up as much reform as they can while the sentiment on the right is ripe for giving away some of their ground? Do the dems really want to fix something or just have the issue to demagogue?

[RiverDog]

I wasn't trying to "trap" you. All I did was to read back to you your own answer that you came up with by yourself, which was that there was "something else on his mind", and I agree, what you are suggesting is a definite possibility. Trump was thinking about one thing while talking about another.

How would you describe that phenomena? Do you know of any mental conditions that might explain those kinds of mistakes?

Him being the leader of the free world with literally thousands of things being briefed to him daily, you, nor I, could possibly know what that is.

Ahh, but you did claim to know "what that is". You said that there was something else on his mind, and I agree with you, that's a strong possibility. And as I-5 pointed out, he either doesn't read those briefings or he doesn't remember what he read as he botches them on a daily basis.

Just maybe, they know about a larger issue in Toledo that is about to explode.

Yea, and maybe he was thinking about a vacation on Epstein's Pedophile Island and thought to himself "Holy Toledo!"

It doesn't make a difference what else was on his mind. The point is that he could not concentrate on what he was supposed to say. Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al all had the same job and didn't make anywhere near as many mistakes or gaffes as Trump has.

[I-5]

"That was some, that was some crowd...and we had twice the number outside. And then you had this crazy Beto. Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot, they said his crowd was wonderful."

That’s our president, bragging about his crowd in El Paso, instead of focusing on the victims, he makes it about himself. Because of course he did. If you don’t think he’s a narcissist, I challenge you to show a better example. I don’t understand how anyone can continue defending and making excuse after excuse for this embarrassment.

There is no way to normalize this if it were any other leader in the history of the world. Even megalomaniacs like Kim or Mao or Pot would never be caught dead bragging in a hospital full of massacre victims. Just stop.

[RiverDog]

"That was some, that was some crowd...and we had twice the number outside. And then you had this crazy Beto. Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot, they said his crowd was wonderful."

That’s our president, bragging about his crowd in El Paso, instead of focusing on the victims, he makes it about himself. Because of course he did. If you don’t think he’s a narcissist, I challenge you to show a better example. I don’t understand how anyone can continue defending and making excuse after excuse for this embarrassment.

There is no way to normalize this if it were any other leader in the history of the world. Even megalomaniacs like Kim or Mao or Pot would never be caught dead bragging in a hospital full of massacre victims. Just stop.

Speaking of O'Rourke, Trump mocked his nickname earlier this week, saying it was "phony" and used to falsely indicate Hispanic heritage while in the same breath telling him that he should be quiet out of respect for the victims. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Edit: Trump was repeating a blatantly false accusation from right wing sources where he seems to be getting his daily briefings from. It doesn't take hardly any effort at all to debunk Trump's claim about O'Rourke adapting a Hispanic name in order to identify himself with Hispanic voters. A 1986 article in the El Paso Times refers to Pat O'Rourke's then 14 year old son as "Beto":

https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2018/08/ ... _1986_.pdf

[idhawkman]

Ahh, but you did claim to know "what that is". You said that there was something else on his mind, and I agree with you, that's a strong possibility. And as I-5 pointed out, he either doesn't read those briefings or he doesn't remember what he read as he botches them on a daily basis.

Don't you hate it when you fall victim to your own argument? You are either senile or experiencing dementia since I never said I knew what was on his mind. You inferred that through your racist opinion of the man.

Yea, and maybe he was thinking about a vacation on Epstein's Pedophile Island and thought to himself "Holy Toledo!"

It doesn't make a difference what else was on his mind. The point is that he could not concentrate on what he was supposed to say. Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al all had the same job and didn't make anywhere near as many mistakes or gaffes as Trump has.

You do realize how moronic that statement is, don't you. The man just did (and does many of them all the time) a 34 minute impromptu press conference with the press before boarding Marine 1. The subjects he covers and the depth that he goes into them is unparalleled in the history of politics. "IF" he was experiencing any dementia or mental problems at all, he'd sound like Biden did yesterday at the Iowa state fair or he would never be given the chance to see the reporters to speak to them. You pick one word out of all the press time he has given and you see what you want to see in it. The delusions are all yours. Sorry to hit you this way with the facts but someone has to let you know so you can address your problem.

[idhawkman]

That’s our president, bragging about his crowd in El Paso, instead of focusing on the victims, he makes it about himself. Because of course he did. If you don’t think he’s a narcissist, I challenge you to show a better example. I don’t understand how anyone can continue defending and making excuse after excuse for this embarrassment.

You see what you want to see, too and hear what you want to hear. Pointing out the crowd size is not about him - get over yourselves already. It is about the support for what those people are doing and the media that is totally ignoring their side of the situation. He's just providing a conduit to let the other who support their position know that they are not alone even though the MSM wants you to think there is only oposition to the president.

Do you think the president's crowd wasn't wonderful? If not, then why didn't the MSM make the statement a blanket statement saying that both crowds were wonderful? Why don't the MSM just state the fact of how many were supporting each side? "IF" you can see your way to answering those questions you will know why the president had to set the record straight.

There is no way to normalize this if it were any other leader in the history of the world. Even megalomaniacs like Kim or Mao or Pot would never be caught dead bragging in a hospital full of massacre victims. Just stop.

I wish you would read your own advice and just stop! There's two sides to the issue and he is the only one who can speak for the other side since the MSM is fatally failing to do their job.

[idhawkman]

Bad news for you socialist and progressives in here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/upshot/trump-approval-rating-rise.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/the-scary-claim-that-trump-is-steadily-becoming-more-popular.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

Those aren't Fox News either.

[Hawktawk]

Bad news for you socialist and progressives in here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/upshot/trump-approval-rating-rise.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/the-scary-claim-that-trump-is-steadily-becoming-more-popular.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.html

Those aren't Fox News either.

Yeah hes all the way up to 44% or whatever Good luck with that Still the only modern president not to have cracked 50% in any average of polls since inauguration this far into his presidency and this despite a quite good economy for most sectors. Dude is a clown, a senile pathological remorseless liar and pathological narcissist bragging and joking about crowd sizes at a hospital full of bullet riddled victims of his protege. His press guy calling him a "rock star" for showing up is absolutely nauseating. It's what presidents are supposed to do. It shows how bad he is when he actually does something normal and presidential(well sort of) and gets praised.

The nutcase manifesto talks about"fake news" an "invasion" which Trump mentioned over 2000 times on social media and hundreds of times on the stump and laughed in a florida stadium when someone yelled "shoot them", joked "only in the panhandle".

He owns it, it will hurt him in the polls which is why the monotone teleprompter statement, the carefully managed hospital visits, the statements about gun control and background checks after being the recipient of 40 million in NRA money in 2016.

I see your post about Antifa being the guy in Daytons motivation so I guess Trump is only complicit in one of 2 mass shootings in a 16 hour period. How low can you go dumbing down the highest office on the planet? Race you to the MF bottom as New Medicine so aptly says.

As for the El Paso shooter his mother called the police and reported he had an AR months before the shooting, expressed concern about him having it and was told by the police it was perfectly legal for him to own it. Its BS to say laws banning these weapons from the public would save no lives. No law saves all lives but all laws designed to protect the lives of citizens save some.

And stop with the socialist progressive stuff. I'm a lifelong conservative straight ticket republican never trumper. We hate this miserable POS way more than liberals or socialists. I root for Weld to gain traction in the early primary states, for Justin Amash to run as a libertarian, ABT, anyone but trump. I'm no socialist but I'll accept one over him and it will be his and you blind shills fault if it happens.

He did make some good hires. Pence was one and he should be president right now and guys like you and the evangelicals and Senate bobblehead sycophants hypocrisy shows every day that goes by that it doesn't happen.

[RiverDog]

And stop (Idahawkman) with the socialist progressive stuff. I'm a lifelong conservative straight ticket republican never trumper. We hate this miserable POS way more than liberals or socialists. I'm no socialist but I'll accept one over him and it will be his and you blind shills fault if it happens.

I second that. I have never voted for a Democrat for national office until this past fall when I voted for the Dem Congressional candidate simply due to my opposition to DJT. Since 1972 when I voted for Richard Nixon, I've voted for every Republican nominee for POTUS until 2016 when I voted for the Libertarian candidate. I have consistently stated my opposition to a whole host of liberal initiatives, such as Medicare for All, free college, reparations, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, eliminating ICE, etc. I've openly stated my opposition to all of the current field of Dem candidates except Biden, whom I would vote for only because he'd be facing Trump.

I am much more opposed to Trump the person than I am his conservative politics.

You're intentionally trying to paint a couple of us in here as liberals/progressives/socialists so as to make it appear as if the only people that oppose Trump are on the far left of the political spectrum.

[Hawktawk]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/262694/lat ... ating.aspx

Gallup at 42%. If he gets any better he will burn up on reentry

[RiverDog]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/262694/latest-trump-job-approval-rating.aspx

Gallup at 42%. If he gets any better he will burn up on reentry

A couple of observations:

Trump's poll numbers have remained amazingly consistent, in the low to mid 40's. I don't know of any other POTUS that has had such a consistent, albeit historically low, poll numbers throughout his term. If last weekend's events doesn't move them, I doubt that anything short of a war will cause them to move more than a few percentage points from where they're currently at.

Trump does not have a named candidate for respondents to contrast him with, and until he does, the polls aren't very relevant to his prospects in 2020.

We're still 15 months until the election so they don't really mean anything other than he's an unpopular President. Besides, the polls only show what his popularity is nation wide, and as we all know, it's the electoral college that counts, specifically swing states such as MI, PA, WI, OH, and FL. Keep an eye on polling numbers in those states if you want to get a feel as to how the next election turns out.

As far as polls go, the one I keep an eye on is the RCP composite poll as it's an average of multiple polls and at least theoretically more accurate, and they show what the other polls are reporting. They have Trump slightly higher than Gallop at 43.5%:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

[Hawktawk]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... Texas.html

Biden beats him in Texas right now. No democratic candidate has led ANY republican incumbent in Texas this late in the cycle in decades. Of course Biden has a long way to go till Nov 2020 and hes a gaffe machine but Trump has kind of taken the gaffe, grope thing off the table IMO. The true test of Bidens strength will be when either Warren or Sanders, likely Sanders fades away. Who will the progressive voters move to? the progressive that knocked their candidate out or the front runner?

Either way trump is exceedingly weak in most of the battlegrounds with re-elect % far below even job approval. I fail to see how these border camps, raids rounding up 100s of people at their jobs and separating them from their kids and the El Paso shooting are going to help him. I guess we will know in about 15 months.

[I-5]

So anyone who disagrees with this embarassment of the office is a socialist liberal? That's quite a myopic view among his supporters, but I guess it works for them. Better than dealing with the cognitive dissonance knowing there are republicans and true conservatives who loathe him.

I again ask, is there a better example of a narcissist out there? Would you know one if you saw one? I know one example in real life, and he exhibits the same characteristics as our president: everything is everyone's fault except his own, accepts no responsibility how his words and actions have consequences to anyone but himself, wants people to admire him at any cost. This guy I'm talking about is estranged from all of his siblings and many former friends (who I know) because he feels he has been wronged in some way be each one of them. The common denominator is that he's the victim in every situation, and everyone is being unfair to him. When I confronted him with the truth about all of his estranged relationships and him being the common factor, he replied 'think what you want'. It's not just me, though, I've talked to multiple friends, and they all agree he needs to see a professional. This guy is 40 years old, lives at home with his parents, drives their car on their gas and insurance while he pockets all the money from his job, has never met his nephew because he's angry with his sister for some offense years ago that she doesn't even know what it is because he won't tell her.

Sound familiar?

[Aseahawkfan]

What would be really interesting is if Trump wins, but the Senate flips Democrat. He might still be cooked even if he wins. Endless blocks of his policy and definite looming impeachment. That would be the most interesting outcome for the election though it would create major political instability.

[RiverDog]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Texas.html

Biden beats him in Texas right now. No democratic candidate has led ANY republican incumbent in Texas this late in the cycle in decades. Of course Biden has a long way to go till Nov 2020 and hes a gaffe machine but Trump has kind of taken the gaffe, grope thing off the table IMO. The true test of Bidens strength will be when either Warren or Sanders, likely Sanders fades away. Who will the progressive voters move to? the progressive that knocked their candidate out or the front runner?

Either way trump is exceedingly weak in most of the battlegrounds with re-elect % far below even job approval. I fail to see how these border camps, raids rounding up 100s of people at their jobs and separating them from their kids and the El Paso shooting are going to help him. I guess we will know in about 15 months.

Agreed about Biden. He's been prone to sticking his foot in his mouth for eons, his latest gaffe being that poor kids are just as smart as white kids. He also has plenty of skeletons in his closet from decades ago, including a plagiarism scandal and lying about his class standing in college. Biden seems to have put the "creepy Joe" stuff behind him and I suspect that none of his other warts will amount to much. As you indicated, compared to Trump, he looks as pure as the wind driven snow.

But the rest of the Dem candidates, except Sanders and maybe Warren, are relatively unknown to most of the public. They don't really know enough about the other 15 or so candidates like Harris, Booker, Mayor Pete, et al. If one of them win the nomination and the R's start hammering at their socialistic policies, it could have a significant effect on the numbers.

[idhawkman]

Well I'm happy to announce that the quarter I put in got three of you to go off the handle as opposed to River's quarter that you all gleefully celebrated above. You are all too funny and your nerves are exposed and raw, it only takes a tickle to get you all triggered.

You may laugh at only 44% favorable rating but remember he won with 34% and the opponent although she was also negatively rated, had much more appeal than the ones running now. It appears to be down to just 4 contenders on the dems side.

Biden - (love how you guys state he makes gaffes but when it comes to Trump, he's a liar. Hard to believe your republican bona fides coming from a liberal state like you do and holding the positions you hold but for now, I'll take your assertions with a wary eye.)

Harris - She's down to just 7% support now and only 1% among black voters. Tulsi took her out of the race pretty effectively at the last debate.

Warren - Everything is free and she's going after the banks, wall street and big business. If you think the tarrifs had an effect on the prices you pay for stuff, wait until she levies the taxes on corporations and everything else you buy. BOHICA!!!

Sanders - Same as Warren except he's screaming at the top of his lungs that she stole his platform. He's also older, male and white.

What are you all going to do when Biden wins the primary and then gets trounced by Trump or he makes a gaffe he can't recover from? Not to mention he can't capture the Warren/Sanders wing of his party.

[RiverDog]

What would be really interesting is if Trump wins, but the Senate flips Democrat. He might still be cooked even if he wins. Endless blocks of his policy and definite looming impeachment. That would be the most interesting outcome for the election though it would create major political instability.

It's very possible that the R's could lose the Senate in 2020. The same math that helped them expand their majority in the face of the "blue wave" of 2018 could come back to haunt them in the next cycle as the R's will have to defend at least 20 seats.

But it's unlikely to change anything with regards to impeachment. They would still need around 15 R Senators to give up Trump in order to get the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office. I can't see that many Senators from either party giving up a 2 term POTUS unless there was something really bad with ironclad proof.

[RiverDog]

Biden - (love how you guys state he makes gaffes but when it comes to Trump, he's a liar. Hard to believe your republican bona fides coming from a liberal state like you do and holding the positions you hold but for now, I'll take your assertions with a wary eye.)

Who said that Biden wasn't a liar? Not me. As a matter of fact, I noted his scandals from back in the '80's when he lied about his plagiarism and his college class standing. Biden admittedly suffers from what I call a benign racism, with his "poor kids are as smart as white kids" remarks being just the latest Freudian slip. Back in 2007, he described then-POTUS candidate Barak Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Speaking for the others, what we are saying is that Biden's dishonesty and racism pales in comparison to Trump's and would not pose much of a problem with moderates in a head-to-head matchup. Indeed, his association with Obama would pretty much deflects any otherwise damaging racist comments he may make and it wouldn't take much of a campaign manager to negate Biden's honesty by highlighting Trump's.

And as far as my conservative credentials go, I'm from eastern Washington, which is decidedly conservative. My Congressional district, WA-4, is currently represented by Republican Dan Newhouse and has voted for every single R candidate for POUTS since 1952 with one exception (LBJ in '64). We are every bit as red as your home state of Idaho. Besides, I don't understand what that has to do with the price of tea in China. The state/Congressional district I hail from has little of anything to do with how I formed my political opinions, nor do I see it as having any relevance in this debate.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well I'm happy to announce that the quarter I put in got three of you to go off the handle as opposed to River's quarter that you all gleefully celebrated above. You are all too funny and your nerves are exposed and raw, it only takes a tickle to get you all triggered.

You may laugh at only 44% favorable rating but remember he won with 34% and the opponent although she was also negatively rated, had much more appeal than the ones running now. It appears to be down to just 4 contenders on the dems side.

Biden - (love how you guys state he makes gaffes but when it comes to Trump, he's a liar. Hard to believe your republican bona fides coming from a liberal state like you do and holding the positions you hold but for now, I'll take your assertions with a wary eye.)

Harris - She's down to just 7% support now and only 1% among black voters. Tulsi took her out of the race pretty effectively at the last debate.

Warren - Everything is free and she's going after the banks, wall street and big business. If you think the tarrifs had an effect on the prices you pay for stuff, wait until she levies the taxes on corporations and everything else you buy. BOHICA!!!

Sanders - Same as Warren except he's screaming at the top of his lungs that she stole his platform. He's also older, male and white.

What are you all going to do when Biden wins the primary and then gets trounced by Trump or he makes a gaffe he can't recover from? Not to mention he can't capture the Warren/Sanders wing of his party.

I'm not a Republican. I'm an American, first and always. I don't claim allegiance to any party. I don't like either one for the most part. I mostly vote Republican as the lesser of two evils as they're driving us towards the cliff at a slightly slower pace, thus giving the chance to fix things. And at least they aren't fully invested in identity politics, PC culture, and the culture of pseudo-science fueled trash economic policies and racist liberal white-guilt social policies they put into law.

The Republicans have pretty much sold us out to corporate interests and their wealthy plan to make sure they're protected while the rest of us are screwed when the country goes bankrupt from both parties economic policies which seen to consist of keep borrowing until we can't anymore, then blow it all up while the wealthy keep their assets and money.

It's not real great to be part of either party right now.

[I-5]

Is there any gaffe possibly worse than saying he believes Putin at his word while openly questioning our own intelligence information in front of the world...then saying the NEXT day that he meant the exact opposite?

[RiverDog]

Is there any gaffe possibly worse than saying he believes Putin at his word while openly questioning our own intelligence information in front of the world...then saying the NEXT day that he meant the exact opposite?

Who's going to pay for the wall?

[Hawktawk]

It wasn’t a gaffe. He’s been defending Vlad from day one . Mof candidate trump responded to
Bill oreilly saying Putin was a killer by throwing our military under the bus “ we have a lot of killers” . And i
don’t think his denial of interference has much to do with defending the legitimacy of his election.he welcomed the interference and as bad a candidate as he faced its likely the thing that elected him. He defends Putin because he knows what Putin has on him which is plenty .

Can anyone truly imagine what 5 more years of this senile inept wanna be despot would mean for America ?

[idhawkman]

Who said that Biden wasn't a liar? Not me.

Your lack of understanding the written word is getting very tiresome River. I said when Biden mis-speaks you call it a gaffe but when Trump mis-speaks you call him a liar. I made no assertions of if you think Biden is a liar or not. (heavy sigh)

As a matter of fact, I noted his scandals from back in the '80's when he lied about his plagiarism and his college class standing. Biden admittedly suffers from what I call a benign racism, with his "poor kids are as smart as white kids" remarks being just the latest Freudian slip. Back in 2007, he described then-POTUS candidate Barak Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Speaking for the others, what we are saying is that Biden's dishonesty and racism pales in comparison to Trump's and would not pose much of a problem with moderates in a head-to-head matchup. Indeed, his association with Obama would pretty much deflects any otherwise damaging racist comments he may make and it wouldn't take much of a campaign manager to negate Biden's honesty by highlighting Trump's.

All of this is irrelevant to the conversation we were having. I do reject that his Obama ties will protect him from the racist claims though. "IF" he was to get the 90%+ negative coverage from MSM for 4 years like Trump has gotten he'd be run out of town by now by his own party.

And as far as my conservative credentials go, I'm from eastern Washington, which is decidedly conservative. My Congressional district, WA-4, is currently represented by Republican Dan Newhouse and has voted for every single R candidate for POUTS since 1952 with one exception (LBJ in '64). We are every bit as red as your home state of Idaho. Besides, I don't understand what that has to do with the price of tea in China. The state/Congressional district I hail from has little of anything to do with how I formed my political opinions, nor do I see it as having any relevance in this debate.

I highlighted the last sentence because you make my case for me. Your district may be conservative but your positions and what you are willing to do to comprise those positions puts your Bona Fides into question. It has nothing to do with how your district votes or what the District's Bona Fides are.