Should Biden Debate Trump?

[NorthHawk]

So what's the solution?

The first thing is to take it seriously and address the issue clearly to those countries that are trying to influence elections
via fraudulent narratives. Each liberal democracy has laws that can check these activities and bringing them to light with
explanations of what the intent is and how they are misleading would go a long way to lessen their impact. Sure, media
and politicians have biases, it's what freedom is all about, but I expect everyone would rather have a clear vision from
people running from office than being led by the nose by foreigners who want a country to fail or taint their image
throughout the world to something less than they can be.
There are idiots in every society, and some will be on the take from foreign powers, but if they are exposed along with
who is influencing them then the impact of the fools can be largely mitigated. But it takes effort from the Government
to investigate and expose these abuses.

[RiverDog]

So what's the solution?

The first thing is to take it seriously and address the issue clearly to those countries that are trying to influence elections
via fraudulent narratives. Each liberal democracy has laws that can check these activities and bringing them to light with
explanations of what the intent is and how they are misleading would go a long way to lessen their impact. Sure, media
and politicians have biases, it's what freedom is all about, but I expect everyone would rather have a clear vision from
people running from office than being led by the nose by foreigners who want a country to fail or taint their image
throughout the world to something less than they can be.
There are idiots in every society, and some will be on the take from foreign powers, but if they are exposed along with
who is influencing them then the impact of the fools can be largely mitigated. But it takes effort from the Government
to investigate and expose these abuses.

I can't say as I disagree with any of those proposed measures, but I seriously doubt that they'd be very effective in the long run. It's like trying to stop the flow of drugs by interdiction. So long as there's a market for it, someone is going to figure out a way to deliver the product.

So long as we have idiots out there, someone or some entity is going to figure out a way to dupe them into buying their snake oil.

[NorthHawk]

There's always going to be idiots and fools. They used to be the odd person in a community that
stood out, but now with the internet and instant communications, they can find each other easily.
The antidote is to expose the tinfoil hat theories and educate the majority as to who is behind them
and why they are being promoted. It's education of the masses in terms of how the theories came
about and that's how liberal democracies are supposed to work with everyone making informed
decisions when voting.

[Aseahawkfan]

Which is what I've been saying all along. That's the root cause of the election tampering issue, the stupidity and gullibility of large sectors of the American public. It's how Trump got himself elected. If Trump tells them something that happens to align with their beliefs, like the fallacy that immigrants are crime ridden, and it's reinforced by Fox News that runs a big story on a college student being murdered by an illegal alien, then it resonates with them and they buy into his idea of a border wall even though the vast majority of illegals come here legally through ports of entry.

I'm a lot more concerned with the American public's susceptibility to manipulation than I am the Russians or Chinese. There's other special interest groups that can take advantage of our gullibility besides foreign governments. Besides, they can only tip an election in favor of a candidate that's already very popular. They cannot advance some sort of Manchurian candidate.

Is Trump any different than the left constantly selling every Republican or conservative as racist and every rich person as some greedy, manipulative psychotic who wants to abuse the poor? Are the left any more smart even being more educated or do they buy into different propaganda that is equally untruthful and damaging to the nation?

[Aseahawkfan]

There's always going to be idiots and fools. They used to be the odd person in a community that
stood out, but now with the internet and instant communications, they can find each other easily.
The antidote is to expose the tinfoil hat theories and educate the majority as to who is behind them
and why they are being promoted. It's education of the masses in terms of how the theories came
about and that's how liberal democracies are supposed to work with everyone making informed
decisions when voting.

I wonder if this is true. This was a nation sold for years on propaganda that folk of African descent were inferior. I even recall a magazine article stating they were too unintelligent to play sports. They were even sold cigarettes weren't bad for your health. Americans been sold all kinds of dumb they have bought into for a long time.

If leadership is bad and the environment teaches bad or stupid ideas loosely backed up by the reasoning people accept during a time like religion or science, then the people will turn bad. It's really up to good leadership to step in and ensure the direction of nations and people is moving in the right direction. We have had some pretty bad leadership. We need better leadership right now.

It's the open environment and Constitution that is so well written that have provided the framework we need to make progress, even if the stupid is hard to stop. At least if you have the freedom to screw yourself over and be a total idiot, you also have the freedom to make intelligent decisions and make quality progress. Not sure it will ever be the majority though.

[RiverDog]

Which is what I've been saying all along. That's the root cause of the election tampering issue, the stupidity and gullibility of large sectors of the American public. It's how Trump got himself elected. If Trump tells them something that happens to align with their beliefs, like the fallacy that immigrants are crime ridden, and it's reinforced by Fox News that runs a big story on a college student being murdered by an illegal alien, then it resonates with them and they buy into his idea of a border wall even though the vast majority of illegals come here legally through ports of entry.

I'm a lot more concerned with the American public's susceptibility to manipulation than I am the Russians or Chinese. There's other special interest groups that can take advantage of our gullibility besides foreign governments. Besides, they can only tip an election in favor of a candidate that's already very popular. They cannot advance some sort of Manchurian candidate.

Is Trump any different than the left constantly selling every Republican or conservative as racist and every rich person as some greedy, manipulative psychotic who wants to abuse the poor? Are the left any more smart even being more educated or do they buy into different propaganda that is equally untruthful and damaging to the nation?

Yes, I think Trump is different. His dishonesty is what separates him from all others. And although I agree that the left does try to tag every conservative/R as a racist, the R's have brought a lot of that on themselves, at least over the past 4 years with the degree of support they've given Trump. That's going to be one of the challenges in their world after Trump, is how to prove to others that they're not racists.

As far as others from the left blindly buying into their agenda, I agree, the D's/libs are as bad and in some respects worse. A good example, at least locally in this state, is Inslee signing this silly arse single use plastic bag ban bill, doing something that they accuse R's of doing, ie disregarding science in lieu of their political agenda, in this case, putting the environment ahead of public health. There are a number of states that are either suspending or rescinding their own plastic bag bans due to the heightened awareness of disease transmission and the mounds of scientific evidence showing that reusable cloth bags that they are encouraging residents in this state to use are many times more likely to transmit diseases than disposable plastic bags. Inslee signed that bill into law in the same breath as he was using to encourage us to wear masks and follow good hand washing practices.

I see Inslee's choice of putting the environment ahead of public health as no better, and arguably worse, than the R's putting the economy over public health.

[I-5]

A good example, at least locally in this state, is Inslee signing this silly arse single use plastic bag ban bill, doing something that they accuse R's of doing, ie disregarding science in lieu of their political agenda, in this case, putting the environment ahead of public health. There are a number of states that are either suspending or rescinding their own plastic bag bans due to the heightened awareness of disease transmission and the mounds of scientific evidence showing that reusable cloth bags that they are encouraging residents in this state to use are many times more likely to transmit diseases than disposable plastic bags. Inslee signed that bill into law in the same breath as he was using to encourage us to wear masks and follow good hand washing practices.I see Inslee's choice of putting the environment ahead of public health as no better, and arguably worse, than the R's putting the economy over public health.

Can't argue with that, Riv. I fully agree that public safety and public health are #1 above all else, and that means follow the science. Environment and economy should always be a balance, not one over the other, as we need both in order to survive.

Yes, Trump has no precedent when it comes to full on lying, especially at the rate he's doing it. There is no equivalence with any previous holder of the office, unless someone can bring up an example.

[Aseahawkfan]

Can't argue with that, Riv. I fully agree that public safety and public health are #1 above all else, and that means follow the science. Environment and economy should always be a balance, not one over the other, as we need both in order to survive.

Yes, Trump has no precedent when it comes to full on lying, especially at the rate he's doing it. There is no equivalence with any previous holder of the office, unless someone can bring up an example.

Are you talking in terms of overall lies or the effect of their lies? I would say a lot of past office holders have told more dangerous lies, but not as many have lied as much or yapped as much about pointless things.

1. Obama lied about Obamacare being deficit neutral.

2. Bush Jr. lied about the extend of Iraq's danger to us to start a war.

3. Many presidents lied to take land off the native Americans and maintain policies to oppress folk of African descent.

4. Many presidential administrations lied about experiments on humans like the Tuskegee experiments and the like.

5. Reagan and Bush Sr. lied about our involvement in the Iran-Contra situation.

I get it. Trump is crass and a jerk. But lying well or politely should not be excused for all the bad previous administrations have done.

It's frustrating to me that so many people focus on Trump's behavior and give a pass to all the lies we've been told over such a long time, many of them far more damaging to America and the world than Trump. Yet it is overlooked because previous administrations either outright hid information or lied about it in a much more convincing and polite way.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yes, I think Trump is different. His dishonesty is what separates him from all others. And although I agree that the left does try to tag every conservative/R as a racist, the R's have brought a lot of that on themselves, at least over the past 4 years with the degree of support they've given Trump. That's going to be one of the challenges in their world after Trump, is how to prove to others that they're not racists.

As far as others from the left blindly buying into their agenda, I agree, the D's/libs are as bad and in some respects worse. A good example, at least locally in this state, is Inslee signing this silly arse single use plastic bag ban bill, doing something that they accuse R's of doing, ie disregarding science in lieu of their political agenda, in this case, putting the environment ahead of public health. There are a number of states that are either suspending or rescinding their own plastic bag bans due to the heightened awareness of disease transmission and the mounds of scientific evidence showing that reusable cloth bags that they are encouraging residents in this state to use are many times more likely to transmit diseases than disposable plastic bags. Inslee signed that bill into law in the same breath as he was using to encourage us to wear masks and follow good hand washing practices.

I see Inslee's choice of putting the environment ahead of public health as no better, and arguably worse, than the R's putting the economy over public health.

The main difference between Trump and all the others is the crassness and general laziness of his lying. Which doesn't surprise me since he is a salesman and not a politician.

As far as historically, many past presidents have told more dangerous lies and abused power more than Trump has. His biggest screw up is this haphazard and pathetic coronavirus response, which our entire government at nearly all levels seems to have FUBARed.

Then again the game is almost always going to be played over the heads of normal folk.

As far as the Republicans convincing people they're not racist getting harder, that's just BS. Every single Republican president dating back to Reagan has been a racist. Dems have made it so Republicans have nowhere to go but up since they have so thoroughly sold every Republican president and politicians as racist and anti-poor for the last 40 years. Trump didn't make any of it worst. He was going to be branded a racist no matter what he did as a Republican and Conservative, whether he deserved it or not. Same as they did to Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr. If you're Republican and conservative, you're a racist and hate the poor in the eyes of the liberal media. Even you if you ran for office would be racist and hate the poor to the liberal media.

[RiverDog]

The main difference between Trump and all the others is the crassness and general laziness of his lying. Which doesn't surprise me since he is a salesman and not a politician.

As far as historically, many past presidents have told more dangerous lies and abused power more than Trump has. His biggest screw up is this haphazard and pathetic coronavirus response, which our entire government at nearly all levels seems to have FUBARed.[/quote]

Yup. The coronavirus is/was the watershed event of his presidency, like Watergate was to Nixon, the hostage crisis was to Carter, and Vietnam was to LBJ, and Trump screwed it up big time and will likely cost him a 2nd term.

As far as the Republicans convincing people they're not racist getting harder, that's just BS. Every single Republican president dating back to Reagan has been a racist. Dems have made it so Republicans have nowhere to go but up since they have so thoroughly sold every Republican president and politicians as racist and anti-poor for the last 40 years. Trump didn't make any of it worst. He was going to be branded a racist no matter what he did as a Republican and Conservative, whether he deserved it or not. Same as they did to Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr. If you're Republican and conservative, you're a racist and hate the poor in the eyes of the liberal media. Even you if you ran for office would be racist and hate the poor to the liberal media.

Whether or not the perception aligns with reality is beside the point. There are a large number of people that associate Republicans/conservatives with racists. It doesn't matter if it was the Dems, the media, or the man in the moon that is responsible for hanging that tag on them. The impression exists. 4 years of Trump has reinforced that impression, caused it to be more widespread, and the R's have to do something about it if they hope to regain the power they stand to lose this November. Heck, I acknowledge the R/conservative racist tag myself as I am very quick to tell people that I am not a Republican and that I am a "fiscal" conservative and a social moderate because I want to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression of who I am.

[Aseahawkfan]

Whether or not the perception aligns with reality is beside the point. There are a large number of people that associate Republicans/conservatives with racists. It doesn't matter if it was the Dems, the media, or the man in the moon that is responsible for hanging that tag on them. The impression exists. 4 years of Trump has reinforced that impression, caused it to be more widespread, and the R's have to do something about it if they hope to regain the power they stand to lose this November. Heck, I acknowledge the R/conservative racist tag myself as I am very quick to tell people that I am not a Republican and that I am a "fiscal" conservative and a social moderate because I want to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression of who I am.

And I'm telling you if you run as anything other than a Democrat, you're going to be branded a racist and anti-poor. The Dems do it to anyone against them. It's how they sell their platform. It's how they attack their opponents. Same as they tried to paint Bernie as a sexist and racist as well because he stood outside the Democratic norm.

So whatever Trump does in that regard doesn't matter because the Dems have cried wolf and so thoroughly convinced the folk of African descent that Republicans and non-Democrat supporters of anything conservative are racist, they 90% of the African vote is in the Dem pocket every election. And the majority of minorities vote for Democrats solely because the other side is sold to them as racist.

If you keep calling someone a certain name, it doesn't matter if a Trump comes along because the bar is already as low as it can go in regards to race. That's the Dems fault with their lying, hypocritical propaganda which is every bit as bad as Trump in my opinion in regards to race and the anti-poor rhetoric.

Add in the anti-cop rhetoric and the "if you don't support BLM you're racist" rhetoric, Trump's contribution to all of this is meaningless at this point. The Dems and their propaganda machine are at fault for desensitizing not just conservatives, but huge numbers of swing voters to race issues because they use it like a club so often people have stopped listening.

[RiverDog]

And I'm telling you if you run as anything other than a Democrat, you're going to be branded a racist and anti-poor. The Dems do it to anyone against them. It's how they sell their platform. It's how they attack their opponents. Same as they tried to paint Bernie as a sexist and racist as well because he stood outside the Democratic norm.

And the liberal media will gleefully jump on board, the only exception being if the candidate is a person of color themselves. If you've followed either Bushes, 41 or 43, you would know that neither one of them did or said anything that could remotely be considered racist, yet they were tagged as such. I'll never forget the NAACP...a branch of the Democratic Party...labeling Bush 43 as a racist because he failed to sign hate crime legislation and cited the chain dragging death of a black man by 3 white bigots. Bush cited that there were already laws in place to cover those crimes, and indeed, of the 3 perpetrators in the chain dragging death, two got sentenced to death and the third life in prison. But the tag worked, as it eroded Bush's significant support among blacks and tightened up the 2000 election.

But that's not the point. The point is that no matter the genesis, the bias exists. Trump has done nothing but reinforce that bias, made it that much more difficult to overcome. It's going to be up the the R's to change the paradigm.

So whatever Trump does in that regard doesn't matter because the Dems have cried wolf and so thoroughly convinced the folk of African descent that Republicans and non-Democrat supporters of anything conservative are racist, they 90% of the African vote is in the Dem pocket every election. And the majority of minorities vote for Democrats solely because the other side is sold to them as racist.

If you keep calling someone a certain name, it doesn't matter if a Trump comes along because the bar is already as low as it can go in regards to race. That's the Dems fault with their lying, hypocritical propaganda which is every bit as bad as Trump in my opinion in regards to race and the anti-poor rhetoric.

Agreed. And to put the point less eloquently than you did, if you throw enough chit on the wall, some of it is bound to stick.

But it is what it is. The perception is out there no matter who or what is responsible.

Add in the anti-cop rhetoric and the "if you don't support BLM you're racist" rhetoric, Trump's contribution to all of this is meaningless at this point. The Dems and their propaganda machine are at fault for desensitizing not just conservatives, but huge numbers of swing voters to race issues because they use it like a club so often people have stopped listening.

Again, I don't disagree with any of your assertations. But that's not my point.

[Aseahawkfan]

And the liberal media will gleefully jump on board, the only exception being if the candidate is a person of color themselves. If you've followed either Bushes, 41 or 43, you would know that neither one of them did or said anything that could remotely be considered racist, yet they were tagged as such. I'll never forget the NAACP...a branch of the Democratic Party...labeling Bush 43 as a racist because he failed to sign hate crime legislation and cited the chain dragging death of a black man by 3 white bigots. Bush cited that there were already laws in place to cover those crimes, and indeed, of the 3 perpetrators in the chain dragging death, two got sentenced to death and the third life in prison. But the tag worked, as it eroded Bush's significant support among blacks and tightened up the 2000 election.

But that's not the point. The point is that no matter the genesis, the bias exists. Trump has done nothing but reinforce that bias, made it that much more difficult to overcome. It's going to be up the the R's to change the paradigm.

I remember that Bush Jr. BS. They were showing him wiping his hand after shaking a woman of African descent's hand and making the picture seem like Bush was doing it because of race, when it was later clearly shown he was a germophobe. He wiped his hand after shaking almost anyone's hand he didn't know. The man took the time to learn Spanish. One of his closest advisers was Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, but he was branded a racist all the same. Left don't care, them people are as terrible as Trump even though I know you don't agree with me. Their lying BS is why Trump even has a chance right now and why he won in the the first place. People can see through their facade and their lying BS. Some of these people probably find Trump's blunt lying refreshing at this point.

I remember that. Texas is one of the harshest states on crime for anyone regardless of race. You don't want to be there if you're walking the crime line no matter what race you are. Texas will bring the hammer down on you.

Again, I don't disagree with any of your assertations. But that's not my point.

As I see it the Dems cried wolf so much on racist Republican presidents, when a real guy spouting racist propaganda Trump comes voters are desensitized to it. That's how I see it. It's why so many right wingers who aren't racist ignore the accusations because they've heard it about Republican presidents for the past 30 years.

The Dems and progressivse lying BS is why Trump is in office to start with. They both lie. And the only reason both sides find votes is their dug in bases who believe what they are selling. The left's BS wealth gap, Marxist, government will make life better ideas. The right's protect your gun rights, religion, and freedom better. Then the swing voters get to try to figure out which one is better for the nation through all the tired BS propaganda.

[RiverDog]

As I see it the Dems cried wolf so much on racist Republican presidents, when a real guy spouting racist propaganda Trump comes voters are desensitized to it. That's how I see it. It's why so many right wingers who aren't racist ignore the accusations because they've heard it about Republican presidents for the past 30 years.

That could explain why so many older white males have gravitated towards Trump and will vote for him no matter what. They've internalized the attacks the Dems have been making against Trump as an attack on them. It's weird, because Trump has less in common with most of those old white men than any other politician but they sure have sympathized with him.

The Dems and progressivse lying BS is why Trump is in office to start with. They both lie. And the only reason both sides find votes is their dug in bases who believe what they are selling. The left's BS wealth gap, Marxist, government will make life better ideas. The right's protect your gun rights, religion, and freedom better. Then the swing voters get to try to figure out which one is better for the nation through all the tired BS propaganda.

Trump's tactics won't work for the generic Republican candidate. He's a one of a kind politician with the attitude of a professional wrestler. All he cared about was playing to his base. As a party that needs to win in state wide elections, they are going to need candidates that can appeal more to the moderate voter instead of solely to the gun rights/religious groups.

[Aseahawkfan]

That could explain why so many older white males have gravitated towards Trump and will vote for him no matter what. They've internalized the attacks the Dems have been making against Trump as an attack on them. It's weird, because Trump has less in common with most of those old white men than any other politician but they sure have sympathized with him.

Trump's tactics won't work for the generic Republican candidate. He's a one of a kind politician with the attitude of a professional wrestler. All he cared about was playing to his base. As a party that needs to win in state wide elections, they are going to need candidates that can appeal more to the moderate voter instead of solely to the gun rights/religious groups.

You know why they vote for them. Look at the left? If you are religious conservative old white man who believed in American values, what do you see on the left? A bunch of people telling you that you're the worst villain in America? Cop haters? People wanting socialism? Women telling you that men are the bad guy?

People complain about Fox news and their propaganda. Look at the left wing news and the topics they push. Look at some of the stories like the Seattle government having people take courses to get over their whiteness.

These sides stoke each other given this illusion that they are in some kind of fight against each other. As far as all those old white men are concerned, Trump's fighting for them even if he doesn't have much in common with them other than being an old white man.

I have to listen to old white men at work who love Trump and tell me how he's going to protect their second amendment rights, protect their freedom, and bring back law and order and teach all these leftist progressive that hate our country that there are still people who love America. Hell, my buddy truly believes that the left and the Democrats hate America and want to turn it into some socialist, white man hating land. He can't stand it.

How do you fight against that when you have so many stories of Democrats and left leaning people doing things that support his exact thinking?

[RiverDog]

You know why they vote for them. Look at the left? If you are religious conservative old white man who believed in American values, what do you see on the left? A bunch of people telling you that you're the worst villain in America? Cop haters? People wanting socialism? Women telling you that men are the bad guy?

People complain about Fox news and their propaganda. Look at the left wing news and the topics they push. Look at some of the stories like the Seattle government having people take courses to get over their whiteness.

These sides stoke each other given this illusion that they are in some kind of fight against each other. As far as all those old white men are concerned, Trump's fighting for them even if he doesn't have much in common with them other than being an old white man.

I have to listen to old white men at work who love Trump and tell me how he's going to protect their second amendment rights, protect their freedom, and bring back law and order and teach all these leftist progressive that hate our country that there are still people who love America. Hell, my buddy truly believes that the left and the Democrats hate America and want to turn it into some socialist, white man hating land. He can't stand it.

How do you fight against that when you have so many stories of Democrats and left leaning people doing things that support his exact thinking?

I don't disagree with any of that, and you can toss in the actions of the left in the Kavanaugh hearings as more evidence of the left's no-holds-barred, win at all costs style of politics. They're not as bad as Trump, but they are far from being as pure as the wind driven snow, and I don't see it changing even if we're successful in ridding ourselves of the Chief Buffoon.

People generally dislike the style of politics from back in the 60's and 70's. It was almost all white and all male with very little social diversity. But at least those old white men, even though they were ideological polar opposites...like Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater...were honest with each other and considered each other friends. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, once combatants in the arena, could after their presidencies work together on common projects. LBJ used to call the Senate Minority Leader to the Oval Office and the two would knock off a bottle of Cutty Sark and negotiate solutions in order to craft legislation. That style of leadership is gone forever.

[I-5]

The Trump Town Hall on ABC is a preview of exactly how he'll be in a debate...completely making up his own facts with every single point he makes, denying and contradicting his own words on audio tape, pretending that republicans created protections for pre-exisiting conditions, refusing to answer George Stephanopolous' question on the healthcare plan he's been promising for 3 years and not once revealed. Biden is going to debate him for sure, but Trump has already won the debate because he has nowhere to go but up, and he's going to lie nonstop.

[RiverDog]

The Trump Town Hall on ABC is a preview of exactly how he'll be in a debate...completely making up his own facts with every single point he makes, denying and contradicting his own words on audio tape, pretending that republicans created protections for pre-exisiting conditions, refusing to answer George Stephanopolous' question on the healthcare plan he's been promising for 3 years and not once revealed. Biden is going to debate him for sure, but Trump has already won the debate because he has nowhere to go but up, and he's going to lie nonstop.

I'm surprised he didn't blame is failure to reveal a health care plan on the Democrats.

It's exactly what I said in the OP, why Biden is foolish to accept a one on one debate under the traditional format. There's no way for Biden to win. Trump's lies need to be called out immediately and not allowed to stand. I'll probably watch them just because it will be pretty hard for me to ignore, but I already know how its going to turn out.

My brother-in-law is predicting that someone will walk out in the middle of the debate.

[I-5]

We all know why Biden can't refuse the debate, of course. Trump would use that to claim victory with his rabid base (and Fox News). The only mitigating factor I see is that with a more limited audience, Trump can't pander to the crowd if last night was any example. The town hall last night was the most painfully awkward I've seen him - but similar to his last two disastrous interviews. He's not going to have comfort of Hannity or Fox & Friends to coddle him. The debate is going to happen, and Trump will be the beneficiary. However, I think Joe will stand up for himself just fine....I've never been a Biden fan and didn't even support him during the primaries (I wanted a woman like Klobuchar or Warren), but he is looking more and more like a statesman to me.

[RiverDog]

We all know why Biden can't refuse the debate, of course. Trump would use that to claim victory with his rabid base (and Fox News). The only mitigating factor I see is that with a more limited audience, Trump can't pander to the crowd if last night was any example. The town hall last night was the most painfully awkward I've seen him - but similar to his last two disastrous interviews. He's not going to have comfort of Hannity or Fox & Friends to coddle him. The debate is going to happen, and Trump will be the beneficiary. However, I think Joe will stand up for himself just fine....I've never been a Biden fan and didn't even support him during the primaries (I wanted a woman like Klobuchar or Warren), but he is looking more and more like a statesman to me.

Biden might have been able to hold out for a different format more to his advantage, but I agree, he's pretty much obligated due to tradition to debate Trump.

I'm glad that Chris Wallace is moderating the first debate, but I don't know enough about the format to tell whether or not he can keep the candidates honest. He repeatedly called out Trump in a one-on-one interview by saying "But Mr. President, that's not true." and issued a correction, but will he be able to say that in the debate or will it be up to Biden to refute a blatantly false claim by Trump?

I didn't vote for Biden, either, as my preference was for Bloomberg, but I'm warming up more and more to him, particularly his proposal to enhance 401K participation, which is a pet peeve of mine.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump is a salesman. He's always selling. What we all call lying, Trump calls selling. He's going to sell hard on Biden.

Why? Because he knows how people work. They don't want facts. And they don't get facts. They get propaganda from both parties, carefully vetted propaganda meant to key in on the biases of voting blocs. That's what they get. That's what Trump will use in his debates.

Who cares about facts if Joe Six-pack believes the Youtube doctor telling him COVID19 is not as bad as it seems compared to Dr. Fauci? That guy isn't going to check some organization he views as liberal to over-ride what he believes. Just like some left winger isn't going to listen to some conservative offering a well-reasoned argument like Milton Friedman or Ben Shapiro. They're going to vote along their biases regardless of the facts.

Trump knows this. So he's going to sell hard those biases his base buys into and try to crush Biden and Kamala by outselling them to the voting blocs that buy into the bias he is selling.

We'll see if the swing voters will buy what he's selling this time around. They're the ones that really matter. The already dug in voters aren't going to be swayed much unless some real bombs start dropping. But the swing voters who haven't yet decided will be open for selling. Who knows what biases they will respond to. November 3rd we will find out.

[I-5]

We'll see if the swing voters will buy what he's selling this time around. They're the ones that really matter. The already dug in voters aren't going to be swayed much unless some real bombs start dropping. But the swing voters who haven't yet decided will be open for selling. Who knows what biases they will respond to. November 3rd we will find out.

That's exactly what I saw...sell, sell, sell. That's all he knows, so tries to lead by selling. It's kind of weird. The two main things he's selling are he's doing great with the virus, and that the violence will escalate if Joe wins. In other words, trying to install calmness in one issue, and trying instill fear and panic with the other issue. He looked awkward trying to sell both in the town hall.

[RiverDog]

We'll see if the swing voters will buy what he's selling this time around. They're the ones that really matter. The already dug in voters aren't going to be swayed much unless some real bombs start dropping. But the swing voters who haven't yet decided will be open for selling. Who knows what biases they will respond to. November 3rd we will find out.

That's exactly what I saw...sell, sell, sell. That's all he knows, so tries to lead by selling. It's kind of weird. The two main things he's selling are he's doing great with the virus, and that the violence will escalate if Joe wins. In other words, trying to install calmness in one issue, and trying instill fear and panic with the other issue. He looked awkward trying to sell both in the town hall.

Actually Trump scored some points in the town hall event as he appeared to be somewhat compassionate to a lady that started to break down. But in general, I do agree that it's not a format that he excels in. Trump is at his best when he's behind a podium in front of a friendly crowd and doesn't have to entertain any questions so he can freelance according to how he feels the crowd will react.

I worry about Biden. The man is such a clutz that it's difficult to predict how he will perform. He got very testy and personal at a fair question asked by a reporter about why he didn't take a cognitive test such as the one Trump reportedly took. A reaction like that at the wrong time could cost him the election.

[RiverDog]

We'll see if the swing voters will buy what he's selling this time around. They're the ones that really matter. The already dug in voters aren't going to be swayed much unless some real bombs start dropping. But the swing voters who haven't yet decided will be open for selling. Who knows what biases they will respond to. November 3rd we will find out.

There's not as many swing voters in this cycle, about 6-8%, which is bad news for Trump as he's behind by that much in both the national poll as well as the battleground states. He's going to have to flip Biden voters, a more daunting task than simply convincing an undecided. That's why the polls don't change very much, why Trump's approval rating is flat. That's a lot different than 2016 when there were as many as 20% undecided voters in August and over 10% when voters went to the polls in November.

[I-5]

Trump is at his best when he's behind a podium in front of a friendly crowd and doesn't have to entertain any questions so he can freelance according to how he feels the crowd will react.

Yep, and that won't be happening this election cycle. His lies are getting bigger and more desperate as it gets closer, directly contradicting the head of the CDC for example. It's good people are starting to nail him when he says, 'people tell me...' which he uses all the time, a signal that he's making something up.

[NorthHawk]

I don't even listen to him any more because I dislike being lied to and I don't get others who aren't bothered by it.
I'll read what he said after.
As far as debating Trump, it would be like following behind a manure spreader. It's going to get all over you and
there's not much you can do about it. What Biden can possibly do is heave big sighs and/or use the Reagan line
of "there you go again", but with the expected avalanche of lies and mistruths, it might be hard to keep focus.

[RiverDog]

Trump is at his best when he's behind a podium in front of a friendly crowd and doesn't have to entertain any questions so he can freelance according to how he feels the crowd will react.

His (Trump's) lies are getting bigger and more desperate as it gets closer, directly contradicting the head of the CDC for example. It's good people are starting to nail him when he says, 'people tell me...' which he uses all the time, a signal that he's making something up.

He's been contradicting people in his administration from Day One. I don't see any change in his behavior whatsoever. He's the same old lying SOS he's always been.

I did watch the town hall session yesterday, and I have to have a bit of sympathy for Trump when he supposedly interrupted a member of the audience. The lady asking the question did hesitate just a tad at the natural ending of a sentence when she said "let me finish my question, sir". Rather than accusing him of not allowing her to finish, it would have been more appropriate for her to indicate that she wasn't done rather than he wasn't letting her finish her question.

But then again, one can't have too much sympathy for someone who is as rude and insulting as Trump is.

[c_hawkbob]

How is "let me finish my question Sir" any sort of an accusation at all? I can't believe you're even trying to use that as a hook to garner sympathy for the devil.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's not as many swing voters in this cycle, about 6-8%, which is bad news for Trump as he's behind by that much in both the national poll as well as the battleground states. He's going to have to flip Biden voters, a more daunting task than simply convincing an undecided. That's why the polls don't change very much, why Trump's approval rating is flat. That's a lot different than 2016 when there were as many as 20% undecided voters in August and over 10% when voters went to the polls in November.

A lot of people have turned on Trump since the last election. Hopefully it comes back to bite him.

Not going to bet money on it, but this election should be different. Back then no one was sure what they were getting. This time around people know what they're getting and hopefully enough don't like it that they don't vote him back in. But we'll see. The pocketbook hits can be a strong motivator to vote for a candidate. There's no way to spin it that Biden won't raise taxes and hit the market hard costing people a lot of money.

If Trump wins, this forum will either become a dead zone or hugely irritating. The anti-Trump posters will have to tune out for 4 years or they'll be complaining about everything he does. If Trump wins, I expect some gloating from the few pro-Trump people that post occasionally. Since [i]Idhawkan[i] disappeared, no real pro-Trump people here. I imagine they'll only return for a while if he wins.

I want November 3rd to come and see who wins. Hard to make good investment decisions without seeing which policies will be in place the next four years. Gotta pay attention to the Senate and House races too. If the Dems take the Senate, it won't matter if Trump wins. He won't be able to get much done.

[RiverDog]

There's not as many swing voters in this cycle, about 6-8%, which is bad news for Trump as he's behind by that much in both the national poll as well as the battleground states. He's going to have to flip Biden voters, a more daunting task than simply convincing an undecided. That's why the polls don't change very much, why Trump's approval rating is flat. That's a lot different than 2016 when there were as many as 20% undecided voters in August and over 10% when voters went to the polls in November.

A lot of people have turned on Trump since the last election. Hopefully it comes back to bite him.

Not going to bet money on it, but this election should be different. Back then no one was sure what they were getting. This time around people know what they're getting and hopefully enough don't like it that they don't vote him back in. But we'll see. The pocketbook hits can be a strong motivator to vote for a candidate. There's no way to spin it that Biden won't raise taxes and hit the market hard costing people a lot of money.

If Trump wins, this forum will either become a dead zone or hugely irritating. The anti-Trump posters will have to tune out for 4 years or they'll be complaining about everything he does. If Trump wins, I expect some gloating from the few pro-Trump people that post occasionally. Since Idhawkan disappeared, no real pro-Trump people here. I imagine they'll only return for a while if he wins.

I want November 3rd to come and see who wins. Hard to make good investment decisions without seeing which policies will be in place the next four years. Gotta pay attention to the Senate and House races too. If the Dems take the Senate, it won't matter if Trump wins. He won't be able to get much done.

Idahawkman is one of the more interesting individuals I've come across. He's a very intelligent man yet his obsession with Trump causes him to say some really ignorant things, such as predicting that Trump would win re-election by a Reagan-like landslide. Reagan received 489 electoral votes in 1980 and 525 in 1984, so with 538 total electoral votes, Trump could win every state in the union except California and his prediction would still fall flat.

Trump would be insufferable if he were to win re-election. He would be a lame duck so it wouldn't make any difference to him how many people he pissed off, and since the Democrats have already wasted their impeachment card, there would be no threat of removal from office to restrain anything he says or does.

[Aseahawkfan]

I guarantee the House and Senate both Democrat would make him shut his mouth or a second impeachment trial with a very different vote would be heading his way.
Idahawkman is one of the more interesting individuals I've come across. He's a very intelligent man yet his obsession with Trump causes him to say some really ignorant things, such as predicting that Trump would win re-election by a Reagan-like landslide. Reagan received 489 electoral votes in 1980 and 525 in 1984, so with 538 total electoral votes, Trump could win every state in the union except California and his prediction would still fall flat.

Trump would be insufferable if he were to win re-election. He would be a lame duck so it wouldn't make any difference to him how many people he pissed off, and since the Democrats have already wasted their impeachment card, there would be no threat of removal from office to restrain anything he says or does.

He would have the threat of removal if the Senate is flipped. They would do nothing with this bills or nominations. If he ran his mouth the wrong way, he would get impeached with a very different result. The Senate flips Dem and the House stays Dem, Trump is a caged animal.

[RiverDog]

He would have the threat of removal if the Senate is flipped. They would do nothing with this bills or nominations. If he ran his mouth the wrong way, he would get impeached with a very different result. The Senate flips Dem and the House stays Dem, Trump is a caged animal.

It requires a 2/3's vote, or 67 Senators, to remove a POTUS in an impeachment trial. The Dems/independents currently hold 47 seats. That means that the D's would have to win 20 of the 23 Republican-held seats up for re-election in this cycle to get a super majority, a virtual impossibility. If the Dems are successful in flipping the Senate, they're likely to hold just a couple seat advantage and leave them with 15 or so votes short of the magic number of 67. Trump would have to commit some type of heinous crime to get the roughly 1/3 of Senate Republicans to give him up.

As we found out in the last two impeachment trials, it's going to require some significant bipartisan support, like there was in Nixon's near impeachment during a time when the nation wasn't nearly as politically divided as we are today, to remove a POTUS. The Dems didn't get a single R Senator to vote against Trump in his trial nor did the Republicans get any D's to vote for removal in Clinton's trial. The Dems have already shot their wad. Impeachment is not an option. They'd have a better chance at removal via the 25th, but even that route is going to require a physical disability, like a stroke or something as it would require members from his cabinet to turn on him, and Trump's #1 criteria for appointments to cabinet positions is their unswerving loyalty to him.

Although Trump won't get anything done legislatively w/o Congressional support in a 2nd term even if the Dems don't flip the Senate, he's still going to be able to say or do whatever he pleases without the threat of impeachment hanging over his head, ie Executive Orders, judicial appointments, cabinet staffing, etc.

[c_hawkbob]

If the Dems are successful in flipping the Senate, they're likely to hold just a couple seat advantage and leave them with 15 or so votes short of the magic number of 67. Trump would have to commit some type of heinous crime to get the roughly 1/3 of Senate Republicans to give him up.

Or with a Senate Majority Leader that isn't protecting him they have a real impeachment trial, with evidence and witnesses and everything, and there becomes enough of a public swell of support for his removal that some of these R Senators see it as more expedient to look after their own political careers than Trump's.

[RiverDog]

If the Dems are successful in flipping the Senate, they're likely to hold just a couple seat advantage and leave them with 15 or so votes short of the magic number of 67. Trump would have to commit some type of heinous crime to get the roughly 1/3 of Senate Republicans to give him up.

Or with a Senate Majority Leader that isn't protecting him they have a real impeachment trial, with evidence and witnesses and everything, and there becomes enough of a public swell of support for his removal that some of these R Senators see it as more expedient to look after their own political careers than Trump's.

So you think that Chuck Schumer, by not protecting Trump, will be able to flip the 15 or so R Senators needed to remove him from office? I think you're grossly over estimating Sen. Schumer's credibility amongst the Republicans.

I don't care who the majority leader is or isn't, the Dems will never get enough R's to give up Trump unless he does something far, far more egregious than the charges they levied at him earlier.

[NorthHawk]

But might they be able to get more aggressive investigations of Trump should they control both houses?
If DT is politically wounded in the election and serious information is gathered, there might be some R's that would turn
on him. It's been reported many times that off the record a large number of R's don't like him and think
he's bad for the country. There will always be loyalists. That's natural in politics, but when their skin is on the line
most politicians look out for themselves first.

[RiverDog]

But might they be able to get more aggressive investigations of Trump should they control both houses? If DT is politically wounded in the election and serious information is gathered, there might be some R's that would turn on him. It's been reported many times that off the record a large number of R's don't like him and think he's bad for the country. There will always be loyalists. That's natural in politics, but when their skin is on the line most politicians look out for themselves first.

No, I don't think more aggressive investigations will make enough of a difference given the same level of seriousness they impeached him on earlier.

What both the Trump and Clinton impeachment investigations were missing that the Nixon investigation had was a John Dean-type of inner circle witness. It's going to take either a high profile cabinet member, like the sitting Attorney General or Secretary of Defense, to turn on Trump before enough Republicans' have sufficient political cover to give him up. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than another partisan food fight.

Getting 1/3 of either party's members to go against their leader on any topic is extremely unusual. Watergate and the Civil Rights bill of the 60's are the only issues that I can think of that produced that kind of split.

[c_hawkbob]

No, I don't think more aggressive investigations will make enough of a difference given the same level of seriousness they impeached him on earlier.

That's your opinion, and you've every right to it, but obviously it's not one we all share, you should not assume it to be the default reasonable position. I honestly don't even think it would be the majority position if we were to canvas a random thousand people on the matter.

[RiverDog]

That's your opinion, and you've every right to it, but obviously it's not one we all share, you should not assume it to be the default reasonable position. I honestly don't even think it would be the majority position if we were to canvas a random thousand people on the matter.

Well, let me just say that you were the one that predicted that Trump wouldn't make it through his term and here we are 45 days away from the election. If we were to have canvassed a random thousand people on that prediction when it was made, do you think your POV would have been in the majority?

I'm not just venturing a wild ass guess. I'm using some logic by noting the results of the past two impeachment trials and the very rare event of 1/3 of a political party going against their leadership. Neither of us can prove if my position would represent the majority opinion, but I don't think that it's an unreasonable take.

[c_hawkbob]

Well, let me just say that you were the one that predicted that Trump wouldn't make it through his term and here we are 45 days away from the election. If we were to have canvassed a random thousand people on that prediction when it was made, do you think your POV would have been in the majority?

I'm not just venturing a wild ass guess. I'm using some logic by noting the results of the past two impeachment trials and the very rare event of 1/3 of a political party going against their leadership.

Yup, I got that one wrong, that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Yes you're using logic, but it is not the only path down which logic can lead. I'm not venturing a wild ass guess either.

[RiverDog]

Yup, I got that one wrong, that doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Yes you're using logic, but it is not the only path down which logic can lead. I'm not venturing a wild ass guess either.

I'd never call you an idiot. In all sincerity, I regard you as one of the more informed posters on the board. But I do feel that anyone who predicts or thinks that it's anything other than very unlikely that Trump would be removed from office in a 2nd term would hold a minority opinion. The fact that he has a 42% approval rating would support that contention.