2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Salubrious]

It's honestly telling that both Trump and Trump Jr. have more confidence in Biden's ability to debate than Pelosi does. Does she know he'd be worse than presented?

I said this in the Biden thread, but if someone is lying all the time, that should make them EASIER to debate.

The fact that the DNC thinks that it's difficult to debate a liar says more about them than it does Trump.

 

[Someone Awful]

Newsport News, Virginia list of YouTube channels covering the rally,

Right Side Broadcasting Network: 118K Views
Fox News: 32K Views
NewsNOW from FOX: 31K Views
Fox Business: 7.4K Views
The Sun: 5.3K Views
Bloomberg QuickTake Now: 9.5K Views
Donald J Trump: 5.2K Views
13News Now: 79 Views
Nick Freitas: 156 Views
Father Frank Pavone: 179 Views
Golden State Times: 4.3K Views
#SeekingTheTruth JoshWho News: 79 Views
Original News: 5 Views
NewsSprocket: 8 Views

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

Barrett doomerism is getting a little annoying. Barnes himself has stated that this hypothetical prediction will lead him to drop the GOP and Trump's chances to win Nov. 3... to 50%. From the guy who gives Trump pretty good odds.

Has there ever been a single event in modern history that sunk a candidate's chances that much? Trump literally saying "Grab them by the pussy," didn't tank him; "Binders full of women" still kept Romney relatively competitive; Obama opposing gay marriage didn't do shit to prevent his electoral landslide.

But let's follow some of the argument Barnes and others present:

1) Barrett will make Collins, Gardner, and other endangered seats targets. This means they'll be more inclined to vote no.

2) By voting no, Trump loses his SC chance, a significant derail on his train.

3) By voting yes, they drive up turnout suburban white women convinced The Handmaiden's Tale is about to begin.

4) Democrats have a trap set up for Barrett, which will delay her nomination.

5) There's no certainty Barrett won't side against Trump on election outcomes.

3 seems like the dumbest argument. These women already turned out when Trump became "Admitted Rapist #1!" and Hillary Clinton appealed directly to them. There's a point in politics where returns diminish, and 2016 was arguably the returns for suburban women. If anything, having creepy Biden be their icon might depress women turnout--and turnout is really all that matters.

1, 2, and 4 sound reasonable at first glance... until you remember that Barrett, the expected candidate from the start, was always the focus of GOP and Democrat plans. What this means is that Trump, McConnell, and others have negotiated with the fairweather senators under the assumption that Barrett would likely be up for nomination. Do you seriously think Trump doesn't remember them panicking over Kavanaugh, so has specifically pressured them to hold steady, anticipate, and counter whatever the Democrats predictably throw at Barrett? The GOP and anyone awake already knows what the Dems are going to try to do; they'll be easy to counter, since looking at their 2020 efforts so far shows that they're at their stupidest this year.

5 seems absurd, but less so than 3. Sure, Barrett could backstab Trump... even after getting lectured by him, probably twice, that her first major decision will likely be on deciding a contested election. I doubt he'd place so much faith, to even meet her twice, in someone who hasn't promised to do a faithful, non-partisan study of the election wrought with mail-fraud.

Sure, is Barrett ideal? Nah, probably not. I'm a Lagoa guy. But the narrative that Lagoa is the only net positive choice here, and that Barrett is a signfiicant net negative, seems artifical. What matters is that Barrett, at least for now, is a safe, decent enough option. Filling the Supreme Court will not energize the Democratic base enough to actually turn out for a unlikeable candidate; if anything, it will energize them to do something else or riot, since now they can't even campaign on the immediate promise of a new Justice, but on the abstract hope of stacking the court.

After all, I remember, just four years ago, Democrats quitting once Bernie lost. In the absence of a charismatic unitor, the base fractures. Low enough turnout alone will prevent any nightmare scenarios people are expecting from this.

 

[CrippleThreat]

While talking about "Russia Russia Russia," Orange Man dropped another "bullshit."

 

[Salubrious]

The thing now is that people have "Trump fatigue".

Like, what could possibly come out now that would be worse than anything that's come out for the last 5 years? What could possibly happen that makes people think "Ok, NOW I hate Trump"?

I remember when Beanie Man was talking about how the Proud Boys shouldn't go to Portland because it will give the MSM all the fuel they need. Who could possibly care anymore when they already had Kyle? Anything short of like 10 dead isn't going to switch anybody new at this point.

 

[Extremist Frank]

Barrett doomerism is getting a little annoying. Barnes himself has stated that this hypothetical prediction will lead him to drop the GOP and Trump's chances to win Nov. 3... to 50%. From the guy who gives Trump pretty good odds.

Has there ever been a single event in modern history that sunk a candidate's chances that much? Trump literally saying "Grab them by the pussy," didn't tank him; "Binders full of women" still kept Romney relatively competitive; Obama opposing gay marriage didn't do shit to prevent his electoral landslide.

But let's follow some ofthe argument Barnes and some others present:

1) Barrett will make Collins, Gardner, and other endangered seats targets. This means they'll be more inclined to vote no.

2) By voting no, Trump loses his SC chance, a significant derail on his train.

3) By voting yes, they drive up turnout suburban white women convinced The Handmaiden's Tale is about to begin.

4) Democrats have a trap set up for Barrett, which will delay her nomination.

5) There's no certainty Barrett won't side against Trump on election outcomes.

3 seems like the dumbest argument. These women already turned out when Trump became "Admitted Rapist #1!" and Hillary Clinton appealed directly to them. There's a point in politics where returns diminish, and 2016 was arguably the returns for suburban women. If anything, having creepy Biden be their icon might depress women turnout--and turnout is really all that matters.

1, 2, and 4 sound reasonable at first glance... until you remember that Barrett, the expected candidate from the start, was always the focus of GOP and Democrat plans. What this means is that Trump, McConnell, and others have negotiated with the fairweather senators under the assumption that Barrett would likely be up for nomination. Do you seriously think Trump doesn't remember them panicking over Kavanaugh, so has specifically pressured them to hold steady, anticipate, and counter whatever the Democrats predictably throw at Barrett? The GOP and anyone awake already knows what the Dems are going to try to do; they'll be easy to counter, since looking at their 2020 efforts so far shows that they're at their stupidest this year.

5 seems absurd, but less so than 3. Sure, Barrett could backstab Trump... even after getting lectured by him, probably twice, that her first major decision will likely be on deciding a contested election. I doubt he'd place so much faith, to even meet her twice, in someone who hasn't promised to do a faithful, non-partisan study of the election wrought with mail-fraud.

Sure, is Barrett ideal? Nah, probably not. I'm a Lagoa guy. But the narrative that Lagoa is the only net positive choice here, and that Barrett is a signfiicant net negative, seems artifical. What matters is that Barrett, at least for now, is a safe, decent enough option. Filling the Supreme Court will not energize the Democratic base enough to actually turn out for a unlikeable candidate; if anything, it will energize them to do something else or riot, since now they can't even campaign on the immediate promise of a new Justice, but on the abstract hope of stacking the court.

After all, I remember, just four years ago, Democrats quitting once Bernie lost. In the absence of a charismatic unitor, the base fractures. Low enough turnout alone will prevent any nightmare scenarios people are expecting from this.

Barnes is full of shit and thinks too highly of himself; that aside, its bizarre how aggressive the pro-lagoa crowd has been. Trump added Lagoa to his short list of potential scotus nominees and all of a sudden he has to do this or risk the election.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

I remember when Beanie Man was talking about how the Proud Boys shouldn't go to Portland because it will give the MSM all the fuel they need. Who could possibly care anymore when they already had Kyle? Anything short of like 10 dead isn't going to switch anybody new at this point.

I'm praying it'll be a gay op like they did last week. In the request form they said they'd have 20,000 people, which is just ridiculous, making me think it's not really going to happen. But who knows, they're fucking idiots for agitating when they know they'll be portrayed as Nazis even if they organize donations for orphans by selling LGBT cupcakes.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Barnes is full of shit and thinks too highly of himself; that aside, its bizarre how aggressive the pro-lagoa crowd has been. Trump added Lagoa to his short list of potential scotus nominees and all of a sudden he has to do this or risk the election.

If the RINOs backstab him over Barrett in the senate like McCain did over Obamacare then is there time to do a second vote to shove it in?

 

[heyitsmike]

Barnes is full of shit and thinks too highly of himself; that aside, its bizarre how aggressive the pro-lagoa crowd has been. Trump added Lagoa to his short list of potential scotus nominees and all of a sudden he has to do this or risk the election.

Yeah, it's really weird.

Besides, we already confirmed we're going to get the reaction from the left that we want. Why go with Lagoa now? These losers are really gonna try to attack ACB for adopting two children from Haiti. I can't think of anything more appalling to swing voters.

And though I understand business is business, there is something fundamentally unfair with letting her get run through the ringer these last few days and not putting her up now. Especially if it was intentionally allowed to happen as a head fake away from Lagoa.

She's practically been accused of being the inspiration of the Handmaid's Tale and of trafficking children to prevent her from taking a seat on SCOTUS. It would be a real dick move to not even do her the courtesy of offering her the seat.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

I'm guessing Virginia's in play?

 

[Extremist Frank]

If the RINOs backstab him over Barrett in the senate like McCain did over Obamacare then is there time to do a second vote to shove it in?

Realistically, not before the election. Could try to force Lagoa or a fall back through afterwards, but they'd be excluded from any rulings on the election.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Just a thought, what if Trump is favoring Barret because of her lockdown ruling?

Corona is still the weakest thing he’s polling on, maybe he’s hoping to ride the buzz from nominating someone who “took it seriously”.

I don’t think it matters who as long as they get through. Barret might give the purple state fence sitter senators pause, but it puts the squeeze on Romney specifically, because it means he’s have to go back to Salt Lake City and explain to his very Mormon constituency why he stonewalled a pro-life judge.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

I don't trust a white woman who felt the need to go to an "impoverished country" to find orphans.

 

[heyitsmike]

Pac is alive y'all. Kamala let it slip. Quick, somebody search all the prisons in California because he's prolly being used for cheap labor.

 

[TheProdigalStunna]

Pac is alive y'all. Kamala let it slip. Quick, somebody search all the prisons in California because he's prolly being used for cheap labor.
View attachment 1621851

She must have been smoking more of that time-traveling weed. She did inhale.

 

[CrippleThreat]

@Someone Awful Ask and you shall receive; head of RSBN got word that Trump is going to Duluth, Minnesota.

Event Site

 

[GuntPunt]

Barrett doomerism is getting a little annoying. Barnes himself has stated that this hypothetical prediction will lead him to drop the GOP and Trump's chances to win Nov. 3... to 50%. From the guy who gives Trump pretty good odds.

Has there ever been a single event in modern history that sunk a candidate's chances that much? Trump literally saying "Grab them by the pussy," didn't tank him; "Binders full of women" still kept Romney relatively competitive; Obama opposing gay marriage didn't do shit to prevent his electoral landslide.

But let's follow some of the argument Barnes and others present:

1) Barrett will make Collins, Gardner, and other endangered seats targets. This means they'll be more inclined to vote no.

2) By voting no, Trump loses his SC chance, a significant derail on his train.

3) By voting yes, they drive up turnout suburban white women convinced The Handmaiden's Tale is about to begin.

4) Democrats have a trap set up for Barrett, which will delay her nomination.

5) There's no certainty Barrett won't side against Trump on election outcomes.

3 seems like the dumbest argument. These women already turned out when Trump became "Admitted Rapist #1!" and Hillary Clinton appealed directly to them. There's a point in politics where returns diminish, and 2016 was arguably the returns for suburban women. If anything, having creepy Biden be their icon might depress women turnout--and turnout is really all that matters.

1, 2, and 4 sound reasonable at first glance... until you remember that Barrett, the expected candidate from the start, was always the focus of GOP and Democrat plans. What this means is that Trump, McConnell, and others have negotiated with the fairweather senators under the assumption that Barrett would likely be up for nomination. Do you seriously think Trump doesn't remember them panicking over Kavanaugh, so has specifically pressured them to hold steady, anticipate, and counter whatever the Democrats predictably throw at Barrett? The GOP and anyone awake already knows what the Dems are going to try to do; they'll be easy to counter, since looking at their 2020 efforts so far shows that they're at their stupidest this year.

5 seems absurd, but less so than 3. Sure, Barrett could backstab Trump... even after getting lectured by him, probably twice, that her first major decision will likely be on deciding a contested election. I doubt he'd place so much faith, to even meet her twice, in someone who hasn't promised to do a faithful, non-partisan study of the election wrought with mail-fraud.

Sure, is Barrett ideal? Nah, probably not. I'm a Lagoa guy. But the narrative that Lagoa is the only net positive choice here, and that Barrett is a signfiicant net negative, seems artifical. What matters is that Barrett, at least for now, is a safe, decent enough option. Filling the Supreme Court will not energize the Democratic base enough to actually turn out for a unlikeable candidate; if anything, it will energize them to do something else or riot, since now they can't even campaign on the immediate promise of a new Justice, but on the abstract hope of stacking the court.

After all, I remember, just four years ago, Democrats quitting once Bernie lost. In the absence of a charismatic unitor, the base fractures. Low enough turnout alone will prevent any nightmare scenarios people are expecting from this.

I agree with your assessment. But you gotta figure out that most voters already know and only know a few things about the nominee. 1. Roe v Wade gone. That is already factored in, whether in white or Cuban flavors.

Look, from what I know about SC Justices, and keep in mind, I am a high information turbo political autist, I literally don't know anything about SC pick decisions except if their from the GOP, they are automatically presumed to overturn Roe v Wade. With Kavanaugh, I knew nothing besides RAPE and then overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Roe shit was going to be literally done on any nominee, even if it was fucking Roe who was the nominee.

Yes, I wanted Lagoa. But don't think for a second that she was immune from this attack line.

Here is me responding to Barnes arguments.

EDIT:They are basically the same answers as you because I didn't read your responses beforehand.

1. Gardner in Colorado is our Doug Jones. He knows he is dead and has nothing to lose.
Collins and Mura were already no votes.
Mittens is the question.

2. I have no idea about how this battle will go, but if it is ugly, it may cause more support for ACB among the Senators that matter (MITT).

3. I do not believe for a second that the suburban women who didn't vote for the FIRST FEMALE president over someone who said "Grab em by the pussy" would vote for Joe over this. That shit is dialed in.

4 was going to happen anyways. They floated IMPEACHING Trump and Barr to stall.

Who cares about 5 yet? We need her to vote on the election first. If she cucks, hire Rushing to replace Brayer. Then its 7-2.

In all, who cares? Its going to be a ride with either pick anyways. Enjoy it. 40 days till the end.

 

[heyitsmike]

1. Gardner in Colorado is our Doug Jones. He knows he is dead and has nothing to lose.
Collins and Mura were already no votes.
Mittens is the question.

You're a couple days behind on your info. Murkowski backtracked her original statement yesterday. Mittens is down for voting. I don't know what Collins will do since she has such a tight rope to walk trying to get reelected. But this confirmation is almost certainly destined to pass with either 52 or 53 votes for.

 

[GuntPunt]

You're a couple days behind on your info. Murkowski backtracked her original statement yesterday. Mittens is down for voting. I don't know what Collins will do since she has such a tight rope to walk trying to get reelected. But this confirmation is almost certainly destined to pass with either 52 or 53 votes for.

They said they will vote, not vote "yea". If they all voted present, we would have the votes without the need for ANY of them.

 

[Someone Awful]

Barrett doomerism is getting a little annoying. Barnes himself has stated that this hypothetical prediction will lead him to drop the GOP and Trump's chances to win Nov. 3... to 50%. From the guy who gives Trump pretty good odds.

Has there ever been a single event in modern history that sunk a candidate's chances that much? Trump literally saying "Grab them by the pussy," didn't tank him; "Binders full of women" still kept Romney relatively competitive; Obama opposing gay marriage didn't do shit to prevent his electoral landslide.

But let's follow some of the argument Barnes and others present:

1) Barrett will make Collins, Gardner, and other endangered seats targets. This means they'll be more inclined to vote no.

2) By voting no, Trump loses his SC chance, a significant derail on his train.

3) By voting yes, they drive up turnout suburban white women convinced The Handmaiden's Tale is about to begin.

4) Democrats have a trap set up for Barrett, which will delay her nomination.

5) There's no certainty Barrett won't side against Trump on election outcomes.

3 seems like the dumbest argument. These women already turned out when Trump became "Admitted Rapist #1!" and Hillary Clinton appealed directly to them. There's a point in politics where returns diminish, and 2016 was arguably the returns for suburban women. If anything, having creepy Biden be their icon might depress women turnout--and turnout is really all that matters.

1, 2, and 4 sound reasonable at first glance... until you remember that Barrett, the expected candidate from the start, was always the focus of GOP and Democrat plans. What this means is that Trump, McConnell, and others have negotiated with the fairweather senators under the assumption that Barrett would likely be up for nomination. Do you seriously think Trump doesn't remember them panicking over Kavanaugh, so has specifically pressured them to hold steady, anticipate, and counter whatever the Democrats predictably throw at Barrett? The GOP and anyone awake already knows what the Dems are going to try to do; they'll be easy to counter, since looking at their 2020 efforts so far shows that they're at their stupidest this year.

5 seems absurd, but less so than 3. Sure, Barrett could backstab Trump... even after getting lectured by him, probably twice, that her first major decision will likely be on deciding a contested election. I doubt he'd place so much faith, to even meet her twice, in someone who hasn't promised to do a faithful, non-partisan study of the election wrought with mail-fraud.

Sure, is Barrett ideal? Nah, probably not. I'm a Lagoa guy. But the narrative that Lagoa is the only net positive choice here, and that Barrett is a signfiicant net negative, seems artifical. What matters is that Barrett, at least for now, is a safe, decent enough option. Filling the Supreme Court will not energize the Democratic base enough to actually turn out for a unlikeable candidate; if anything, it will energize them to do something else or riot, since now they can't even campaign on the immediate promise of a new Justice, but on the abstract hope of stacking the court.

After all, I remember, just four years ago, Democrats quitting once Bernie lost. In the absence of a charismatic unitor, the base fractures. Low enough turnout alone will prevent any nightmare scenarios people are expecting from this.

I'd argue the Coronavirus seriously damaged Trump's chances of winning. Before it reared its ugly heads, I would have said that Trump was almost guaranteed to win in 2020 - likely with higher electoral votes than 2016 - and that Biden was just a jobber candidate in a "minor" election like Romney was in 2012 and Kerry in 2004. Now it's more like 50/50 where he will barely squeak by. If Trump does not get Barrett through, his campaign is over. The Democrats will have an unifying issue to rally behind to vote Trump out, increase their margin in the House, and take the Senate. Then, they will pack the courts to ensure a Trump-like challenger never shows up again. Furthermore, this is a major decision that will shape the Supreme Court for decades to come, not just bad optics comments or saying fags shouldn't marry before it became a DNC rallying cry.

While I agree that a Barrett confirmation will ultimately help Trump, the problem is that she is a high risk nomination right before the election. She barely got through in the United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit. Compare that to Barbara Lagoa who has bipartisan appeal and would be all but guaranteed to be confirmed. That's a recipe for a bitter confirmation fight with four RINOs that might cuck out. Normally I'd be all for it to humiliate the DNC, but we're only a little over a month to the election and Trump has said he wants this issue taken care of now. A Barrett nomination will ensure weeks of fighting and that takes attention away from any other October surprises like peace treaties, the Durham Report, and a possible vaccine announcement. That's if she's not rejected. Why not go with Lagoa who has on record dealt with issues regarding the election, would lock up Florida, and is a low risk nominee, then save Barrett for when Breyer or Thomas retires?

I agree that 3) is a dumb argument if only because Barrett getting through would benefit Trump more than hurt him and for 1) I also think McConnell will pressure the RINOs to say "Yes" if only because it boosts their electoral chances. Thing is, 2), 4), and 5) are legitimate talking points. I've already covered 2) in the first paragraph, but for 4) keep in mind the Democrats will go after her record. They're not stupid enough to think that "She's too Catholic!" and "She'll overturn Roe v. Wade!" are sufficient to convince RINOs to vote "No". They will drag out the fact she joined the decision for lockdown in Illinois and paint Trump as a hypocrite for being anti-lockdown. Every bit of dirt she has will be brought to life. Never underestimate your enemies and Trump of all people knows this. As for 5) let's wait and see if she's the establishment choice like what we fear. If so, she'll get a surprisingly easy confirmation. If not and she survives the ring of fire, she'll most likely rule in Trump's favor in the event of a contested election.

Also worth noting that even if Barrett gets through and rules in favor of Trump, her ruling on lock down does not give me a lot of confidence if the government ever tries to pull shit like a climate lock down (archive). Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

@Someone Awful Ask and you shall receive; head of RSBN got word that Trump is going to Duluth, Minnesota.

Event Site

The one good news of the day. It's nice to see Trump hitting the Iron Range and before October. That makes me hopeful he will hit Minnesota multiple times next month and finally make a historic flip.

There is a three day gap between rallies though. I wonder what he has planned, if anything.