Jump to content

Presidential Debates 2020


B-Man

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Or they might just be hoping the story dies out for lack of attention from the mainstream media.

 

Ummm, your opinion is that they immediately put out a denial that didn't actually deny that the Burisma guy met w/ the VP rather than putting out an ACTUAL denial because they're hoping the story fades out? :huh:

 

Don't suppose you have a reason for why a non-denial is better than a flat out denial IF the VP truly never met with the guy?

 

Especially when we know it was the VP's threat to withhold loan guarantees that got the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because the VP bragged about it and there is video evidence of him braggi g about it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Ummm, your opinion is that they immediately put out a denial that didn't actually deny that the Burisma guy met w/ the VP rather than putting out an ACTUAL denial because they're hoping the story fades out? :huh:

 

Don't suppose you have a reason for why a non-denial is better than a flat out denial IF the VP truly never met with the guy?

 

Especially when we know it was the VP's threat to withhold loan guarantees that got the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because the VP bragged about it and there is video evidence of him braggi g about it.

He's stone cold dim and corrupt. If Biden had an R after his name the mainstream media would have destroyed him a dozen times over before he even sniffed the nomination. But since they are actually partisans that will promote hoaxes as impeachable offenses while ignoring treasonous coup attempts and calling actual criminal behavior hoaxes and conspiracy theories of al-right racist bigots, what you get is radio silence, censorship, and what's your favorite color townhalls for Creepy Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/on-hunter-biden-remember-the-real-story

 

This strikes me as a fair account and demand that certain questions be asked without jumping to conclusions.

 

For example, the statement referred only to Biden's "official schedules." There could not have been some sort of unofficial introduction, could there? And the statement said that no meeting "as alleged by the New York Post" ever took place. There could not have been some sort of introduction that did not fit the allegation in the New York Post, could there? Certainly the Biden campaign would not make a lawyerly, evasive statement like that, would it?

The answer is not clear. Especially after Politico reported: "Biden's campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment."

Oh. That reporting, if accurate, made the situation a bit murkier. Perhaps there had been an "informal" interaction between the elder Biden and Pozharskyi, but it would just have been "cursory." In other words, the New York Post article, banned by social media, denounced by many journalists, might be accurate.

They shouldn't have censored the article, but didn't they already do an investigation into this??  It's not like that email is the smoking gun they're trying to pretend it is.  I mean honestly, does anyone think that will lead to anything that they haven't already looked into?  If anything the only jar of worms it opened was the the way it was discovered.  I'm sure the FBI has some questions about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Considering the campaign still has yet, 3 days later, to make an actual denial denial, rather than their non-denial denial; the odds increase that the story is accurate.

 

Which would increase the likelihood the info on the laptop is legit, which would be very bad for the former VP as that doesn't seem to be the most damning thing on the laptop.

 

That's a dangerous game to play.  By that logic, Trump has yet to denounce the russia paying to kill american soldiers info so it must be true.

 

It's october every news story on both sides needs to be taken with a boulder of salt.  The laptop story is certainly more than a little fishy and doesn't pass the smell test at all.  Doesn't mean it isn't true just means that barring actual evidence, I'm not buying it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

That's a dangerous game to play.  By that logic, Trump has yet to denounce the russia paying to kill american soldiers info so it must be true.

 

It's october every news story on both sides needs to be taken with a boulder of salt.  The laptop story is certainly more than a little fishy and doesn't pass the smell test at all.  Doesn't mean it isn't true just means that barring actual evidence, I'm not buying it.  

 

No.  There have been myriad people in the military that have looked into the allegations about Russian bounties and said there is no credible evidence of the bounties being offered.  

 

Your comparison is one of apples to outboard motor propellers.

 

Biden's camp came out with a VERY qualified denial of the story immediately when the story came out.  If he really didn't meet with the guy, why say it wasn't on his schedule rather than he didn't meet with him?   Why not simply say he didn't meet with him? 

 

Why did Biden lash out at the CBS reporter that asked him about it without answering the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

No.  There have been myriad people in the military that have looked into the allegations about Russian bounties and said there is no credible evidence of the bounties being offered.  

 

Your comparison is one of apples to outboard motor propellers.

 

Biden's camp came out with a VERY qualified denial of the story immediately when the story came out.  If he really didn't meet with the guy, why say it wasn't on his schedule rather than he didn't meet with him?   Why not simply say he didn't meet with him? 

 

Why did Biden lash out at the CBS reporter that asked him about it without answering the question?

If it was indeed a cursory meeting that happened 6 years ago it would become a got ya game.  As vp do you think he would remember every single person he shook hands with?  Saying he never met him, someone producing a photo of the 2 shaking hands, and he has egg on his face.  Do you think a quick hand shaking would probe something nefarious?  Of course not.  However a denial followed by a picture would be an incredibly bad look.

 

There is a legally blind gentleman who "is pretty sure" it was Hunter Biden.  Have you looked at the information?  It raises more questions than answers.   

 

Are republicans really gonna fall for the same thing the dems did last election cycle?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Gee, so sorry we didn't have time to cover National Security nor Leadership because the Climate Change discussion ran long.

 

Any bets on how quickly she gets off of "American Families" after 45 continues to bring up the story of a particular American family from Delaware?  Maybe they will have time for Leadership after all.  (Pretty sure National Security gets dropped as quickly as American Families does.)

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, section122 said:

If it was indeed a cursory meeting that happened 6 years ago it would become a got ya game.  As vp do you think he would remember every single person he shook hands with?  Saying he never met him, someone producing a photo of the 2 shaking hands, and he has egg on his face.  Do you think a quick hand shaking would probe something nefarious?  Of course not.  However a denial followed by a picture would be an incredibly bad look.

 

There is a legally blind gentleman who "is pretty sure" it was Hunter Biden.  Have you looked at the information?  It raises more questions than answers.   

 

Are republicans really gonna fall for the same thing the dems did last election cycle?

 

 

I have half a mind to run with this shaky story for 4 whole years, no matter what the special investigator that Biden appoints tells me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2020 at 2:58 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

Economy was debated in debate 1. 

 

Plus the major wall street players are saying the economy will be better with a Blue Wave so this probably helps Trump.

 

If I was moderator and economy was the topic, my first question to trump is why did you tweet for Congress to stop working on a stimulus package to help the economy and instead focus on the Supreme Court?

Edited by Backintheday544
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 10/19/2020 at 11:01 PM, Backintheday544 said:

 

Economy was debated in debate 1. 

 

Plus the major wall street players are saying the economy will be better with a Blue Wave so this probably helps Trump.

 

If I was moderator and economy was the topic, my first question to trump is why did you tweet for Congress to stop working on a stimulus package to help the economy and instead focus on the Supreme Court?

That would be mine too and then ask why you backpedaled almost immediately?  I'd also ask him about the decline in manufacturing jobs even before the pandemic hit under his watch when he promised to bring them back.

 

The hardest question for Biden would be "IF ACB is confirmed what is your stance on Court packing and the filibuster?  The American people deserve to know before voting."  If he refuses to directly answer the question then Trump should make that point like he did at the last debate.  I just assume any Hunter Biden questions will be answered by Joe as a desperate attempt for Trump to try and smear him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

That would be mine too and then ask why you backpedaled almost immediately?  I'd also ask him about the decline in manufacturing jobs even before the pandemic hit under his watch when he promised to bring them back.

 

The hardest question for Biden would be "IF ACB is confirmed what is your stance on Court packing and the filibuster?  The American people deserve to know before voting."  If he refuses to directly answer the question then Trump should make that point like he did at the last debate.  I just assume any Hunter Biden questions will be answered by Joe as a desperate attempt for Trump to try and smear him.


I would ask if he could expand on antifa being just an idea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

That would be mine too and then ask why you backpedaled almost immediately?  I'd also ask him about the decline in manufacturing jobs even before the pandemic hit under his watch when he promised to bring them back.

 

The hardest question for Biden would be "IF ACB is confirmed what is your stance on Court packing and the filibuster?  The American people deserve to know before voting."  If he refuses to directly answer the question then Trump should make that point like he did at the last debate.  I just assume any Hunter Biden questions will be answered by Joe as a desperate attempt for Trump to try and smear him.

 

I've disagreed with another poster on whose fault it was to go to simple majority to confirm a SC Justice. 

 

The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote).  In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

 

When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.

 

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=365722&p=2471070

 

Mitch McConnell was Senate Majority Leader when nuclear option for SC confirmation was passed in 2017 at the behest of Trump. 

Without needing a bipartisan 60 votes to confirm a SC nominee , 51 vote majority can confirm the SC court nominee, will be 3 judges in Trump's first term

 

 In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. 

 


Convince me the nuclear option for SC confirmation was the fault of Harry Reid. If the democrats take the WH and Senate this election it is very likely they will increase the SC to 11 or 13. I blame McConnell and Trump if that happens.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...