Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Matt the Bruins 451]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the largest % margin of victory in a Presidential election was?

[archer 1,782]

30 minutes ago, Matt the Bruins said:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the largest % margin of victory in a Presidential election was?

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-landslide-victories-in-us-presidential-election-history.html

 

10. Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith, 1928 (17.41% margin)

9. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover, 1932 (17.76% margin)

8. Andrew Jackson defeats Henry Clay, 1832 (17.81% margin)

7. Ronald Reagan defeats Walter Mondale, 1984 (18.21% margin)

6. Theodore Roosevelt defeats Alton Parker, 1904 (18.83% margin)

5. Lyndon Johnson defeats Barry Goldwater, 1964 (22.58% margin)

4. Richard Nixon defeats George McGovern, 1972 (23.15% margin)

3. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Alf Landon, 1936 (24.26% margin)

2. Calvin Coolidge defeats John Davis, 1924 (25.22% margin)

1. Warren Harding defeats James Cox, 1920 (26.17% margin)

 

Wow, lived through three of those. Let's make it four.

[ScottishFox 570]

8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

If you have sources for that, I'd like to see them. I've heard or read nothing from intelligence agencies or any other reputable source that "confirms" they're not part of a misinformation campaign. What I have read is a letter signed by dozens of former American government intelligence and security officials, including from the current administration, who assert this development has all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/20/nation/dozens-former-intelligence-officials-sign-letter-warning-hunter-biden-story-could-be-russian-disinformation/

 

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

 

In fairness it should be noted that this is based on their experience, not any hard evidence.

 

EDIT: John Ratcliffe, current Director of National Intelligence, did deny in an interview with Fox Business that Russia was behind the current story, but acknowledged that he knew "little" about the case, and that the American intelligence community has "not been involved" in the matter.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/

 

 

 

There was this article below and some others that basically say the same thing.  Then Tony Bobulinski's little press stunt and his stated intention to be interviewed by the FBI very soon.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-and-doj-do-not-believe-hunter-biden-laptop-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-interview-request-hunter-biden-ex-associate-tony-bobulinski-senate-committee

 

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-landslide-victories-in-us-presidential-election-history.html

 

10. Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith, 1928 (17.41% margin)

9. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover, 1932 (17.76% margin)

8. Andrew Jackson defeats Henry Clay, 1832 (17.81% margin)

7. Ronald Reagan defeats Walter Mondale, 1984 (18.21% margin)

6. Theodore Roosevelt defeats Alton Parker, 1904 (18.83% margin)

5. Lyndon Johnson defeats Barry Goldwater, 1964 (22.58% margin)

4. Richard Nixon defeats George McGovern, 1972 (23.15% margin)

3. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Alf Landon, 1936 (24.26% margin)

2. Calvin Coolidge defeats John Davis, 1924 (25.22% margin)

1. Warren Harding defeats James Cox, 1920 (26.17% margin)

 

Wow, lived through three of those. Let's make it four.

 

Some of the electoral map landslides have been whoppers.

 

 

 

[archer 1,782]

1 hour ago, ScottishFox said:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-and-doj-do-not-believe-hunter-biden-laptop-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign

 

 

Breaking down the story as given in the article

 

1)FBI & DOJ concur w/ Ratcliffe that Hunter Biden's laptop & the emails in question weren't part of a Russian disinformation campaign," Fox News producer Sean Langille tweeted Tuesday evening.

 

So some unidentified person in the FBI and unidentified person in the DOJ spoke to a Fox News producer.

 

 

2) The FBI DOES have possession of the Hunter Biden laptop in question." He said it was first reported by Fox News's Justice Department producer Jake Gibson.

 

So one Fox News producer says another Fox News producer makes this claim according to the Washington Examiner...who quotes what the first producer said about the second rather than quoting the producer who (reportedly) reported it.

 

 

3) A federal law enforcement official confirmed the report with the Washington Examiner.

 

So a random federal law enforcement official (who remains nameless) from some agency (which remains nameless) spoke to someone (who remains nameless) at the Washington Examiner which is publishing the story and is presumably is free to name their own reporter in a news story in their own newspaper...but chose not to name that reporter.

 

 

4) Separately, Langille tweeted that Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum "is told by a Federal Law Enforcement Official that the emails are 'authentic.'

 

So a random federal law enforcement official (who remains nameless) from some agency (which remains nameless) spoke to a Fox News anchor according to one of the previously mentioned Fox News producers. This random federal law enforcement officer from some agency (which remains nameless) may or may not be the same person as the random federal law enforcement officer from some agency (which remains nameless) who spoke to the Washington Examiner.

 

 

I read a hell of a lot of news. The Washington Examiner would have had to have gone through some significant effort to make this "confirmation" sound sketchier.

 

In contrast, when I Google "FBI Hunter Biden email", I see links to articles by Forbes, Business Insider, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, The Hill, The Daily Mail, a Fox affiliate, the CBC, etc. readily available and all talking about how the FBI is investigating the laptop as part of a Russian intelligence operation.

 

Maybe the conservative echo chamber is correct. I wouldn't bet on it based on the readily available information.

[Old Man 11,294]

Is this all the GOP has left? Hunter Biden’s laptop that isn’t even his laptop? During a pandemic and a recession?

[BoloOfEarth 3,171]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

Is this all the GOP has left? Hunter Biden’s laptop that isn’t even his laptop? During a pandemic and a recession?

 

Well, they obviously don't want to talk about the pandemic or recession.  Or Trump's taxes.  Or his health.  Or...

[unclevlad 712]

The viewpoint of the Washington Examiner can also be noted rather quickly, by a glance through their editorial section.  They might as well be a Fox News affiliate.

[DShomshak 1,683]

8 hours ago, archer said:

I read a hell of a lot of news. The Washington Examiner would have had to have gone through some significant effort to make this "confirmation" sound sketchier.

 

They could have cited "spectral evidence," a la the old with trials. Have any children dreamed about the laptop and emails? Do epileptics have seizures when the topic is raised?

 

Given Trump's fondness for claiming "Witch Hunt" every time someone exposes evidence of his wrongdoing, it is worth noting that anonymous accusers and witnesses were a mainstay of the actual witch hunts. Also paid witnesses, testimony from convicted perjurers and other criminals, and similar abuses that were not allowed in conventional criminal trials of the time.

 

Dean Shomshak

[archer 1,782]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

They could have cited "spectral evidence," a la the old with trials. Have any children dreamed about the laptop and emails? Do epileptics have seizures when the topic is raised?

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I come close to epileptic seizures, if that means anything. Sometimes my fingers start trembling so hard that it's difficult to type.

 

I tend to move out of "discussion" mode to "prosecuting a case" mode.

 

My apologies if that comes across as off-putting to anyone. 

[Lectryk 37]

And yet there is an entirely too broad a swath of Americans who will believe this is part of the plot against them/their country/their party because it's too hard to think critically about the narrative they're being presented, and the many holes and questionable sources the information is coming from.  

 

It's easier to think a vast Deep State is conspiring in total secrecy (except for the valiant and wily Q, who has somehow avoided all attempts by said Deep State to root out the traitor), to overthrow the duly elected and patriotic government that is fighting for them and their rights, than it is that this story might be false, and that the main person involved may have something personal to gain (just read his quote, again - he wants to protect his family, his rep, etc).

 

Occam is weeping, or rolling over in his grave, or whatever expression of dismay you prefer.

[archer 1,782]

11 hours ago, Old Man said:

Is this all the GOP has left? Hunter Biden’s laptop that isn’t even his laptop? During a pandemic and a recession?

 

I'm not sure how many people here have taken the time to go to the official Trump for President campaign website.

 

But there is literally no place on the website where it lays out his plans for what he wants to do if he wins election to office. It's the most bizarre political thing I've seen.

 

Campaign sites have an issues site telling what the candidate believes. And as part of saying what the candidate believes, it lays out what he intends to do about those beliefs.

 

Every single campaign site I've ever seen.

 

In contrast, the Trump campaign website has a section to boast about his past accomplishments, such as they are.

 

Trump has mentioned a few things he intends to do along the way in his rambling rally rants (things aside from prosecuting his enemies). But not in any consistent way that would lead you to believe he was serious about it. And not in writing.

 

 

I really want/need a real political party to reemerge in the post-Trump era rather than a personality cult. Even a real political party which had an agenda I thoroughly disagree with would be a step up.

[archer 1,782]

Trump as he's needing to appeal to women voters (not sure why the clip is so long unless they just want to show Trump lying before he insults women but the relevant part starts at 4:50). You really need to hear Trump's tone of voice rather than just read the quote of what he said in order to get the full impact.

 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/522563-trump-knocks-idea-of-a-female-socialist-president

[unclevlad 712]

God, that turniphead is vile...

 

And just look through the crowd.  Mostly masked, but a fair number in-camera that aren't.  Bill Clinton actually had a rally here when he was running for his 2nd term.  I went...in part because it was a chance to do so.  Never been to one before, probably never have a good chance to go to another.  Here's the timeline:

 

--Noon:  every building overlooking the field where the rally was to be held was required to be evacuated, checked, then locked.  That impacted too many classes, so IIRC, all classes at that point were shut down, as were the non-class buildings.  (That's where I worked.)

 

--Around 2-3 pm, the security checkpoints started letting people through.  The line was MASSIVE.

 

--Around 6 or so, IIRC, some of the other candidates started speaking...

 

--Clinton hit the stage around...7?  I hate to be vague but this was a LONG time ago.

 

If anything, security these days is tighter.

 

So you've got people congregating with strangers for many, many hours.  And some...maybe not many but some...with no masks.  

[Greywind 2,599]

10 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Well, they obviously don't want to talk about the pandemic or recession.  Or Trump's taxes.  Or his health.  Or...

 

What's the fascination with his taxes anyway? A president releasing their tax returns has always been a courtesy. Not an obligation.

How about the tax returns of those in congress that got rich while being there?

[Lord Liaden 6,878]

20 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

What's the fascination with his taxes anyway? A president releasing their tax returns has always been a courtesy. Not an obligation.

How about the tax returns of those in congress that got rich while being there?

 

It's because of precedent and tradition, and Trump's transparent lies. Since 1968 every POTUS except Donald Trump and Gerald Ford, and most vice-presidents, and candidates for those offices, have made their tax returns public, to demonstrate to the American people that they have nothing to hide. Trump's refusal to do so has been compounded by his excuse of an IRS audit, which made no sense when he first gave it and is ludicrously improbable four years later. The fact of an audit never prevented Trump from releasing his taxes, and the only reason the audit has dragged on this long is because his lawyers have been fighting it.

[megaplayboy 1,642]

17 hours ago, archer said:

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-landslide-victories-in-us-presidential-election-history.html

 

10. Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith, 1928 (17.41% margin)

9. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover, 1932 (17.76% margin)

8. Andrew Jackson defeats Henry Clay, 1832 (17.81% margin)

7. Ronald Reagan defeats Walter Mondale, 1984 (18.21% margin)

6. Theodore Roosevelt defeats Alton Parker, 1904 (18.83% margin)

5. Lyndon Johnson defeats Barry Goldwater, 1964 (22.58% margin)

4. Richard Nixon defeats George McGovern, 1972 (23.15% margin)

3. Franklin Roosevelt defeats Alf Landon, 1936 (24.26% margin)

2. Calvin Coolidge defeats John Davis, 1924 (25.22% margin)

1. Warren Harding defeats James Cox, 1920 (26.17% margin)

 

Wow, lived through three of those. Let's make it four.

Only one of those involves a challenger beating the incumbent, 1932.  That's the marker imo.  If Biden even comes close to that mark, it's a real "come to Jesus" moment for the GOP.  Do they steer away, or do they hit the gas as they near the cliff?  

[Dr. MID-Nite 318]

16 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Only one of those involves a challenger beating the incumbent, 1932.  That's the marker imo.  If Biden even comes close to that mark, it's a real "come to Jesus" moment for the GOP.  Do they steer away, or do they hit the gas as they near the cliff?  

 

Well, the "New Deal" marked a period of radical reform that the country desperately needed. We're at that point again IMO....and in fact need vastly more changes than what they put into place back then.

 

[Old Man 11,294]

33 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Only one of those involves a challenger beating the incumbent, 1932.  That's the marker imo.  If Biden even comes close to that mark, it's a real "come to Jesus" moment for the GOP.  Do they steer away, or do they hit the gas as they near the cliff?  

 

[wcw43921 2,120]

6 hours ago, archer said:

 

I'm not sure how many people here have taken the time to go to the official Trump for President campaign website.

 

But there is literally no place on the website where it lays out his plans for what he wants to do if he wins election to office. It's the most bizarre political thing I've seen.

 

Campaign sites have an issues site telling what the candidate believes. And as part of saying what the candidate believes, it lays out what he intends to do about those beliefs.

 

Every single campaign site I've ever seen.

 

In contrast, the Trump campaign website has a section to boast about his past accomplishments, such as they are.

 

Trump has mentioned a few things he intends to do along the way in his rambling rally rants (things aside from prosecuting his enemies). But not in any consistent way that would lead you to believe he was serious about it. And not in writing.

 

 

I really want/need a real political party to reemerge in the post-Trump era rather than a personality cult. Even a real political party which had an agenda I thoroughly disagree with would be a step up.

 

According to the GOP's Twitter feed, these are some of Trump's plans for a second term--

 

 

Many, many Twitter users found this hard to believe.

[unclevlad 712]

That moment doesn't have to be because Biden wins broadly.  If the Republicans lose both the White House and the Senate, they'll be at that moment.

[archer 1,782]

2 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

 

According to the GOP's Twitter feed, these are some of Trump's plans for a second term--

 

 

Many, many Twitter users found this hard to believe.

 

I think he could accomplish the National High-Speed Wireless Internet Network. 

 

I wish he could accomplish the space goals but with the economy in shambles, there's no way they could do either one (even though the administration was trying to set aside money for moon base plans a few months ago, if I'm half-remembering an article correctly).

[archer 1,782]

Pence's Chief of Staff tests positive for COVID

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/522616-pences-chief-of-staff-tests-positive-for-covid-19

 

Pence adviser Marty Obst tests positive for COVID

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/522615-pence-adviser-marty-obst-tests-positive-for-covid-19

 

 

Pence as been in contact with both. 

 

But instead of going into quarantine, Pence and his staff are going to continue with his series of unmasked campaign rallies with no social distancing...because they consider themselves to be "essential employees".

 

Pence will be holding multiple events per day through election day.

 

You know, the president keeps saying that we're rounding the corner on the virus. But he forgets to point out that around the corner is a great big beautiful graveyard.

[Lord Liaden 6,878]

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

That moment doesn't have to be because Biden wins broadly.  If the Republicans lose both the White House and the Senate, they'll be at that moment.

 

I have to disagree. This election isn't just a referendum on the President, and on the GOP, but on "Trumpism," his entire approach to politics that has so corrupted the American government and divided the American people. Trump and the Republican incumbents have to be so thoroughly trounced that it's clear the great majority of Americans repudiate Trumpism. Nothing less will quiet all but their most fanatical followers, and reassure the rest of the world that the last four years don't represent what America stands for. Otherwise there will be no domestic peace going forward, and the standing of the USA in the world may never recover.

[archer 1,782]

59 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I have to disagree. This election isn't just a referendum on the President, and on the GOP, but on "Trumpism," his entire approach to politics that has so corrupted the American government and divided the American people. Trump and the Republican incumbents have to be so thoroughly trounced that it's clear the great majority of Americans repudiate Trumpism. Nothing less will quiet all but their most fanatical followers, and reassure the rest of the world that the last four years don't represent what America stands for. Otherwise there will be no domestic peace going forward, and the standing of the USA in the world may never recover.

 

Yeah, look at how the Peron cult of personality turned into a fascist Peronista political movement which is still going after 80 years.

[Greywind 2,599]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I have to disagree. This election isn't just a referendum on the President, and on the GOP, but on "Trumpism," his entire approach to politics that has so corrupted the American government and divided the American people. Trump and the Republican incumbents have to be so thoroughly trounced that it's clear the great majority of Americans repudiate Trumpism. Nothing less will quiet all but their most fanatical followers, and reassure the rest of the world that the last four years don't represent what America stands for. Otherwise there will be no domestic peace going forward, and the standing of the USA in the world may never recover.

 

The Democrats entire platform for the last 4 years has been "not Trump". Starting from the time he was elected. Their first action was to find (or make up) ground for impeachment.