Trump used to walk into (not "spy") the changing rooms of the Miss Universe Pageant and gauck at the beauties because he figured as owner he was entitled to oggle the girls naked. He said so himself.But Trump has actually talked about and admitted a lot of his like the spying on under age girls in changing rooms!
To be clear in the past Greenman was very comfortable commenting on legal matters that hadn't been decided by a court of law.What's funny is how sometimes you'll decide that you absolutely can't comment on legal matters unless it's been decided in a court of law. Well Trump has already been convicted for some of his many crimes, Biden has not. Yet here you are, still with this 'both sides' nonsense.
That's simply stupid. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears so you won't have to face the truth. There is absolutely no doubt at this point that she knowingly and willfully ignored the rules, attempted to destroy evidence, and continually lied to the American people and the FBI about it. It's either intent or stupidity on an enormous scale.
I was on the fence about this until today, but watching the FBI director's questioning, the truth is obvious. Hillary is either a complete idiot, a criminal, or absolutely certain that she's untouchable.
The biggest issue for me here is that hypothetical candidates almost always poll better than actual candidates.Previously Harris was testing at least several points below Biden. Recently it's been generally even or slightly ahead v Trump. Directionally there has been a change even if you have poll skepticism.
So to be clear you are saying that Republicans believe things that are false and Democrats believe things that are true?I don't recall saying Trump wasn't guilty of a crime, I also don't recall claiming Biden was. I have used examples of the accusations.
Yep. People stuff their hopes and dreams into "generic candidate X" before they really know them or before any media scrutiny has been applied, which is why those polls are always useless.The biggest issue for me here is that hypothetical candidates almost always poll better than actual candidates.
The biggest issue for me here is that hypothetical candidates almost always poll better than actual candidates.
Yep. People stuff their hopes and dreams into "generic candidate X" before they really know them or before any media scrutiny has been applied, which is why those polls are always useless.
So what you are saying is while the magnitude of her polling maybe off the direction is one of improvement.When name recognition is low a generic candidate can start out with high numbers because they aren't defined, this is arguably much of the D field that we'll be seeing in 2028. I'm having a hard time viewing this as exactly the same since she's already been subject to a lot of scrutiny and in recent weeks she's gone from consistently underperforming Biden to even or outperforming.
She'd probably excel in a debate against Trump in September. He might decline if things come to that. She'd pick him apart. She'll probably demolish Trump's running mate if it comes to that, i.e. she's VP candidate.When name recognition is low a generic candidate can start out with high numbers because they aren't defined, this is arguably much of the D field that we'll be seeing in 2028. I'm having a hard time viewing this as exactly the same since she's already been subject to a lot of scrutiny and in recent weeks she's gone from consistently underperforming Biden to even or outperforming.
So what you are saying is while the magnitude of her polling maybe off the direction is one of improvement.
She'd probably excel in a debate against Trump in September. He might decline if things come to that. She'd pick him apart. She'll probably demolish Trump's running mate if it comes to that, i.e. she's VP candidate.
Previously Harris was testing at least several points below Biden. Recently it's been generally even or slightly ahead v Trump. Directionally there has been a change even if you have poll skepticism.
I have a hard time believing that a VERY unpopular Harris in 2020, for which the GOP will have plenty of attacks lined up ("DEI," border Czar, cackles, etc) will all of a sudden be up on Trump. Unless it's the "new name" bump initially that would then quickly fade?
Florida is a red state.The problem is that right now, Biden is looking like he's on a severe downslide from where he was a year ago, let alone four.
It doesn't take someone who follows politics to follow that on through. Nobody thinks he's going to get "better" when his problem is age. What will the POTUS be like in a year? That scares people. I reckon I'm in the minority when I say I wouldn't care if the VP took over. I would be concerned if someone lost their judgement, and frankly that seems like Biden right now.
Florida isn't really normally a blue state; it's purple at best. Looking back over the last few decades the GOP has won more presidential elections than not. I live in a county that went for Biden (barely) and there aren't many of those.
I didn't vote for Biden in the primary mainly because it's not hard to see he'd be 82 when he finishes his first term. I liked Warren but she's now 75 and even that's too old to be starting a grueling 4 year job IMO.
But it is what it is. The bed has been made years ago and now we are going to lie in it.
Yes, he's campaigning fine and doing the job as president. Which makes all the coverage especially weird.
Yes, he's campaigning fine and doing the job as president. Which makes all the coverage especially weird.
There is no acceptable success criteria for his events anymore.
Yes, because the party elite and taste makers have the political instincts of morons.This is not untrue but they in no small part did it to themselves.
That's a bit of Blue Anon propaganda. Yes he does campaign stops, but they count a campaign stop where Biden talks for six minutes, and then sits in the audience at a second event for a little bit. It's misleading. Also, let's face it, he doesn't look or sound great ever, he is just passable to not bad.