|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 22 2024 08:48 Sadist wrote:
Who are the democratic elite?
Its just handwaving nonsense.
Oh come on, the people with all of the status and influence in the party? (not to mention money) If there's anywhere where there are actual literal elites it's in political parties.
How about all of the rich donors who pay for political PACs? The people who get a Super Delegate vote?
Using the word elites, as a broad general term for everyone in society can be a bit meaningless I agree with you, but in terms of who makes decisions in a political party it's a VERY valid word to be using.
|
United States24471 Posts
The democratic elite must be the top donors to the Biden campaign over the last few months who were getting out-raised by... the republican elite?
|
If you watch conference videos that manage to escape the closed doors of the World Economic Forum, those fat cats (or whatever you want to call 'em) are actually arrogant enough to refer to themselves as "the elite." Their talks are usually something along the lines of, "How can we, the global elite, use our vast money, influence, and power to change the world for the better?" (but mostly for themselves lol)
If Klaus Schwab and his ilk call themselves the e word to distinguish themselves from churls like us, then I'd imagine such a group of assholes actually exist *shrug
|
Northern Ireland22770 Posts
Ok so if we’re to assume Harris is the Presidential candidate, who’s VP?
Do they diversify the ticket a bit and give an olive branch to the left of the country, or run a relatively middle of the road candidate to augment their middle of the road candidate?
I do have rather extreme political biases in that direction myself, but I do feel that was a trick that was missed with Biden’s VP pick, given the Dems are such a broad coalition.
|
Northern Ireland22770 Posts
On July 22 2024 10:09 riotjune wrote:
If you watch conference videos that manage to escape the closed doors of the World Economic Forum, those fat cats (or whatever you want to call 'em) are actually arrogant enough to refer to themselves as "the elite." Their talks are usually something along the lines of, "How can we, the global elite, use our vast money, influence, and power to change the world for the better?" (but mostly for themselves lol)
If Klaus Schwab and his ilk call themselves the e word to distinguish themselves from churls like us, then I'd imagine such a group of assholes actually exist *shrug
Arrogant or accurate?
Not to particularly defend or otherwise such conferences but isn’t that kinda the point? People with the clout to actually influence things meeting to discuss in what direction they should leverage said influence?
|
On July 22 2024 10:47 WombaT wrote:
Ok so if we’re to assume Harris is the Presidential candidate, who’s VP?
Do they diversify the ticket a bit and give an olive branch to the left of the country, or run a relatively middle of the road candidate to augment their middle of the road candidate?
I do have rather extreme political biases in that direction myself, but I do feel that was a trick that was missed with Biden’s VP pick, given the Dems are such a broad coalition.
I think Harris picking Josh Shapiro, the governor of PA, would be the best mathematical chance of beating Trump.
Harris losing a few small swing states that Biden won in 2020 is actually okay, but she really needs MI + WI + PA. That's the best and simplest path to victory: all three of those states. According to polls, she'll have approximately a 1/2 chance of winning each of them. (They're not exactly independent of each other, and polling could change over the next few months, but I'm going to simplify things a bit.) Worst-case scenario would be that she (or really any other Democratic nominee) would have a 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 chance of winning all three of those key states: a 1-in-8 chance of beating Trump. It's almost certainly going to end up being better odds than that, but choosing Shapiro would automatically *significantly* increase the chance of winning PA, so much so that it would pretty much just reduce the problem from three states to two states. I'll take a 1/4 (25%) chance over a 1/8 (12.5%) chance, if those are my only options. Again, I don't really think that the chance of Harris winning is going to be as low as those numbers, but I think Shapiro gives the best boost, no matter what the odds are. Most winning scenarios require PA to vote blue.
I can't think of a better statistical path to victory than this, plus Shapiro is "young" and articulate and, quite frankly, he's a white-passing/Jewish man, which would balance demographics for those voters who... want to see balance. I think only PA's Shapiro and MI's Whitmer could lock in one of the three key swing states, and I think Shapiro would be seen as a better balance than a ticket with two women. (PA also has more electoral votes than MI or WI, so locking in PA with Shapiro can possibly create more alternative paths to victory than locking in MI with Whitmer.)
Edit:
"In a poll conducted by a Democratic super PAC, Blue Lab, he was among four Democratic candidates who performed the strongest, outperforming Biden by five points in battleground states. Shapiro was also already being vetted by donors as a potential contender and running mate for Kamala Harris." https://forward.com/news/635406/kamala-harris-vp-josh-shapiro-israel/
|
Canada11173 Posts
Is there a world where the current polling vs Trump, Biden had hit his ceiling, but for Harris, that's her floor? I mean, for anyone on the fence that hated Trump but didn't want to vote for a geriatric, she easily hits that low bar. But as for her low results in her first primary... Biden didn't do too hot in his 2008 but two rounds of being the VP and then an electorate tired of Trump later... And it's not like Harris is without credentials either: AG, Senator, and now VP.
And I don't think it's the Hillary situation as Republicans had been framing the debate around her since the 90s. All of the Trump's war machine was focused on Sleepy Joe and now they have to pivot and have about as much time to define her as she has time to define herself. I know she is perceived as unpopular, but what do they have on her, really? She talks kinda awkward? She has these kinda weird catch phrases. Sure, she's not popular with the abolish all cops crowd, but I don't there's a true danger of losing the left flank if that unpopularity only comes from her past job as opposed to actively pissing of the progressive wing with actual current tough on crime policy. In the first case, you lose votes you could never catch as the loss is based entirely on your past whereas in the second you are increasing the lost votes on the left. Might come out in the wash as a tough on crime past isn't an outright liability to right of centre voters even if she would never actually get credit from that side.
Pick up Shapiro or Mark Kelly as VP running mate and go from there?
I don't know. I don't know if it's as bad as all that. I don't think charisma in a leader is everything but then again I voted for a party with a robot for a leader
+ Show Spoiler +
edit.
Also, I think all Presidential debate formats suck. But if they actually had cross-examination, she could flex those prosecutor skills over her more anemic lofty God-bless America speeches. She'd probably do better in a Westminster system.
|
Bisutopia19137 Posts
As a fiscal conservative/social libertarian, this has moved my vote from third party to democrats. I have my preferences who they pick, but ultimately I’m happy to throw my support that way.
|
I'm going to agree with DPB and say they pick Josh Shapiro and turn Pennsylvania blue, those 20 electoral votes are looking mighty tasty.
Get Trump outta here, he's too f***in' OLD! Heh, that was quick.
|
On July 22 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 04:37 RenSC2 wrote:On July 22 2024 04:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 04:05 RenSC2 wrote:
Cancel culture strikes again. You would think people would learn from past mistakes and stop repeating them. Just because loudmouth idiots tell you to step aside does not mean you actually have to step aside.
But our Democrat senators, representatives, and big donors still haven’t learned the lesson. They listened to the twitter loudmouths (being amplified by Musk) and put pressure on Biden to step down. He fell for it. Shame on him.
I guess we get what we deserve. We’re stupid. As I’ve heard on this forum, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This is definitely not cancel culture. What separates this from cancel culture? Public pressure campaign to force someone out of a position that they have obtained. Biden crushed the primaries. By all rights, the dem nomination is his. It’s only the public pressure from a very vocal minority that has spooked the sponsors (donors) that is forcing Biden out. That's the part that's false. Democratic leadership and even Biden's closest allies (like Barack Obama) have apparently been having serious private conversations with Biden too, not just publicly shaming Biden into stepping down.
Check the order that things happened. Those democratic leaders only turned on Biden after the public uproar. They got carried along with the twitter steamroll and got scared and had talks with Biden. They were stupid enough to let the outrage machine manipulate them. Biden's instinct to stay in was right. Hold your ground and the twitter mob will get bored and move on to the next outrage. Shame on the other Democrat leaders for getting manipulated and for Biden not sticking with his instinct.
It's too late now though. Will be interesting to see how the rest plays out. Will Kamala pick a VP before the convention? The Biden electors are now all free and we'll see if any other major democrat makes a play for them. I'm hoping none do as that will not give Democrats any time to come back together after a bloody battle. Also, undercutting Kamala will be extremely unpopular amongst black people and women... even if they don't particularly like her.
For the guy that asked, it's a little hard to pin down exactly why Kamala is so unliked. Her voting record as a senator is pretty far Left. So her voting record pushes away the middle quite a bit. She was supposed to be a compromise candidate to the left, though they never saw it that way. Her time as a prosecutor who actually prosecuted crimes made her unpopular with the left especially in 2020, so they never saw her as one of their own despite her voting record. I think that anti-prosecution movement has cooled a lot since then, but the moniker and anti-Harris sentiment on the left has stuck.
For me personally, there's something about her speech patterns that seems annoying. I think it comes across as condescending.
To use an odd comparison, if Trump were Voldemort, then Harris is Umbridge. Voldemort is actually more evil, but Umbridge is that very familiar evil that we experience in our lives. Every Harry Potter reader hates Umbridge more than Voldemort even while acknowledging Voldemort is actually more evil.
Oh well, time to start making bumper stickers:
Harrris 2024. Fuck.
|
Northern Ireland22770 Posts
On July 22 2024 13:18 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 04:37 RenSC2 wrote:On July 22 2024 04:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 04:05 RenSC2 wrote:
Cancel culture strikes again. You would think people would learn from past mistakes and stop repeating them. Just because loudmouth idiots tell you to step aside does not mean you actually have to step aside.
But our Democrat senators, representatives, and big donors still haven’t learned the lesson. They listened to the twitter loudmouths (being amplified by Musk) and put pressure on Biden to step down. He fell for it. Shame on him.
I guess we get what we deserve. We’re stupid. As I’ve heard on this forum, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This is definitely not cancel culture. What separates this from cancel culture? Public pressure campaign to force someone out of a position that they have obtained. Biden crushed the primaries. By all rights, the dem nomination is his. It’s only the public pressure from a very vocal minority that has spooked the sponsors (donors) that is forcing Biden out. That's the part that's false. Democratic leadership and even Biden's closest allies (like Barack Obama) have apparently been having serious private conversations with Biden too, not just publicly shaming Biden into stepping down. Check the order that things happened. Those democratic leaders only turned on Biden after the public uproar. They got carried along with the twitter steamroll and got scared and had talks with Biden. They were stupid enough to let the outrage machine manipulate them. Biden's instinct to stay in was right. Hold your ground and the twitter mob will get bored and move on to the next outrage. Shame on the other Democrat leaders for getting manipulated and for Biden not sticking with his instinct. It's too late now though. Will be interesting to see how the rest plays out. Will Kamala pick a VP before the convention? The Biden electors are now all free and we'll see if any other major democrat makes a play for them. I'm hoping none do as that will not give Democrats any time to come back together after a bloody battle. Also, undercutting Kamala will be extremely unpopular amongst black people and women... even if they don't particularly like her. For the guy that asked, it's a little hard to pin down exactly why Kamala is so unliked. Her voting record as a senator is pretty far Left. So her voting record pushes away the middle quite a bit. She was supposed to be a compromise candidate to the left, though they never saw it that way. Her time as a prosecutor who actually prosecuted crimes made her unpopular with the left especially in 2020, so they never saw her as one of their own despite her voting record. I think that anti-prosecution movement has cooled a lot since then, but the moniker and anti-Harris sentiment on the left has stuck. For me personally, there's something about her speech patterns that seems annoying. I think it comes across as condescending. To use an odd comparison, if Trump were Voldemort, then Harris is Umbridge. Voldemort is actually more evil, but Umbridge is that very familiar evil that we experience in our lives. Every Harry Potter reader hates Umbridge more than Voldemort even while acknowledging Voldemort is actually more evil. Oh well, time to start making bumper stickers: Harrris 2024. Fuck.
But there was only the public uproar in the aftermath of some pretty disastrous public appearances, things everyone could pretty plainly see. For the Dems not to respond to that would be akin to burying one’s head in the sand.
Sometimes the tail wags the dog in terms of outrage sure, sometimes it’s pretty proportionate and aligned with observable reality.
I can only speak for myself fully, although I think DPB and a few others are in a similar bracket, they may correct me! My (our?) position was that Biden wasn’t at his most vibrant, he wasn’t the man he used to be but he was still ‘all there’ as it were. That charges of signs of senile dementia were just partisan attack points. But, perception changed with the circumstances, one can scroll back in this thread and see people adjusting. I’ve sadly only known two of my grandparents, one maternal and one paternal and both were sadly claimed by dementia, but I certainly saw at least some recognisable elements of their decline in Biden’s debate performance.
And it’s not purely an age thing, I’d cast my vote for Bernard Sandals if he was running, and I was over in the States! If the UK had a President like Ireland’s whose essentially a feel-good figurehead and a statesman/woman divorced from real power, there’s almost no way that David Attenborough wouldn’t get the gig if he ran.
I think the leadership, like Biden himself either believed, or at least hoped that he could stay the course. It didn’t pan out that way of course.
I will add that this assessment is pretty damn inexcusable from people who had frequent contact with him, surely these issues would be apparent in the day to day. But for a more detached figure with a certain legacy rep like Obama ignorance is pretty excusable.
Without making excuses for various folks involved it is just a genuinely difficult situation.
|
I certainly imagine Harris has more room to grow in the polls then Biden did. Sure her name has been polled for a while but I think there is a difference in how people react when it's a hypothetical name vs the actual candidate.
But Ia also wouldn't expect much movement because the 2 sides appear to be fairly entrenched. There are not that many independents to convince.
|
On July 22 2024 14:20 Gorsameth wrote:
I certainly imagine Harris has more room to grow in the polls then Biden did. Sure her name has been polled for a while but I think there is a difference in how people react when it's a hypothetical name vs the actual candidate.
But Ia also wouldn't expect much movement because the 2 sides appear to be fairly entrenched. There are not that many independents to convince.
It's still going to be a pro-Trump vs anti-Trump election. He's too polarizing for almost anything to move the needle. Biden totally brain-farts a debate and the polls don't move. Trump almost gets assassinated and the polls don't move.
Harris might loosen up the polls slightly as she's more unknown, but it could go either way. Yes, Harris has some room to grow, but she also has room to fall as the attacks start coming in. Biden had the advantage of being so well known that few attacks would ever land. Now Harris is in the crosshairs.
Still, I don't think the polls will move much. It's a Trump election. The real question will be turnout and very little of that turnout is based on the Democrat. It's really a question of whether Trump will energize the Republicans or the Democrats more.
|
On July 22 2024 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 06:05 Oukka wrote:
Who else? I asked this when the calls for Biden to step down started, and I've still not seen an answer. I still think Biden was the best shot, and Harris is likely the second best shot.
In a 'normal' year, getting someone new would be fine because they are campaigning for 18+ months, from the speculations before primaries all the way down to the election date. Now Dems have ~4 months to get someone, so who else should they go for than the most obvious person with the highest national recognition? Run an actual primary and find out. If Harris is going to be the nominee because there is "no one else" then at least PRETEND like you are honoring the spirit of the constitution by having her elected even if it's in a rushed primary. Give someone else, ANYONE else a chance to stand up and say they also want the job. Because I'd be happy to support almost anyone else other than her, and if she got the nomination anyway at least I could feel better about voting for her knowing she actually got the nomination in something resembling a fair way. The way it's set up now. If she gets the nomination without a primary the Democrats are going to lose the biggest election issue they have right now in the general election. They can no longer say they are the party that values Democracy. If they give that election issue up, Donald Trump will win this election. I have no doubt about it in my mind.
Good luck having something of a normal primary cycle in time with the elections. Even if it was massively accelerated and let's say the whole thing from naming the primary candidates to having the primaries completed and decided took ~6 weeks, that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for the eventual candidate to gather a team and effectively campaign vs Trump.
I agree that ideally dems would have already run their primary and there would be a clear number 1 name running against trump. Unfortunately that's not the world we're in right now and I don't believe the logistics of running anything like a normal primary contest fit in the timeframe.
|
On July 22 2024 13:18 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 04:37 RenSC2 wrote:On July 22 2024 04:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 22 2024 04:05 RenSC2 wrote:
Cancel culture strikes again. You would think people would learn from past mistakes and stop repeating them. Just because loudmouth idiots tell you to step aside does not mean you actually have to step aside.
But our Democrat senators, representatives, and big donors still haven’t learned the lesson. They listened to the twitter loudmouths (being amplified by Musk) and put pressure on Biden to step down. He fell for it. Shame on him.
I guess we get what we deserve. We’re stupid. As I’ve heard on this forum, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This is definitely not cancel culture. What separates this from cancel culture? Public pressure campaign to force someone out of a position that they have obtained. Biden crushed the primaries. By all rights, the dem nomination is his. It’s only the public pressure from a very vocal minority that has spooked the sponsors (donors) that is forcing Biden out. That's the part that's false. Democratic leadership and even Biden's closest allies (like Barack Obama) have apparently been having serious private conversations with Biden too, not just publicly shaming Biden into stepping down. Check the order that things happened. Those democratic leaders only turned on Biden after the public uproar. They got carried along with the twitter steamroll and got scared and had talks with Biden. They were stupid enough to let the outrage machine manipulate them. Biden's instinct to stay in was right. Hold your ground and the twitter mob will get bored and move on to the next outrage. Shame on the other Democrat leaders for getting manipulated and for Biden not sticking with his instinct. It's too late now though. Will be interesting to see how the rest plays out. Will Kamala pick a VP before the convention? The Biden electors are now all free and we'll see if any other major democrat makes a play for them. I'm hoping none do as that will not give Democrats any time to come back together after a bloody battle. Also, undercutting Kamala will be extremely unpopular amongst black people and women... even if they don't particularly like her. For the guy that asked, it's a little hard to pin down exactly why Kamala is so unliked. Her voting record as a senator is pretty far Left. So her voting record pushes away the middle quite a bit. She was supposed to be a compromise candidate to the left, though they never saw it that way. Her time as a prosecutor who actually prosecuted crimes made her unpopular with the left especially in 2020, so they never saw her as one of their own despite her voting record. I think that anti-prosecution movement has cooled a lot since then, but the moniker and anti-Harris sentiment on the left has stuck. For me personally, there's something about her speech patterns that seems annoying. I think it comes across as condescending. To use an odd comparison, if Trump were Voldemort, then Harris is Umbridge. Voldemort is actually more evil, but Umbridge is that very familiar evil that we experience in our lives. Every Harry Potter reader hates Umbridge more than Voldemort even while acknowledging Voldemort is actually more evil. Oh well, time to start making bumper stickers: Harrris 2024. Fuck.
Not everything is "being cancelled". Someone who is very plainly no longer fit for the job he wants to do for another 4 years isn't "being cancelled". And the primary being over is irrelevant when the public who voted for him was blatantly lied to about how astute Biden still is. It was basically the first time in ages that he had a public appearance in which not everything could be rehearsed and/or managed, and the outrage is justified. He isn't "being cancelled" over his opinions, he is "being fired" because doddery old men shouldn't be president.
|
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe!
|
On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe!
Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side 
|
Norway28478 Posts
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future.
|
On July 22 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2024 18:39 Harris1st wrote:
Dems now should be spinning the story that everytime Trump says something gibberish, that he's too old and senile. Covfefe! Congrats, by the way, on officially having the most politically-relevant TL username for this election, at least from the Democratic side
Thank you thank you. Been waiting for this moment my whole life!
On July 22 2024 19:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh they were largely doing that, at least the pro-democrat comedians who make up a portion of their mediasphere. The story there was - yes Biden is old and makes gaffes but Trump is almost equally old and makes an equal amount of gaffes, followed by a clip of trump saying something stupid.
And it kinda worked until the debate, but the debate made it absolutely clear that Trump is far more capable of speaking without a script. The story these past months/years has basically been: Republican media/people on social media claim Biden is senile, followed by a clip showing that he seemingly is. Someof these have even been fabricated i think. Democrat-leaning supporters/media claim it is less bad than what Republicans claim, and that Trump is no better. Then SOTU happens and Biden vastly outperforms expectations and democrat-leaning people go 'see? He's not so bad, and even Republicans realize that he's more there that they claimed he was. Leading up to the debate, Trump is actually building up Biden, saying he is a competent debater who will show up very prepared.
Then the debate happens and it is a complete absolute disaster impossible to defend or justify. Biden has multiple occasions of 'this is worse than Rick Perry forgetting which agency he wants to disband'. It is, without question, the single worst debate performance I've ever seen, by a significant margin, and this type of setting is actually more important than a SOTU-type setting. A president must be able to respond in real time, not just be able to present a prepared statement.
It's very disappointing that this realization is two years late, but it is what it is. I understand even just going with Kamala and everyone backing her, might be better than having a fracturing struggle without time to heal after. Either way going with Biden was increasingly impossible - the debate was too much of a catastrophe, and nothing indicates that Biden would've been able to have a much better performance in a similar setting in the future.
But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this
|
On July 22 2024 19:38 Harris1st wrote:
But having Kamala do these sorts of interviews/ discussion/ duels now should be leaning heavily in favor of Dems now right? I mean she was Attorney General for 6 six years and should be good at this
She'll be a stronger debater than Biden's corpse, for sure, but she's been surprisingly weak at the more conventional, inspirational SOTU type events. She struggles to project genuine warmth and she has to thread the needle that all women run into where she can't be too maternal or she's not taken seriously, and can't be too hardass or she's a bitch.
And Trump's not stupid, he knows this. I strongly doubt he'll even risk another debate, especially if Harris looks strong there. He has a kernel of truth to spin whatever excuses he needs, and he's already proven himself on the stage so there's less to gain from a rematch.
Imo he'll do a full 180 and start stanning for Joe. Refuse to legitimise her, claim Biden was the rightful nominee and that this is proof of the deep state eating itself in its desperation.
Hell I wouldn't even be surprised if a couple of groups pop up trying to drum up a write-in campaign for poor old Joe. It could shave half a percent from what's left of the never trumpers, and they're pretty much the only swing voters left on the field anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1003262547301097472/UqUTTE49_400x400.jpg)
