civilservant

Damn, you're naive.

I agree that's possible. Then again, it's possible of any President. 8 Presidents have died in office out of 45. That's 18%. So just short of a 1 in 5 chance historically.

I don't see what you're getting at here to be honest. Why is it a problem that she wants to be President? Does that inherently mean she'll be a bad VP? I could argue that it will make her a better VP, simply because she will want to avoid being tarred by association to a failed Presidency.

andyrebell

I disagree. Is the age of Biden and even the mental capacity of Bide not an issue? Because if he can't complete the term than Kamala Harris the first woman president and the second president of color in a decade.

If I was pence looking to land a good blow during the VP debate I would raise that possibility. And if the answer is yes if necessary or she comes across as uncertain then Pence comes back with so you don't think Joe Biden is fit for office? What is she going to say no or get to her sound like she is unsure? And then Harris is on the ropes. And Pence will smash the debate and maybe he even rips the ticket in half. And Pence will do it because the Trump campaign is in big trouble. It was a strong showing last night.

andyrebell

I only know what I see on TV and from the news I can get.

civilservant

I suggest you branch out in your reading a little more.

Her answer will be:

'I know that Joe Biden is fit for office and eager to serve as President. What I also know right now is that Trump has demonstrated that he is manifestly unfit for office because of his ....... erc etc etc'

andyrebell

Most blocked by european GDPR data protection. I cannot view a single news website in St Louis for example not fox local channel not cbs local channel nothing. They are all blocked to European visitors as it New York Daily News. Yet detroit I can see all the news websites.

Steerpike

Honestly, can't you give it a rest? I'm sure privately Harris would love for Biden to have to cut short his term, whether due to death or incapacity. But publicly she's never going to say it. She's a very astute speaker, and she's not likely to let a dumb-ass like Pence trick her into saying anything that reflects badly on Biden.

If you really want to explore this idea, why not create a new thread with an appropriate subject in TIO and leave this one for people who want to discuss real aspects of the election - like mail balloting, swing states, current political ads, etc.

Giantaxe

Talking of mail in balloting, I see now Trump admitted what we already knew, namely that he's blocking USPS funding to stymie this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKCN2591PU

And some legal action in Pennsylvania:

https://www.courthousenews.com/feder...-voting-fraud/

Additionally, another swing state that is Republican held is limiting counties' ability to provide additional drop off ballot locations:

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/...-election.html

Amazingly sad that one particular party is doing all it can to suppress voter turnout.

Steerpike

Not sure if there's anything much new in this article, but I just read it and it's informative
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...history-395024

One of my 'nightmare' scenarios is that all the Covid-19 numbers continue their gradual descent from now till election day, and they get low enough that Trump can actually claim a certain degree of success. Look at the highlighted curves in the following, where I've highlighted most of the relevant swing states.

If the numbers are 'reasonable' by November, maybe the anger with Trump over his handling of the health crisis will be dissipated. HOWEVER - if that's the case - cases under control - then, do we even need to worry too much about mail-in voting? The main reason for wanting mail in voting is to avoid the virus, but if cases are relatively low, then people won't feel as nervous about voting in person. This is why I'm watching the progress of the virus in these various battleground states. We know that AZ has good experience with mail voting, as does Florida, so do we need to worry all that much about this. What really matters is - a strong turnout that leaves no doubt as to who has won.

Steerpike

A few weeks ago, I posted in this thread:
I'm sure the relative number of looters was small, but they were very active all over. The fact they smashed up shopping centers in both Scottsdale and Walnut Creek (two utterly boring suburbs), which have never seen such activities in my lifetime, suggests it was widespread. I do know that the 'impact' (memory) of those looters was quite strong among those very people who were otherwise sympathetic towards the BLM movement. It's quite amazing, really, just how 'popular' the BLM movement has become - traditionally conservative folk are now expressing support for BLM, and that is great. But the looting, and now the violence, is undoing all that goodwill and support, so it is completely counterproductive.

To which, John Woo replied:

It was blatantly clear, what happened in Walnut Creek was absolutely nothing to do with the protests. It was a group of people taking advantage of the situation, they were organized with the sole to intent loot and steal. they were in no way part of the protest.
The same thing was going on in a number of Bay Area cities. Unfortunately it is now being used to conveniently to discredit the BLM movement.
Admittedly there are bad actors among the protests that distract the easily and eager distractors.. Big picture, big picture.


So I wanted to repeat a recent post I made over in the 'Trump' thread, and would like to see how John Woo feels about this. In the article below, the BLM organizer herself is personally encouraging protesters to 'loot' and refers to it as 'reparations'. Are you quite sure, JohnWoo, that the similar actions in other cities last month 'was absolutely nothing to do with the protests'?

https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/black-...ng-reparation/
Black Lives Matter organizer calls Chicago looting ‘reparation’
"A Chicago Black Lives Matter organizer defended the widespread weekend looting in the heart of the Windy City — as “reparation.”"
"“That’s a reparation,” Atkins said. “Anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance.”"
"She also criticized the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who took to Twitter earlier Monday to denounce the “pillaging, robbing & looting” as “humiliating, embarrassing & morally wrong.” “Jesse Jackson has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter,” Atkins shot back. “Jesse Jackson was not there for the creation of Black Lives Matter. Jesse Jackson can keep his opinions to himself.”"


​​​​​​​

civilservant

Criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The state will also take 'reparations' when it locks their as*es up for theft, criminal damage, and probably aggravated mayhem or some such.

Giantaxe

I don't think the Walnut Creek looting had the slightest thing to do with BLM. It was clearly opportunists doing what usually happens in circumstances where there are large scale protests. Ariel Atkins recent comments. on the other hand, are truly depressing and counterproductive.

scrubbedexpat091

He literally is criminal scum.

Maybe it will be best for me to send my ballot by Fedex this year.

Steerpike

Is she (or he?) a big player or just a local member, do you know? Has there been any effort by BLM organizers to distance themselves from her comments? I found her comments about Jesse Jackson to be rather disturbing.

I just did a quick search looking for 'ariel atkins' and 'condemnation' (and a few variations) but can't find anything. Obviously the Chicago Mayor condemned the actions, as did Jesse Jackson, but nothing from BLM people.

Update - found this on ... of all places ... Fox News: "Black Lives Matter Chicago founder Aislinn Pulley says the recent looting in Chicago undercuts the message the organization is trying to convey" https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-liv...looting-unrest - no shit, Sherlock!

civilservant

Another hit on Trump from The Lincoln Project today. I like this one.

Steerpike

Yep, better than the last few I've seen!

I'm quite hopeful that, as we get MUCH closer to election day, we'll see a long list of 'big names' in the Republican party coming out and specifically endorsing Biden. We've already seen George Will, the members of the Lincoln Project, of course, Carly Fiorina, Colin Powell, and others. I can imagine a few Bushes joining in. Some will simply say they won't vote for Trump, like John Bolton. I'll take a 'no Trump vote' as almost as strong as a 'for Biden' vote endorsement, to be honest.

Here's a growing list from June:
https://couriernewsroom.com/2020/06/...endorse-biden/

The timing needs to be close to the election so it doesn't fall from the news cycle. Though I guess, if it could be a steadily growing list, it could remain in the cycle continuously from now till November. That would be awesome!