Cancel The Presidential Debates - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15106242
Heisenberg wrote:Couldn't disagree more with the OP. The presidential debates are literally the only thing I actually want to see in this disaster of an election.

Two senile old men yelling incomprehensible bullshit at each other for 90 minutes at a time? Biden telling a folksy story about pick-up baseball in Delaware, followed immediately by randomly challenging Trump to a push-up contest? Trump gripping the podium for dear life, slurring his words and drinking a glass of water with two hands, like a very weird malfunctioning robot? Pump that shit directly into my veins, please.

America needs Trump vs Biden debates, just so it can be allowed to grasp the true scale of the fuckup that led to these oafs competing for the presidency.

American democracy is what has led to where we are. It is not perfect, but it is definitely better than socialism and communism.
#15106249
Biden is a poor speaker, mainly because is a verbal gaffe machine. He says the dumbest stuff all the time, which is why Obama hid him from microphones for 8 years.

They should have the debates. Everyone's solution to people they don't like to listen to is to censor them. I'm no Trump fan but i'm tired of this cancel culture horseshit. If someone doesn't like what someone has to say, then turn the channel or whatever, stop trying to censor people or get them fired or whatever. Nobody is forcing you to listen, so stop trying force people to shut up. I'm so tired of this shit.

I grew up in a world where my generation had to fight censorship constantly from prude conservatives in music, movies, TV, and other art forms, and now I'm fighting the censorship tyrants again but now from the left-wingers. All of you little tyrant wannabes on the right and left please fuck right off.
#15106252
Hindsite wrote:I believe you are exactly right on all points. And that is just getting started. I understand Trump wants six debates, but Biden has only said he would do three.

I think three is fine, and one VP debate.

Hindsite wrote:Now I bet his campaign is trying to figure out a way to get out of any debates.

I'm sure that's what they're hoping. Biden's debates in the primaries were lackluster at best. Maybe his condition has gotten worse. That's not clear to me yet, but if he put on performances like he did in the primaries, I don't think he'd fare well against Trump. That much is obvious.

Hindsite wrote:This is the whole point of of this call by jimjam to cancel Presidential debates.

@jimjam is just parroting what Thomas Friedman said in an op-ed in the New York Times. As we all know now, the media and the DNC coordinate their moves. So Friedman didn't write this out of the blue. He wrote it at the direction of the DNC. So they either want out of the debates, or they want a format where the "moderators" can criticize Trump the whole time.

Hindsite wrote:The Dems are scared Biden will make too many so-called gaffes because of his dementia.

Biden has always been one to put his foot in his mouth. The dementia is just making it worse. If it's lewy body dementia, maybe they're concerned that he'll act out. For example, he's confronted voters and called them full of shit, damn liar, dog-faced pony soldier and stuff. In front of an audience of 20M+ people, that's going to be an issue. Frankly, this is getting weirder than the Hillary Clinton campaign, as Biden seems to leave his house less than I do, and I pretty much only go to the store or to my houseboat. He's running for president.

Code Rood wrote:People with a lick of common sense don't really watch this theatre filled with empty slogans and promises anyhow.

They usually draw a good 20M people, sometimes more.

Code Rood wrote:Intelligent people take a peak behind the curtain to see who is pulling the strings here.

Intelligent people have already made up their minds. It's people who are of a more visceral disposition, whose feelings and impressions inform their thoughts as much as the other way around, that are swayable.

jimjam wrote:This was not a serious "debate" of issues. It fell into the realm that Obese Donald specializes in …… entertainment for morons.

For you, it wasn't. For evangelical voters, they got to hear Hillary defend partial birth abortion. That's not even a controversial topic for you, but it's a life and death issue and a deeply religious and spiritual issue for a lot of voters.

Finfinder wrote:This is just the excuse they have been waiting for, as they know they have a complete shit candidate for the second time in a row.

Well, Trump probably remembers more of what Biden said during the primaries than Biden. That gives Trump a tactical advantage and he can make Biden look like a liar or a fool over the long run by running ads about what he said before and then what he denied saying, changed what he said, or whatever bullshit he comes up with. A politician on his feet can do this type of thing well. Biden has seen better days.

XogGyux wrote:Even with Clinton's numerous character flaws about 2M more Americans supporter her than bunker bitch :lol: .

Will you be laughing out loud if Biden runs up the score in California by millions of votes, but still loses to Trump?

XogGyux wrote:Simply put, there is nothing to gain for Biden, strategically I don't see a point for him to do so.

That's a tacit admission that Biden cannot land a punch on Trump in a debate.

JohnRawls wrote:The only thing that Biden needs to do durring those debates is just say some basic things that everyone knows while Trump will just rant on like Trump usually rants on.

You have to understand swing voters and single-issue voters. Biden has come out for seizing people's AR-15s, for example. Trump can simply say that's what Biden is for, and Biden can either respond or not. For a single-issue voter on the second amendment, it will make a difference. For a single issue voter on abortion, it's a similar issue. That hurt Hillary Clinton a lot more than the establishment understands, because they do not take abortion seriously at all. So they do not understand that many people were absolutely horrified to hear Hillary Clinton defend partial birth abortion.

Beren wrote:Having debates favours Trump simply because Biden leads in the polls and good debate performances could help him change that.

That's conventional wisdom. Biden is more or less in hiding. Generic candidates do better against definitive candidates in polling. Once you put people down to one policy or another, the polls shift. Everyone knows where Trump stands. Biden is a bit of a mystery, because a lot of voters do not pay attention during the primaries.

Beren wrote:People talk like debates are decisive, although they're not, and Trump's appearance in televised debates will rile up his fans the same as his haters, regardless of Biden's performance.

Debates don't move party loyalists. They move independent and undecided voters. That's actually the largest voting bloc in the United States now.

Godstud wrote:It is very hard to fake voting by mail, and the penalties are excessive and are an exceptional deterrent(up to 5 years sentence).

What if they come in from China or Russia (gulp)?

Godstud wrote:The real fact of the matter is that you, and Trump, both know that the more people who vote, the less likely Trump will be elected.

That's conventional wisdom too. Trump turned out a lot of voters who had given up on politics--people who hadn't voted in years. That's why he was able to collapse the so-called blue wall. Yet, Hillary--unless you think it was voter fraud--did a fantastic job in places like California. The more people who vote that were disillusioned until Trump came along and raised their spirits, the more likely Trump is to win. Presidential elections are not popular elections. You have to win the electoral college.

Heisenberg wrote:Couldn't disagree more with the OP. The presidential debates are literally the only thing I actually want to see in this disaster of an election.

They are telegraphing their fears. Otherwise, they'd be having you believe that after watching a full season of baseball or football, they've decided to pass on the World Series or the Super Bowl. Not a chance.
#15106258
blackjack21 wrote:Will you be laughing out loud if Biden runs up the score in California by millions of votes, but still loses to Trump?

You misunderstand why the laugh. It is not that she lost but rather than the crazy supporters somehow think Trump has wide support. That is funny because it was never true. Sure, you have edged by less than 100k votes where it mattered but if you think about it, the alignment of planets that made that happen was quite exquisite. Could it happen again, yes and that is why everyone needs to vote! But judging on all the elections for congress/governor/local since then and the fact that Trump is the most inept president ever, the chances of that happening again are pretty low. But hey do as much fear mongering as you please, the more the better, the more scared the "left" are the more likely they will come out to vote. So here, let me help you Trump 2020, he will win...

That's a tacit admission that Biden cannot land a punch on Trump in a debate.

Actually that has nothing to do with Biden... or Trump for that matter. It is a reflection of the electorate, in particular Trump supporters.
They, you, are in a cult, debating the cult leader is in no way going to change his supporter's mind.
On the other hand, even a stellar performance by Biden could very well turn off a couple of the ultra progressives that wouldn't vote for him because he doesn't go as far as Bernie.
If the electorate would follow reason, I'd be the first to ask for as many debates as possible, although that wouldn't be necessary because Trump would have no chance anyway. But since they are just going to keep idolizing the demagogue moron... I don't see any reason why this guy should get any more TV time than he is already getting. He should go golfing and let the grown-ups handle governing.
#15106262
XogGyux wrote:It is not that she lost but rather than the crazy supporters somehow think Trump has wide support. That is funny because it was never true.

He does have wide support. That's exactly what the electoral college does--it gives greater representation to less populated states. If you look at it on a county-by-county basis, the map looks decisively red. The Democrats are an urban party. They don't have widespread support anymore. They have huge, but narrow support in urban areas.

XogGyux wrote:Sure, you have edged by less than 100k votes where it mattered but if you think about it, the alignment of planets that made that happen was quite exquisite. Could it happen again, yes and that is why everyone needs to vote!

You need low turnout among working class whites, not high turnout, in order for Biden to win.

XogGyux wrote:But judging on all the elections for congress/governor/local since then and the fact that Trump is the most inept president ever, the chances of that happening again are pretty low.

Democrats lost some races they could have won. It's not all pretty. It's not all pretty for the Republicans either though. Trump has set a new standard for the party, and voters want their members to fight the culture war as well as vote in Congress. That's not something many of them want to do. They aren't adroit at it, and the Democrats are highly skilled. That's why it's even possible for Trump to win and lose seats in the House and Senate.

XogGyux wrote:They, you, are in a cult, debating the cult leader is in no way going to change his supporter's mind.

I'm pretty single issue on the matter--keep the neoliberals/neoconservatives out of the White House. That's why it wouldn't have bothered me if Sanders had won. Biden means more warfare and globalism. Trump is gone in 6 months or 4 years and 6 months. If he's gone in 6 months, that means the neoliberals/neoconservatives won again, and it means more war and globalism whether you like it or not.
#15106291
blackjack21 wrote:Debates don't move party loyalists. They move independent and undecided voters. That's actually the largest voting bloc in the United States now.

However, undecided and independent voters are not so much interested in watching debates and they're also less likely to vote anyway. In my opinion presidential debates exist mostly because of the media, not because they have real influence on people. They're political shows televised at the very height of the political season.
#15106299
In a way you've got to admire the Democrats. Some of us always wondered do these Conservatives really care about States rights and then they invented DOMA and then we knew they were lying hypocrites. My attitude has been crystal clear ever since, its over that's it, I won't be listening to any more lectures by Conservatives on States rights. Same with traditional sexual morality, once Ronald Reagan introduced no fault divorce it was over, no more lectures on traditional morality and responsibility.

Of course it was the same when it came to "character." Conservatives were for ever whining on about the importance of character. The great thing about Trump is we never again have to listen to a Conservative whinging on about character. With hindsight Trump was a brilliant choice. Because of his refusal to make even a pretence of truthfulness. It made it very difficult to hold him to account for anything. Or I should say even more difficult than politicians BT (before Trump). People, quite possibly including myself, thought this lack of integrity would be a disadvantage when actually it was an advantage.

Anyway I'm starting to wonder if selecting Biden isn't a brilliant move by the Democrats. How can you hold someone to account whose got dementia? If Republicans insist on trying to put Biden, an old man with seemingly quite serious dementia thorough the debates, it will only make them look cruel and heartless. :lol: The Democrats. Now I might be completely wrong about this, but I do wonder if choosing Biden will prove to be the Democrats Pawn to C4.
#15106304
blackjack21 wrote:He does have wide support. That's exactly what the electoral college does--it gives greater representation to less populated states.

You do realize this is a contradiction right? Basically you are saying that the electoral college gives more power to fewer people. In essence, you are destroying your own point.

If you look at it on a county-by-county basis, the map looks decisively red.

Except the government represents PEOPLE and not land.

Democrats lost some races they could have won. It's not all pretty. It's not all pretty for the Republicans either though. Trump has set a new standard for the party, and voters want their members to fight the culture war as well as vote in Congress. That's not something many of them want to do. They aren't adroit at it, and the Democrats are highly skilled. That's why it's even possible for Trump to win and lose seats in the House and Senate.

Dude, republicans have gotten the biggest ass-kicking in the last 2 years. Fucking Kentucky got a Democratic governor now, and apparently with good approval given Covid and stance on Obamacare/health insurance. This essentially puts doubt into the poison that you are trying to sell.
They didn't win every single tough race? Wow that's the best you can do? :lol:

I'm pretty single issue on the matter--keep the neoliberals/neoconservatives out of the White House. That's why it wouldn't have bothered me if Sanders had won. Biden means more warfare and globalism. Trump is gone in 6 months or 4 years and 6 months. If he's gone in 6 months, that means the neoliberals/neoconservatives won again, and it means more war and globalism whether you like it or not.

What a coincidence. I am pretty single issue on the matter as well-- Keep retarded incompetent people out of the Whitehouse. :lol:
#15106355
blackjack21 wrote:@jimjam is just parroting what Thomas Friedman said in an op-ed in the New York Times.

You allude to "parroting" as if it somehow renders null and void the substance of the concept being placed in circulation. When I see an idea worthy of public scrutiny I don't hesitate to parrot. Remember when you considered the idea of 1,000,000 members of the Red Beanie Brigade swarming to get entry to the Trumpfest In Tulsa worthy of public scrutiny and you "parroted" none other than Don The Con hisself? :lol: BTW it's good to see you reading Freidman ….. he is even more brilliant than you or your boy Rush Limberg who, of course, would never consider coordinating his propaganda with the RNC .

blackjack21 wrote:a format where the "moderators" can criticize Trump the whole time.


Lessee here ……. I guess pointing out Obese Donald's endless barrage of lies is, it seems, "criticizing". God forbid we should inject an element of truth into Don The Con's M.O. …….. he may well get a heart attack and his base of morons would become confused. :lol: .
#15106388
XogGyux wrote:Blah blah. Even with Clinton's numerous character flaws about 2M more Americans supporter her than bunker bitch :lol: .
Actually, it is not "up to democrats", it is up to Biden/Trump to make the decisions.
Simply put, there is nothing to gain for Biden, strategically I don't see a point for him to do so. Whether or not he decides to go ahead it is up to him.
I am not so sure Trump wants either... yeah yeah he claims he wants a bizillion debates... same way he said he would release his taxes and same way that he said he would allow people to testify and same way he said he would get affordable insurance to all Americans, the same way he said he would build a wall.. Blah blah blah, lots of talking no action, that is his motto, and when he does any action, is against the american people such as gassing them :lol: .
He is not sincere about having any debate. He does want cameras and attention. As far as I am concerned, he already got far too much of that.


Another long winded excuse for the Democrat nominating for the second election cycle a completely crooked shit candidate. The point is your political analysis couldn't be more wrong and it seems the left hasn't learned anything. Hardly impressive that Clinton won the popular vote by the state of California alone. What is amazing is that despite the fact Clinton colluded with Russia, the media, the NSA CIA and FBI, rigged the primary election and debate, and still all you can claim is Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million which can be acccounted for in the state of California.

The country does not agree with Democrat policy, that is why the Democrats cannot govern unless they lie cheat or rig the system. They can't win with Biden and a ploicy debate, that is why they will cancel the debate and more than likely try to postpone the election.
#15106419
XogGyux wrote:Basically you are saying that the electoral college gives more power to fewer people. In essence, you are destroying your own point.

When you preside over a vast territory, it makes sense to ensure you have widespread political support over geographic regions, not just in population centers. If you don't do that, you end up with rulers that have no understanding or willingness to understand the less populated areas that may be crucial to the nation--like the areas that provide your people with food. To address that against the popular will, countries without federated systems end up with dictators like Russia or China. A representative republic is preferable.

XogGyux wrote:Except the government represents PEOPLE and not land.

It was designed to represent states too, not just people. Senators are SUPPOSED to represent their states. That was how the Senate was designed. The progressives pushed for senators to win office by popular vote so they could enact progressive policies. Territory is represented too. That's why we have a system of bicameral legislatures.

XogGyux wrote:Dude, republicans have gotten the biggest ass-kicking in the last 2 years.

:roll: Establishment candidates are losing. That's a good thing.

XogGyux wrote:Fucking Kentucky got a Democratic governor now, and apparently with good approval given Covid and stance on Obamacare/health insurance.

The Republican candidate pissed off people surrounding education. Every other Republican statewide candidate won in Kentucky.

XogGyux wrote:They didn't win every single tough race? Wow that's the best you can do? :lol:

Every place run by Democrats right now is doing far worse than places run by Republicans, given their Wuhan coronavirus response. Look at the states with the highest unemployment rates.

XogGyux wrote:I am pretty single issue on the matter as well-- Keep retarded incompetent people out of the Whitehouse. :lol:

I guess you'll have to sit this one out then.

jimjam wrote:BTW it's good to see you reading Freidman ….. he is even more brilliant than you

I rarely read Friedman. Stopped in the early 2000s when he was explaining e-commerce and workflow engines in a book that was at least two years behind the times. His "role" in the establishment is to explain things that happened to people who don't understand technology, driving and restraining forces, etc. So he "explains" things to the masses. Hence, he's a bit of a bore to me.

Finfinder wrote:The country does not agree with Democrat policy, that is why the Democrats cannot govern unless they lie cheat or rig the system.

They can't even govern when the win office, as is evident in Seattle and Washington state, Portland and Oregon, Minneapolis and Minnesota, Chicago and Illinois; San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles and the State of California; or, New York City and New York State. Heck, in California, the governor banned 4th of July fireworks and people just ignored him--even the cops. Democrat run jurisdictions are a complete basket case right now.
#15106429
blackjack21 wrote:When you preside over a vast territory, it makes sense to ensure you have widespread political support over geographic regions, not just in population centers. If you don't do that, you end up with rulers that have no understanding or willingness to understand the less populated areas that may be crucial to the nation--like the areas that provide your people with food. To address that against the popular will, countries without federated systems end up with dictators like Russia or China. A representative republic is preferable.

That problem is solved by the fact that people live there and people are represented.
If you support democracy, then there is no logic/valid argument that you could possibly make against being the people, rather than land, that makes the decisions (via proxy of representatives).

If you are OK with billionaires buying a few million acres of desert or jungle or ice in order to ensure an oligarchy let me know.
You are just stuck defending a system that makes no sense because you correctly perceive that your "team" doesn't stand a chance if it is done as it is supposed to be done in a democratic system.
Furthermore, your logic is flawed, because if your system was tailored so that those poorly populated areas would be properly represented... then when your "team" won... those people that live in those areas would have had politicians advocating in favor of their interests... So... how are US farmers doing under Trump? I heard soybeans is not doing too hot, dairy farmers not doing great either and this year many have had to actually destroy their crops due to the pandemic.

So not only you are defending a system that is not democratic, but the conclusion that you claim that your system leads to is evidently erroneous.
You are wrong, squared.

:roll: Establishment candidates are losing. That's a good thing.

Blah blah. Keep dancing on the edge. I warned you before, you are risking the wealth and influence of our country.

The Republican candidate pissed off people surrounding education. Every other Republican statewide candidate won in Kentucky.

LOL that is not a surprise. The real surprise is a democrat winning major office in a red state. It seems that a lot of republicans are pissing off people all around the country :lol: .

Every place run by Democrats right now is doing far worse than places run by Republicans, given their Wuhan coronavirus response. Look at the states with the highest unemployment rates.

Funny you should say that when FL, Texas, and Arizona have become the hotspots for the virus :lol: . Nobody was surprised when the highly populated states with large international airports were the first/hardest hit early on. But this.... this shit right now could have been avoided or at the very least mitigated. Tulsa is turning out to have been an awful decision. Politically it exposed your moron's lack of enthusiasm and out of touch with reality. In exchange for that very obvious and televised failure, Tulsa is seeing a surge in cases which will cost the life of their citizens.... all for a big embarrassment to Trump. Seems like a bad deal to me.... if you are going to sacrifice human lives for a performance... at least make it a good performance, not one where half the stadium is empty and have to cancel have the performance. :lol: Ideally don't do the whole thing and kill people though. It was such a failure that it seems that FL might be re-thinking their stance on the convention. Some republicans already said they wouldn't attend so there is that.
#15106440
blackjack21 wrote:So he "explains" things to the masses. Hence, he's a bit of a bore to me.


I can see where Freidman would make you a bit nervous. You and Hindsite had best stick with Rush Limberg.
Last edited by jimjam on 09 Jul 2020 23:14, edited 1 time in total.
#15106447
XogGyux wrote:
Dude, republicans have gotten the biggest ass-kicking in the last 2 years. Fucking Kentucky got a Democratic governor now, and apparently with good approval given Covid and stance on Obamacare/health insurance. This essentially puts doubt into the poison that you are trying to sell.
They didn't win every single tough race? Wow that's the best you can do? :lol:


Again your political analysis is really uninspiring if not completely inaccurate.This is an ass kickling

Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama

The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure.

The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.

The latter was perhaps the most profound example of Obama's popularity failing to translate to support for his allies. Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, brought the first family out for numerous campaign appearances. In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”

Less than two months later, Americans voted for Donald Trump.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democr ... nder-obama
#15106454
Most of us are news junkies who don't learn a lot from debates, but most people don't stay super tuned in. For them, it's an opportunity to compare policies and personalities. If you don't care to watch, dont. But don't deny the right to watch to others
#15106461
Stormsmith wrote:Most of us are news junkies who don't learn a lot from debates, but most people don't stay super tuned in. For them, it's an opportunity to compare policies and personalities. If you don't care to watch, dont. But don't deny the right to watch to others

Personally I am in favor of debates but I would like to see some tweeks to the rules/format to increase the odds that actual real issues that are important to America and Americans are actually debated. Don The Con roaming around glaring behind Biden's back as he speaks is very entertaining but completely lacking in the substance that the moment cries out for.

Image

I want an intelligent debate on plans to provide affordable health care for all Americans not this ^ simple minded shit for morons
#15106462
XogGyux wrote:That problem is solved by the fact that people live there and people are represented.

Well, that's what an absolute democracy might look like. The US isn't that. It's a republic. It's federated. It's states have largely bi-cameral legislatures.

XogGyux wrote:If you support democracy, then there is no logic/valid argument that you could possibly make against being the people, rather than land, that makes the decisions (via proxy of representatives).

Yes, but our founders created a federated republic, not a democracy. They didn't want absolute democracy at all.

XogGyux wrote:If you are OK with billionaires buying a few million acres of desert or jungle or ice in order to ensure an oligarchy let me know.

Land doesn't vote in a republic.

XogGyux wrote:You are just stuck defending a system that makes no sense because you correctly perceive that your "team" doesn't stand a chance if it is done as it is supposed to be done in a democratic system.

No. I'm defending a republican form of government. Not a democracy. Not majoritarianism.

XogGyux wrote:Furthermore, your logic is flawed, because if your system was tailored so that those poorly populated areas would be properly represented... then when your "team" won... those people that live in those areas would have had politicians advocating in favor of their interests...

They do have politicians advocating in favor of their interests.

XogGyux wrote:So... how are US farmers doing under Trump?

It depends upon the crop, the region and the climate. Wheat is about $1 more or 25% more than in 2016. Soybeans about the same.

XogGyux wrote:I heard soybeans is not doing too hot, dairy farmers not doing great either and this year many have had to actually destroy their crops due to the pandemic.

So not only you are defending a system that is not democratic, but the conclusion that you claim that your system leads to is evidently erroneous.
You are wrong, squared.

I didn't claim soybeans would reach $13 a bushel. Not even close. Agricultural technology produces gluts of food. However, that doesn't mean the entire economy is bad, or even the entire rural economy is bad. Try buying a jetski right now. You won't find any in Northern California right now. They're being panic purchased the way people were buying toilet paper a few months ago.

XogGyux wrote:I warned you before, you are risking the wealth and influence of our country.

The wealth of our country isn't determined by a pat on the head from European politicians. It has a great deal to do with our geography and our demography. Maybe you owe everything in your life to the Bushes or the Clintons; the neoconservatives or the neoliberals. I do not.

XogGyux wrote:It seems that a lot of republicans are pissing off people all around the country :lol: .

When they look at who's running the cities that are burning down and rioting, and the states with the highest taxes and highest unemployment and start thinking about their pocket books, I would wager that they aren't going to be as enthusiastic about Democrats as you seem to think. We'll find out in 140 days or so. As we've learned, a lot can change in 140 days.

XogGyux wrote:But this.... this shit right now could have been avoided or at the very least mitigated.

Look, if politicians want to encourage riots, they shouldn't be surprised about the results in the middle of a pandemic. At any rate, the death rate is now falling, and to a degree that this will just be considered another disease and not a pandemic in the not too distant future.

XogGyux wrote:Politically it exposed your moron's lack of enthusiasm and out of touch with reality.

It didn't do any such thing. Trump had 11M viewers on television alone. His ratings blow away anything Biden can put together. In fact, one reason Biden should debate is that it's the only way he will get anything close to the ratings that Trump will get.
#15106468
We're not even to the point where the Demonocrats or the Repuglicans are having their conventions yet. A lot can happen, and probably will, between now and then.

So they've tested it on 38 (!) people and have not[…]

Why would the term "alien" be used here[…]

@wat0n The problem with the executive order t[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

@ckaihatsu So then the recent 'anti-corruptio[…]