Recommended Posts

This last post would fit in under the Domestic Terrorism or BLM threads as well.

It is a sign of the endemic racism that the indigenous peoples are being targeted for violent actions when they are only exercising their legal right.

The roots of this discord go back over 250 years to the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1752, which promised Mi'kmaq the right to hunt and fish their lands and establish trade.

For centuries, the treaty and others like it were ignored.

But in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark ruling making it clear that the Mi'qmaq and Maliseet people had the right to not just sustain themselves by hunting and fishing, but to earn a "moderate livelihood", even in the off-season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Couldn't resist this....  

Between the posts of deicer and A330pilot my page down button is wearing out

Posted Images


Trump and Biden Will Be Muted for Parts of Their Next Debate

In an unusual move meant to avoid interruptions like those that marred the first debate, the organizers said they would turn off each candidate’s audio feed while his rival had the floor.

Mon  Oct 19, 2020 - The New York Times
By Michael M. Grynbaum

This time, the candidates will get the silent treatment.

The microphones of President Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be muted during portions of the final presidential debate on Thursday, the organizers said late Monday, in an unusual effort to avoid the unruly spectacle of the candidates’ first meeting in Cleveland last month.

The debate’s rules remain the same: Each candidate will be allotted two minutes to initially answer the moderator’s questions. But the Commission on Presidential Debates said it would turn off each candidate’s audio feed while his rival had the floor.

Once each candidate has delivered his two-minute reply, Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the Democratic nominee, will be allowed to freely engage with each other for the remainder of each 15-minute segment, with both microphones fully functional.

The incoherence of the first debate — during which Mr. Trump’s relentless interruptions of Mr. Biden and the moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News, derailed the proceedings — put pressure on the nonpartisan debate commission to improve enforcement of the rules, despite its members’ longstanding reluctance to change any aspects of the debates in the middle of a campaign.

The moderator of Thursday’s debate in Nashville, Kristen Welker of NBC News, will not be in control of turning the candidates’ microphones on and off; that task will be left to the commission’s production crew. There is also the potential for a new kind of gaffe: Mr. Trump’s voice may be picked up by Mr. Biden’s microphone, and vice versa, meaning that an attempted interruption may still be heard, at least faintly, by viewers watching at home.

In a statement, the commission said it had acted out of concern that the first debate had fallen short, “depriving voters of the opportunity to be informed of the candidates’ positions on the issues.” But it also acknowledged that the two campaigns, which were notified only shortly before the announcement, might not “be totally satisfied.”

“We are comfortable that these actions strike the right balance and that they are in the interest of the American people, for whom these debates are held,” the commission said.

Mr. Trump and his aides have signaled deep hostility to any outside control of his microphone at the debate, even sending a belligerent letter to the commission calling it “completely unacceptable” for “an unnamed person” to shut off a microphone.

Late Monday, Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “I just think it is very unfair,” according to a pool report. He added, “It is very unfair that again we have an anchor who is totally biased.”

The president’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, said Mr. Trump was “committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last-minute rule changes.” But he also accused the commission of adopting the microphone rule to aid Mr. Biden, part of a days-long effort by the Trump campaign to undermine the integrity of the commission and to paint it as biased toward the Democratic candidate.

Earlier on Monday, Mr. Stepien — who mockingly referred to the nonpartisan commission as the “Biden Debate Commission” in a tweet — claimed that the commission had “promised” that the debate on Thursday would be about foreign policy and asked for it to discard the six subjects announced last week by the moderator, Ms. Welker. (The topics are the coronavirus, climate change, national security, leadership, “American families” and “race in America.”)

In fact, the debate organizers did not announce such a plan to focus on foreign policy, saying that the third debate would mirror the format of the first, with six subjects selected by the moderator. (It is true that in some campaign years, the third presidential debate has focused on foreign policy.)

A Biden spokesman, T.J. Ducklo, said on Monday that Mr. Stepien had sent the letter “because Donald Trump is afraid to face more questions about his disastrous Covid response,” adding: “The campaigns and the commission agreed months ago that the debate moderator would choose the topics.”

Mr. Stepien’s letter did not mention Mr. Trump’s baseless accusations that Ms. Welker, a respected White House correspondent, is biased. Mr. Trump’s aides, including a top adviser, Jason Miller, have previously spoken warmly about Ms. Welker, calling her “a very good choice” to oversee the debate.

The debate commission has had a tumultuous year. Its attempt to hold a virtual debate in Miami over coronavirus concerns prompted Mr. Trump to withdraw; that debate was eventually canceled, and the candidates held separate televised town hall events instead.

Alan Schroeder, an emeritus professor of journalism at Northeastern University who wrote a history of presidential debates, said on Monday that the microphone change “sounds good in theory, but I don’t see it as solving the problem.”

“There might be — might be — two uninterrupted minutes for each candidate in the opening stretches of each segment, but then what?” Mr. Schroeder asked. “Both participants must agree to a common vision of what the exercise is supposed to be. As long as one of the candidates fails to accept the basic premise of ‘I listen while you talk, you listen while I talk,’ the essential problem remains.”


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDunkin said:

For years, I have said that this should be done, especially in Canada with multiple debaters. Finally, someone listens to me AFTER there is a problem. If only people listened to me before there was a problem.

I know. Arrogant but true.

They should do it TV interviews as well when there are tow persons of opposing views(which includes an interviewer with opposing views to a guest).

Sometimes the interjections are good.  I think each person should be allowed to interject but at the cost of a 15 second loss to their allotted time.  This way they will weigh the value of the comment they want to make - if it's zinger and worth the cost they'll pay the price but if it just a snarky comment they'll hold back.  Best of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Washington Post-ABC poll finds Joe Biden at 49 percent and President Trump at 48 percent among likely voters, with the economy buoying the president and Biden boosted by his handling of the pandemic "


7:06 am EDT Oct. 20, 2020

Democrat Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump by just one percentage point in Florida, according to a University of North Florida poll released Tuesday.

Biden's lead is within the poll's margin of error, making the race essentially a toss-up with Election Day two weeks away.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Deja^ Vu ?

Presidential Betting Markets Are Tightening. Is It Time to Hedge?

Betting markets for the U.S. presidential election have tightened sharply in recent days, which could upset investors’ confidence in a clear, uncontested outcome. That could spur increased hedging of portfolios in the less than two weeks ahead of Election Day.


RealClear Politics’ average of presidential betting odds shows a marked narrowing of the lead of former Vice President Joe Biden over President Donald Trump in the past week and a half, 61.9% to 38.6%, a spread of 23.3 percentage points. On Oct. 11, their respective odds were 67.5% to 32.8%, a spread half again as wide at 34.7 percentage points.

The betting odds, which reflect wagers made with real money in real time, have led the public opinion polls. Those have tightened as well, with the RealClear average of polls giving Biden a lead nationally of 8.6 percentage points, 51.1% to 42.5%. The Oct. 11 readings, 52.1% vs. 41.8%, represented the widest spread in favor of the Democratic challenger since the race entered the home stretch after the party conventions in the summer.

All of which suggests the presidential race is closer than some of the cable pundits have been saying. And that could spur investors who had been banking on a relatively less contentious outcome to step up hedging their portfolios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People testified, I've posted all that before.  You just are too intellectually lazy to acknowledge anything other than your narrow viewpoint.

Like my multiple requests for you to put up what trump has done that is advantageous for the average American that you cannot or will not, same again with this one.  

Show your proof.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe Biden’s push to make millions from China

Wait until Scranton hears about this.

One of Joe Biden’s ways of contrasting himself with President Trump has been to declare the election a battle of Park Avenue values vs. Scranton, Pa., values.

Now we learn that Biden has secretly been playing footsie with China.

The statement Wednesday night asserting that the former vice president was a willing and eager participant in a family scheme to make millions of dollars by partnering with a shady Chinese Communist firm is a singular event in a presidential race already overflowing with drama and intrigue.

The dynamite assertion, believable because it aligns with earlier information we know to be true, came in a statement by Tony Bobulinski, who describes himself as a former partner of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Joe’s brother Jim in the China scheme. Bobulinski unloads his bill of accusations in blunt but precise language and detail.

He confirms that he was one of the recipients of the May 13, 2017, email published by The Post eight days ago. That email, from another partner in the group, laid out cash and equity positions and mysteriously included a 10 percent set-aside for “the big guy.”

Sources have said the “big guy” was Joe Biden. In a matter-of-fact manner, Bobulinski states that the “email is genuine” and that the former vice president and the man leading in the 2020 race is indeed “the big guy.”

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board says Americans deserve answers from Biden on China business dealings
Play Video

That claim alone rips out the heart of nearly everything Joe Biden has ever said about Hunter’s many businesses and Joe’s knowledge of them. His repeated insistence that the two never spoke of the son’s global sources of money didn’t pass the laugh test.

After all, they traveled together to China on Air Force Two, where Hunter landed a $1.5 billion commitment from a government-controlled Chinese bank. Then there was Hunter’s $83,000-a-month gig on the board of a Ukrainian energy company — despite his lack of experience in Ukraine or knowledge of energy.

It was no coincidence that the vice president was the Obama administration’s point man in both countries. Wherever Joe went, Hunter went along, not to do good, but to do well. Very well.

There were similarly lucrative deals in Russia, Romania and ­Kazakhstan — that we know of.

Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad 

Now, because his role in the China deal has been credibly confirmed, it’s beyond dispute that Joe didn’t just know what was going on. At least in this case, Joe was a player and had his hand out.

To that point, in perhaps the most devastating paragraph of the 689-word statement, Bobulinski writes that Hunter Biden also referred to his father as “my chairman and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”

I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business,” says Bobulinski, who was the CEO of the company being formed. “I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”

Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm

That’s a remarkable line, one suggestive of the idea that the plan was always to sell Joe Biden’s fame and influence. In ­effect, Hunter, and sometimes Joe’s brother Jim, were turning the office of the vice president of the United States into a pot of gold for themselves.

What is not clear yet is whether Joe Biden had secret stakes in any of Hunter’s other deals. As for this one, while the date on the May 2017 email would be nearly four months after Biden left the White House, it’s not known when discussions among the partners and with the Chinese first began. Certainly they started before the email.

And while such deals would be legal for Joe Biden when he left government service, the facts take on extra significance during a campaign where China policy is a frequent topic — and a big dispute between Trump and Biden.

Trump on Post’s Hunter expose: China will 'own' the US if Joe Biden wins

Earlier, during the Democratic primaries, Biden scoffed at the notion that the Asian power is a threat, saying, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.”


When Trump blocked flights from China during the early days of the coronavirus outbreak, Biden accused him of “xenophobic fear-mongering” and labeled the president a “racist” for calling the disease the “Wuhan virus.”

Bobulinski, a former wrestler at Penn State University who spent four years in the Navy, insists he has voluminous evidence to back up his explosive charges, reportedly including documents, emails, messages and other proof.

Late Wednesday, he uploaded many to a file-sharing service.

He also says he turned over all his evidence Wednesday to two Senate committees that requested it.

An earlier report by one panel, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), revealed things about the Biden partnership that Bobulinksi says he didn’t know.

As he puts it: “The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.”

He blasts much of the media and Big Tech for shielding Biden from questions after The Post published the China email and one on Ukraine. Both were on a laptop computer Hunter left with a Delaware repairman and never retrieved.

I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now,” Bobulinski wrote.

While it’s far too early to say what effect the dramatic disclosures will have on the race, Trump is certain to raise them at Thursday’s debate.

Suffice it to say that Biden’s response will command America’s attention.

Full statement from Tony Bobulinski to the New York Post

My name is Tony Bobulinski. The facts set forth below are true and accurate; they are not any form of domestic or foreign disinformation. Any suggestion to the contrary is false and offensive. I am the recipient of the email published seven days ago by the New York Post which showed a copy to Hunter Biden and Rob Walker. That email is genuine.

This afternoon I received a request from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance requesting all documents relating to my business affairs with the Biden family as well as various foreign entities and individuals. I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.

I am the grandson of a 37 year Army Intelligence officer, the son of a 20+ year career Naval Officer and the brother of a 28 year career Naval Flight Officer. I myself served our country for 4 years and left the Navy as LT Bobulinski. I held a high level security clearance and was an instructor and then CTO for Naval Nuclear Power Training Command. I take great pride in the time my family and I served this country. I am also not a political person. What few campaign contributions I have made in my life were to Democrats.

If the media and Big Tech companies had done their jobs over the past several weeks I would be irrelevant in this story. Given my long standing service and devotion to this great country, I could no longer allow my family’s name to be associated or tied to Russian disinformation or implied lies and false narratives dominating the media right now.

After leaving the military I became an institutional investor investing extensively around the world and on every continent. I have traveled to over 50 countries. I believe, hands down, we live in the greatest country in the world.

What I am outlining is fact. I know it is fact because I lived it. I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.

Hunter Biden called his dad “the Big Guy” or “my Chairman,” and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.



I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me — it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.

I would ask the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.

I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.

God bless America



Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who testified?

And what proof are you looking for, the same level of proof that Trumps sexual assault accusers have given which you accept that just so happens to be the same level as Bidens accusers of sexual assault where proof is required.


As I stated above, I have posted in the past all that you seek.  You only bring in and edit what you hope makes you look good.

Again, intellectually lazy.

Schizophrenic Troll...


Link to post
Share on other sites

`Oregon has lost its connective tissue'


  • Calgary Herald
  • 24 Oct 2020
  • TOM BLACKWELL in Wasco, Ore.
  • image.png.45ee5667cc37f05ec66779c979edea77.png

img?regionKey=IoKTVXCglT1Zo7w0meL7Wg%3d%3dTOM BLACKWELL/NATIONAL POST Trump supporters Jay Carlson, left, and Don Hilderbrand, right front, sit with friends in Wasco, Ore. Just 180 km to the west lies Portland, a Democratic stronghold.

To describe Wasco as a onehorse town might be exaggerating its equine magnitude a little. With a population of 400, it consists of a half-dozen or so streets, a few businesses and a trailer park in the midst of the windswept, semi-arid landscape of Oregon’s Sherman County.

It may be small, but in politics, at least, the town and its sparsely populated county is united. Sherman voted 73 per cent for Donald Trump in the last U.S. presidential election, and Don Hilderbrand is certain it will do the same this time around.

The retired farmer, decorative-rock miner and son of a prominent Oregon politician conceded recently that the president has his flaws, but said even those add to his general effectiveness.

“I think in some ways he’s pretty damn disgusting,” said Hilderbrand, leaning back in an easy chair arranged on a Wasco sidewalk, as three friends kibitzed nearby. “(But) when the rest of the world looks at him, they look at him in a disgusting way, too. They can’t F*** with him … The rest of the world respects America like it hasn’t in a long time.”

“I loved Obama’s personality. I voted for him one time. (But) I thought he sold us down the tube by the time it was over. So personality isn’t everything.”

Trump is one of the most polarizing presidents in U. S. history. Even a Republican senator, Ben Sasse, recently accused him of an array of deficiencies, from flirting with white supremacists to making nice with dictators. Few would echo such words here.

But then there is Portland, 180 kilometres to the west and the state’s largest city.

The county that encompasses the city — Multnomah — voted 73 per cent for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and leans hard toward the Democrats’ left wing. It is the mirror image of Wasco.

Oregon is a reliably blue state, with Clinton beating Trump by 11 points in 2016 thanks to a population concentrated in its generally liberal cities. But it is also a starkly divided jurisdiction.

The electoral map from the last presidential election shows a sea of red counties that fills most of the state, surrounding the blue islands of Portland and second-city Eugene. And the rift between Republicans and Democrats in Oregon seems to be yawning wider.

In other words, the state has become a four-million-strong microcosm of U.S. politics as a whole, and may help explain the countrywide fissure.

“I think that Oregon has lost its connective tissue,” says Joel Barker, a spokesman for Portland Democrats. “There was a tradition of environmentally minded, Grange-style Republicans in Oregon that really tied together how we worked across those divides … There's no longer a lot of those politicians who can be relatable to both sides.”

Signs of America's political schisms have been on full display in this U.S. election campaign. The president openly mocks and insults his opponents, farright militants are charged with plotting to kidnap a Democratic governor and Biden calls Trump the country's worst commander-in-chief ever.

Opinion research suggests it's not just a question of rhetoric. The common ideological ground that once bonded many Americans has shrunk in recent years as the gulf between left and right widens sharply.

The Pew Research Centre found the average difference in Democratic and Republican views on 10 topics ranging from reducing poverty to foreign policy had more than doubled from 15 to 36 per cent between 1994 and 2017.

The percentage of Republicans who say the government should do more to help the needy, for instance, fell from 45 per cent in 2007 to about 25 per cent; Democratic backing for such government intervention rose from 54 to 71 per cent, says Pew.

And adherents of the two parties are literally less tolerant of each other.

A striking 45 per cent of Democrats and 35 per cent of Republicans said last year they'd be unhappy if their child married someone from the opposite party, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. In 1960, the figure stood at only four per cent for both.

Supporters of both parties say Oregon has experienced the same kind of split, though they disagree, of course, on the reasons.

The partisan divide plays out at the most local level, sometimes overriding traditional issues like sewers and stop lights, says Chris Nichols, a history professor and director of the Center for Humanities at Oregon State University.

“City councillors in Corvalis, Ore., they have to talk about Trump if they're running as Republicans, and if they're running as Democrats, they're running against him, they're running against what's been happening at the highest national level,” he said. “That was not as true in U.S. political history, even as recently as the George W. Bush years, which were incredibly polarizing.”

Portland has long developed a reputation as a liberal mecca, becoming one of the first cities to ban plastic shopping bags, for instance, and promoting other environmental policies.

By the time Oregon held its presidential primaries this August, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic race's progressive standard-bearers, had ended their campaigns weeks earlier and Joe

Biden had become the party's de-facto nominee. Yet Sanders and Warren still polled a combined 40 per cent of the vote in Multnomah.

Democratic activists there are “very proud of their Bernie associations,” says Barker. He points to a legendary Sanders rally in 2016 when a bird landed on the senator's podium, as if to endorse the ecologically minded candidate. The Portland crowd roared.

“People talk about it as relatively religious moment,” Barker says with a laugh.

The city's liberal, hipster ways have even earned pop-culture recognition, lampooned in the TV comedy series Portlandia. Its support for the Black Lives Matter movement is unparalleled, with almost daily rallies held since May.

But just as they divide the state geographically, the Cascade mountains do so ideologically, too. To the west are the liberal urban centres, to the east more conservative small towns and rural areas.

The state's huge, second congressional district in the east has similar voting patterns and culture to the U.S. deep south, says Nichols.

But things weren't always so, he says.

Two generations ago, Oregon's cities were not so uniformly Democratic, while those rural areas, and the Republican party, have grown more right- wing, said the historian.

Oregon Republicans even chose Jo Rae Perkins as their candidate for a vacant Senate seat. Perkins openly backs Qanon, the bizarre, baseless and Trump-championing conspiracy theory that imagines a cabal of mostly Democratic elites raping and cannibalizing children.

And as the minority in both houses of the state legislature, the party has used some contentious tactics of late. Encouraged by the group Timber Unity — a controversial coalition of loggers and truckers — Republican members have repeatedly stayed away from key votes on environmental bills, depriving the houses of quorum and stymieing the legislative process.

Republicans based in the state's rural east tend to see agriculture, logging and long-haul trucking as the key elements of the state's economy, though none are the “the industries of the future,” said Nichols.

As wealthier western Oregon has dominated state politics, people in the east have felt increasingly disenfranchised, which in turn has nudged them more to the right, suggests Barker, who grew up in an east- Oregon small town.

Back in Wasco, Hilderbrand argues that Democratic politicians are themselves pushing people toward Trump, and cites the generally peaceful anti-racism protests that have sometimes turned violent.

“Our Democratic rulers in Portland have allowed Oregon to become a disgrace in the nation, in the world,” said the son of Bev Clarno, Oregon's outgoing Republican secretary of state. “Now people think of Oregon, they think of it burning within, of anarchy.”

His friend and fellow Trump supporter Jay Carlson agrees that political polarization has gotten “worse and worse with every election.” But he also blames the other party, claiming Democrats are much more likely to deface election signs and generally exhibit “hatred” toward their rivals.

As for the president, “there's no BS,” says Carlson. “What he says, he does. If he draws a line in the sand, he sticks to it.”

Down the road in Moro, the county seat, but an even smaller town, the manager of Tall Winds Motel claims it's the media that has created divisions by constantly vilifying Trump for partisan reasons.

“I'm surprised he hasn't been blamed for the Civil War,” says Mike, who declined to give his last name.

He says he's not excited by either choice in the election but if someone put a pistol to his head, he'd definitely not vote Democrat.

Indeed, Mike invokes issues that are key elements of the president's brand, like immigration and guns. He complained that Oregon's Democratic legislators had passed a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get driver's licences, and warned that Biden would attack Americans' constitutional right to bear arms.

The Oregonians on both sides of the divide who talked to the National Post this month seemed affable and decent citizens.

But Nichols frets about what may be to come on the streets of Portland, where so-called antifa ( anti- fascist) and far- right militants have already sparred. He echoes a national concern, heightened by Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses on Nov. 3.

“The great worry is, around the election, an aggressive clash of the two groups, with the individuals being armed and the police taking a backseat,” said the professor. “That could be really disastrous.”


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Post endorses President Donald J. Trump for re-election

" As this campaign has made clear, Joe Biden is a figurehead candidate for the Democratic Party. He rarely takes questions, sticks to his stump speeches, puts a lid on the day at the late hour of 9 a.m. There’s no reason to think his presidency would be any different. The assurgent left of the party, AOC and the Squad, are salivating at the possibility of pushing through their agenda. Kamala Harris is measuring the drapes. Whatever moderate impulses Joe Biden may have, expect them to evaporate quickly in office — particularly if there’s a united blue Congress behind him.

President Trump will not be looking to remake the country. He will trust that America will, given support but not interference, bounce back. He will, in short, not get in the way. Re-electing him is the best choice for the United States.

Plus, it’ll really tick off Hollywood."


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds too good to be true?


The survey of 1,500 Likely Voters was conducted October 21-22 and 25, 2020 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodolog


Nolte: Trump Jumps to 48% to 47% National Lead over Biden

President Donald Trump now leads former Vice President Joe Biden nationally by a single point in the Rasmussen tracking poll.

Compared to other national polls, this is an outlier. Nevertheless, just two weeks ago, Biden held a 12 point lead in this same poll.

The latest national telephone and online survey finds Trump edging Democrat Joe Biden 48% to 47% among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent prefer some other candidate, while two percent remain undecided,” reports the pollster.

Last week, Biden was up three points, 49 to 46 percent.

The week prior, Biden was up eight points.

The week prior to that, he was up a whopping 12 points.

In the RealClearPolitics poll of polls, Biden leads by eight points nationally. The poll closest to Rasmussen is the Hill/Harris X poll, which has Biden up by only four, 46 to 42 percent.

What we have in this race, as far as polling, is a battle of the models. Media pollsters, and pollsters who seek media attention, appear to be using one model to guess who will turn out to vote, while pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar see a very different turnout model.

Media pollsters tell us Trump is doomed to defeat.

Rasmussen and Trafalgar tell us this is a one or two point race, and it is Trump who is usually up by those one or two points, especially in the states that will decide who our next president is.

Rasmussen has Trump up in Florida 49 to 46 percent; up in North Carolina, 48 to 47 percent; and only down two in Arizona, 48 to 46 percent.

Trafalgar has Trump up in North Carolina, 49 to 46 percent; up in Michigan, 49 to 47 percent; up in Florida 49 to 47 percent; and up in Arizona, 50 to 47 percent.

According to the media and media-approved pollsters, Trump is losing Florida by 1.5 points, losing Arizona by 2.4, losing Michigan by a whopping eight points, and down 1.2 in North Carolina.

Early vote counts can be useful, but also deceiving. So take the following with a grain of salt…

In Michigan, Republicans have returned 41 percent of the two million early votes to the Democrats’ 39 percent. That’s a two point lead for the GOP in Michigan.

The far-left Politico is already sounding the alarm about early voting not looking good for Democrats in Florida.

“Florida Republicans are pouring out of the trenches,” an alarmed Politico writes. “After weeks of Democrats outvoting them by mail, Republican voters stormed early voting precincts in person this week, taking large bites out of their opponents’ historic lead in pre-Election Day ballots.”

One key metric that should very much worry Team Biden: “According to TargetSmart’s analysis, Black voters aged 18 to 29 have cast 15.8 percent of the total ballots so far in Florida. That’s half a percentage point down from the same period in 2016.”

One demographic that capsized Hillary Clinton in 2016 was her inability to bring out the black vote.

What we do know, is that we just don’t know. The media believe they know. They are certain Trump will lose in a humiliating defeat; but the truth is that we just don’t know.


Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Left hasn't banned the subject of History in 100 years from now, I firmly believe history will be more honest about his first 4 years than the present day media ever will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jaydee said:

I firmly believe history will be more honest about his first 4 years than the present day media ever will be.

And it goes way beyond bad reporting now, the media have become the enemy of democracy:

In seeking and exercising control over the media (propaganda style) Democrats and their acolytes show themselves to be the very thing they call people who don't agree with them. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

An excerpt from FOX news this morning.... makes ya wonder what could possibly go wrong eh?

It's one step ahead of WDYTWGTH, firmly anchored in "no other possible outcome" and brought to you by the same people incapable of filling the pot holes on your road:

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that any Wisconsin ballots that don’t arrive by Election Day – even if they’re postmarked by election day – won’t be counted."

"Several other states allow mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrive after election day as long as they’re postmarked by Nov. 3."

It will be fun twitch this play out too:


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

All polls showing Biden ahead at this point.

Added yesterday

President: general election  
OCT 25-26, 2020
1,121 LV Biden
Trump Biden +4
President: general election  
OCT 22-26, 2020
1,500 LV Biden
Trump Biden +2
President: general election  
OCT 22-26, 2020
970 LV Biden
Trump Biden +5
President: general election  
OCT 22-26, 2020
970 LV Biden
More Biden +4
President: general election  
OCT 13-26, 2020
5,293 LV Biden
Trump Biden +11
President: general election  
OCT 13-26, 2020
5,293 LV Biden
Trump Biden +12
President: general election  
OCT 13-26, 2020
5,197 RV Biden
Trump Biden +10
President: general election  
OCT 23-25, 2020
834 LV Biden
More Biden +8
President: general election  
OCT 21-24, 2020
800 RV Biden
Trump Biden +11






Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.