Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts


Trump is trying to set the table for his upcoming poor performance.  Previously his staff said Biden is a skilled debater (even though I thought they said he was senile and sleepy before:dunno), Now he pro-actively blaming Chris Wallace for hard questions to Trump and easy questions for Joe.  

For a 'tough guy' (so he likes to think of himself that way) why is he always whinning about how 'unfair' it is?  The guy had all of the advantages of life and uses the 'unfair' tag as a means to cover up his own insecurities and incompetence.   Blame others so people can see your failures. 


https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-attacks-chris-wallace-ahead-of-2020-debate-hell-be-controlled-by-the-radical-left/

Quote

 

On Thursday, President Donald Trump tore into Chris Wallace by preemptively claiming the Fox News anchor won’t be fair to him next week when he moderates the first 2020 debate between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.

Brian Kilmeade spoke to Trump on his radio show and he asked what role the president thinks Wallace will serve as he presides over the debate. Trump answered by bragging about his TV ratings, claimed Wallace likes him because of the ratings he brings during their interviews, and then he said “I would be willing to bet he won’t ask Biden tough questions.”

“He’ll ask me tough questions and it’ll be unfair, I have no doubt about it,” Trump said. “But he’ll be controlled by the radical left. They control him.”

After Trump went on with some boasts, Kilmeade pushed back and told the president “I will tell you for sure, [Chris Wallace] is not controlled by anyone.”

“Then he’s got to ask tough questions of Biden,” Trump retorted. He went on by complaining he received harder questions than what Hillary Clinton got during their debates in 2016.

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that there would be an "orderly" transition of power in 2021, after President Trump refused to commit to a peaceful hand off of power if he loses in November. 

"The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," McConnell said in a tweet.  

 

 

 

i believe the key is  nov. 3rd.   they are counting on an early lead and discounting the mail in ballots that get counted later.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, commando said:

i believe the key is  nov. 3rd.   they are counting on an early lead and discounting the mail in ballots that get counted later.

 

Agreed that is the strategy. So, the answer is to make sure enough of the 48+million voters that didn't bother in 2016 get to the polls. 

Link to comment

5 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Thursday that there would be an "orderly" transition of power in 2021, after President Trump refused to commit to a peaceful hand off of power if he loses in November. 

"The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792," McConnell said in a tweet.  

 

 

 

 

So the RS won't boycott the Inauguration and the celebration of 230 years of peaceful transition of power?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Impeach him again.  It doesn’t sound all that crazy now does it?  Trump knows if he loses, he may eventually be imprisoned as a result of his legal troubles.  Another four and a slanted SCOTUS buys him time.   Possibly enough for statute of limitations to expire.   He will stop at nothing to “win” this election.   Undermining the upcoming election is reason enough for impeachment.  

 

If he's in his second term with a Republican Senate it won't matter a whit.

 

Democrats really screwed up the first time. They treated it like a legal case and Ukraine as provable treason. It's not a legal case, with no legal burden. You just need to establish why the man is unfit for the office. 

 

Here's how I would have proceeded with my Impeachment Hearings:

 

DAY ONE:  Donald Trump is a Security Risk. This would feature an impressive stable of military and intelligence leaders, including some of Trump's own appointees, detailing the President's lack of discretion, classified security leaks, refusal to read briefings, and business connections to unsavory foreign operatives. Putin and Ukraine would merely be a subset. Undeniable conclusion: he's an ignorant braggart and loose cannon in charge of America's arsenal.

 

DAY TWO:  Donald Trump and the Emoluments Clause. Is the President and his extended family privately profiting from his Presidency?  Undeniable conclusion: Yes. All over the place. In clear examples that would gall any taxpayer.

 

DAY THREE: Donald Trump and American Civics.  Is the President dismantling America's system of checks and balances to protect his power, or simply out of spite?  Americans haven't really been walked through this. Undeniable conclusion: the Founder Fathers did what they did to protect America from Donald Trump.

 

DAY FOUR:  Donald Trump's People:  From Bob Barr, to Betsy DeVos, to judicial appointments who never tried a legal case, Donald Trump has brought in people wildly unqualified for the job, and/or an agenda to undermine the agency they head up. His attrition rate is disturbing. Appointees who left are trying to warn us about him. Appointees still in the job command little respect. Undeniable conclusion: the very cornerstones of America are being run by people based on their loyalty to Trump, tested by their willingness to subvert public will and established regulation to serve the President's personal interests.

 

Add up one through four and you have the worst man for America, at the worst possible time. 

 

(If I had a Day Five I'd just have someone read the man's most ludicrous tweets into the record) 

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

If he's in his second term with a Republican Senate it won't matter a whit.

 

Democrats really screwed up the first time. They treated it like a legal case and Ukraine as provable treason. It's not a legal case, with no legal burden. You just need to establish why the man is unfit for the office. 

 

Here's how I would have proceeded with my Impeachment Hearings:

 

DAY ONE:  Donald Trump is a Security Risk. This would feature an impressive stable of military and intelligence leaders, including some of Trump's own appointees, detailing the President's lack of discretion, classified security leaks, refusal to read briefings, and business connections to unsavory foreign operatives. Putin and Ukraine would merely be a subset. Undeniable conclusion: he's an ignorant braggart and loose cannon in charge of America's arsenal.

 

DAY TWO:  Donald Trump and the Emoluments Clause. Is the President and his extended family privately profiting from his Presidency?  Undeniable conclusion: Yes. All over the place. In clear examples that would gall any taxpayer.

 

DAY THREE: Donald Trump and American Civics.  Is the President dismantling America's system of checks and balances to protect his power, or simply out of spite?  Americans haven't really been walked through this. Undeniable conclusion: the Founder Fathers did what they did to protect America from Donald Trump.

 

DAY FOUR:  Donald Trump's People:  From Bob Barr, to Betsy DeVos, to judicial appointments who never tried a legal case, Donald Trump has brought in people wildly unqualified for the job, and/or an agenda to undermine the agency they head up. His attrition rate is disturbing. Appointees who left are trying to warn us about him. Appointees still in the job command little respect. Undeniable conclusion: the very cornerstones of America are being run by people based on their loyalty to Trump, tested by their willingness to subvert public will and established regulation to serve the President's personal interests.

 

Add up one through four and you have the worst man for America, at the worst possible time. 

 

(If I had a Day Five I'd just have someone read the man's most ludicrous tweets into the record) 

fox news and the republicans would have said.."so?"

Link to comment

1 hour ago, commando said:

i believe the only people who would think that is bad would be trumpers

Really? My thoughts went to asking why Joe "temporarily suspends" his campaign appearnces this morning, and now we learn that Kamala will be campaigning with Barack next week...gives the R's a lot of fodder for speculation 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...