What the national polls say about a 2020 Trump vs. Biden race.

[MisterBeale]

Removing SADDAM from power in Iraq was one of the best things the United States ever did for its security, the security of the region, and the world. It would be foolish to believe that things would be better off with Saddam in power, the man that invaded and annexed Kuwait resulting in a crises in the oil markets that caused the 1991 recession.

I agree that Biden was foolish to repeal glass Steagall. That's why I listed 1999 above.

Only extreme liberals and foolish libertarians oppose the patriot act.

Bullshit.

With Saddam gone, Iran has moved into that power vacuum, and it has caused the rise of ISIS.


The only folks that have benefited are Israel and the Saudis. It has only led to chaos in the region.

He was tricked into invading Kuwait, b/c they wanted to invade him.

We have LOST freedom because of the Patriot Act, not gained it. It has not benefited America in any way.


Biden is no different than Republicans, no different.

WRONG!

Iran has not invaded or annexed any countries like Saddam did. Iran has not fired any ballistic missiles at other countries like Saddam did. Iran has not seized and destroyed oil wells of another country vital to the global economy like Saddam did.

That's why regime change was justified in Iraq but not in Iran. Iran is generally a paper tiger that hides behind proxy's when conducting its foreign policy.

The rise of ISIS was in part due to the premature pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. U.S. troops returned to Iraq in 2014, and ISIS was largely defeated in Iraq by mid-2017. The only remaining territory ISIS currently controls is in Syria. As of today they control a space of territory along the Euphrates River in Syria that is a little less than 500 meters long and 250 meters wide.

Kuwait, Bahrain, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Europe, Japan, the United Sates and the rest of the industrialized world all benefited from the removal of Saddam. Saddam was a threat to global energy supply and seized and sabotaged assets vital to global energy supply in the past setting off a global recession. You can't let someone like that remain in power. That's even before discussing is vast history with the production and use of WMD.


Nobody tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait on August 2, 1990. But even if they did, he was given a chance to leave Kuwait long before the operation to remove him from Kuwait began in January 1991. Instead of leaving Kuwait, Saddam ANNEXED Kuwait in mid-August 1990. NOBODY ever stated that Saddam had a right to ANNEX KUWAIT wiping it off the face of the map.

You would think that no one in the right mind would be willing to defend someone like SADDAM, but here you are doing just that. Wonder what you would say about Hitler.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Their goal is to establish a Persian Empire in the Middle East. Add Russia who wants to establish a world empire and that spells danger for the US.

Wow.

Could you be anymore a victim of propaganda?

NATO expansion map. (CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)


Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness
Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness

There is nothing wrong with NATO expansion. It was important for NATO to take in as many countries as it could since the collapse of the Soviet Union, since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again. Europe, especially western Europe is much safer now that the line Russian tanks are not allowed to cross is hundreds of miles further to the east.

Notice, every country that joins NATO does so because they volunteer freely to do it. They also have to meet a number of conditions in terms of Democracy, government, human rights, stability etc.

"since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again."


The Soviet Union only ever had a defensive posture. Can you blame them after what happened to them after WWII? Or are you that dumb you don't know the history?

What makes you so sure Russia would be aggressive.

Who has a more aggressive stance? Who has whom encircled with bases and a global military presence?

Who spends the most on military expenditures?

You make a lot of unqualified and unsupported statements that are completely meaningless.

Do not these nations get some benefit from joining NATO?

Hasn't the president even carped on the free rider problem? If these nations actually had to contribute the same share of GDP that the US spends on defense, are you really so dumb as to believe they would still join?

Seriously?




Wow, your whole post was just nothing but parroting the false paradigm and propaganda of the CFR and the military industrial complex. HELLLO? D.C. is calling, the Mueller Report even said the whole Russiagate thing was a hOaX. . . . didn't you hear? They do not have an aggressive posture. GET OVER IT.

 

[U2Edge]

Sanders? Didn't you see what Clinton and the DNC did to that guy? He was curled up in a ball and went away quietly. Honestly, I will debate Biden. But, Sanders is in it just for attention. He is a super lightweight and would be crushed by any number of the other candidates.

On to Biden, he has been a terrible national candidate his entire life. He is now pushing 80 and no longer relevant. At his peak, Biden wasn't winning nationally. He knew in 2016 that he could never beat Clinton and went away quietly as well. And that was when everyone was 99.9% sure that whomever won the Dem nomination was a shoe in to win the Presidency. Biden is a pushover.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates can beat Trump. But, I do know that many of them are much younger and hungrier than Biden. I also suspect that Harris a few others are a lot tougher than he is as well.

Nice opinion, but you have no data to support your conclusions.

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

 

[Thinker101]

Sanders? Didn't you see what Clinton and the DNC did to that guy? He was curled up in a ball and went away quietly. Honestly, I will debate Biden. But, Sanders is in it just for attention. He is a super lightweight and would be crushed by any number of the other candidates.

On to Biden, he has been a terrible national candidate his entire life. He is now pushing 80 and no longer relevant. At his peak, Biden wasn't winning nationally. He knew in 2016 that he could never beat Clinton and went away quietly as well. And that was when everyone was 99.9% sure that whomever won the Dem nomination was a shoe in to win the Presidency. Biden is a pushover.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates can beat Trump. But, I do know that many of them are much younger and hungrier than Biden. I also suspect that Harris a few others are a lot tougher than he is as well.

Nice opinion, but you have no data to support your conclusions.

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

Yep, the real data, hard data, is old data. Based on recent data my guess is Biden will be a no show.

 

[U2Edge]

Bullshit.

With Saddam gone, Iran has moved into that power vacuum, and it has caused the rise of ISIS.


The only folks that have benefited are Israel and the Saudis. It has only led to chaos in the region.

He was tricked into invading Kuwait, b/c they wanted to invade him.

We have LOST freedom because of the Patriot Act, not gained it. It has not benefited America in any way.


Biden is no different than Republicans, no different.

WRONG!

Iran has not invaded or annexed any countries like Saddam did. Iran has not fired any ballistic missiles at other countries like Saddam did. Iran has not seized and destroyed oil wells of another country vital to the global economy like Saddam did.

That's why regime change was justified in Iraq but not in Iran. Iran is generally a paper tiger that hides behind proxy's when conducting its foreign policy.

The rise of ISIS was in part due to the premature pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. U.S. troops returned to Iraq in 2014, and ISIS was largely defeated in Iraq by mid-2017. The only remaining territory ISIS currently controls is in Syria. As of today they control a space of territory along the Euphrates River in Syria that is a little less than 500 meters long and 250 meters wide.

Kuwait, Bahrain, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Europe, Japan, the United Sates and the rest of the industrialized world all benefited from the removal of Saddam. Saddam was a threat to global energy supply and seized and sabotaged assets vital to global energy supply in the past setting off a global recession. You can't let someone like that remain in power. That's even before discussing is vast history with the production and use of WMD.


Nobody tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait on August 2, 1990. But even if they did, he was given a chance to leave Kuwait long before the operation to remove him from Kuwait began in January 1991. Instead of leaving Kuwait, Saddam ANNEXED Kuwait in mid-August 1990. NOBODY ever stated that Saddam had a right to ANNEX KUWAIT wiping it off the face of the map.

You would think that no one in the right mind would be willing to defend someone like SADDAM, but here you are doing just that. Wonder what you would say about Hitler.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Their goal is to establish a Persian Empire in the Middle East. Add Russia who wants to establish a world empire and that spells danger for the US.

Wow.

Could you be anymore a victim of propaganda?

NATO expansion map. (CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)


Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness
Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness

There is nothing wrong with NATO expansion. It was important for NATO to take in as many countries as it could since the collapse of the Soviet Union, since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again. Europe, especially western Europe is much safer now that the line Russian tanks are not allowed to cross is hundreds of miles further to the east.

Notice, every country that joins NATO does so because they volunteer freely to do it. They also have to meet a number of conditions in terms of Democracy, government, human rights, stability etc.

"since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again."


The Soviet Union only ever had a defensive posture. Can you blame them after what happened to them after WWII? Or are you that dumb you don't know the history?

What makes you so sure Russia would be aggressive.

Who has a more aggressive stance? Who has whom encircled with bases and a global military presence?

Who spends the most on military expenditures?

You make a lot of unqualified and unsupported statements that are completely meaningless.

Do not these nations get some benefit from joining NATO?

Hasn't the president even carped on the free rider problem? If these nations actually had to contribute the same share of GDP that the US spends on defense, are you really so dumb as to believe they would still join?

Seriously?




Wow, your whole post was just nothing but parroting the false paradigm and propaganda of the CFR and the military industrial complex. HELLLO? D.C. is calling, the Mueller Report even said the whole Russiagate thing was a hOaX. . . . didn't you hear? They do not have an aggressive posture. GET OVER IT.

The Soviet Union NEVER had a defensive posture!

01. At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union crushed attempts at Democracy in the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany.

02. They imposed communist dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany. These were puppet governments directly controlled by the Soviet Union.

03. When these countries or governments did not bend to the will of the Soviet Union, they would invade them and arrest or kill anyone that got in their way. They did this in 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and came close to doing it in Poland in 1981.

04. They put up walls around West Berlin to keep people from East Germany from escaping there. They tried multiple times to starve West Berlin into submission.

05. The Soviet Union supported communist revolution and take over all over the world from nearly half a century. They supported Mao's rise to power in China. Influenced North Korea into invading South Korea. Supported the Communist take over of Vietnam. In each case were talking about crushing democracy, killing freedom of religion, and imposing communist dictatorship and Atheism everywhere they could. The EVIL EMPIRE indeed.

06. The Soviet Union supported the Arab countries invasion of Israel and attempt to wipe Israel off the map in 1948. After that, they supported the Arabs action in every war against Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East.

07. Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Humas were armed and equipped by the Soviet Union.

08. The Soviet Union followed by China were the biggest Supporters of SADDAM who invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power.

09. If all that were not enough, the Soviets maintained a massive military force of over 5 million men under arms and often over 200 armored and mechanized divisions in its army alone.

10. In 1990, near the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had over 60,000 main battle tanks, while its client states in the Warsaw Pact had another 20,000. Main Battle Tanks are offensive weapons used for invasions. The Soviet and Warsaw Pact had nearly 4 times as many main battle tanks in their inventories than did NATO.

11. In terms of being able to defend Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact attack, nearly ever scenario run in their early days saw the Soviets and Warsaw Pact forces overrunning Western Europe in a matter of weeks unless NATO used nuclear weapons. But the use of nuclear weapons could bring about uncontrolled escalation and the destruction of the planet.

12. It was only in the 1980s that the United States and NATO were barley able to cobble together a conventional defense of Western Europe that might succeed in defending against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack without resorting to the use of Nuclear Weapons.

13. By the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had stockpiled more weapons of any kind than any country EVER in history. The Soviet Union had 220 total Divisions in its ground forces compared to only 44 divisions for the United States. Plus more than half of the United States divisions were reserves and stationed in the United States, a whole ocean away from where the front line would be in Europe. The Soviets had the advantage of being able to support a potential war effort only a few hundred miles from some of its major cities.

14. The Soviet Union was an aggressive communist dictatorship guilty of the worst human rights abuses, murdering millions of its own citizens. They were dedicated to imposing this communist dictatorship all over the world as well as destroying religion and imposing ATHEISM on the entire planet. You really don't get more evil than that.

Thankfully, the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s thanks to the weight of its cold war military spending and Saudi Arabia's pumping as much oil as possible to cut the price of oil in the 1980s crushing Soviet attempts to survive its economic troubles.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, countries that had long be controlled by first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia and others finally became independent states. In Ukraine, the Soviets had attempted to wipe out Ukrainian language and culture. Luckily they failed.

The Russian Federations much weaker position in the 1990s and into the early 2000s allowed countries normally controlled or dominated by Moscow to escape and come under the protection of the western military alliance in NATO. A military alliance dedicated to democracy and freedom! Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all joined NATO because they NEVER wanted to experience the horror of occupation and control by Moscow ever again. Given what they had experienced previously, they wanted to be apart of the west and protected by its military alliance in NATO. They joined NATO because they no longer wanted to be controlled and raped repeatedly by Moscow.

But as Russia became stronger in the late 00s and into the 10s, they began to become more aggressive in their foreign policy. They invaded Georgia in 2008. Then in 2014, Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea from the Ukraine. This was the first invasion and annexation of another country, or part of another country, in Europe, since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s.

The Russians have launched a vast military build up of its armed forces over the last 10 years developing the most modern Tanks, armored personal carriers, Artillery and Air Defense Artillery the world has ever seen.


As far as current military spending is concerned, what you do not understand is that military spending does not equal military capability. Countries with highly developed economies naturally have higher defense budgets because they cost of competitively paying and training their forces is greater. But when you look at the actual forces these countries can put on the battle field, they are dwarfed by countries who only spend a tenth of what they do on defense at least In nominal terms.

So military spending does not equate to raw military capability.

As for most of the NATO countries being under the proposed idea of spending at least 2% of GDP on the military, NATO countries in Europe still make up the vast majority of the ground troops, and combat aircraft that would be immediately available to respond to a Russian invasion of NATO territory. The United States has only recently started to deploy more ground combat units in Europe since cutting way back on them after the end of the cold war. United States troops stationed in Europe are still, as of today heavily outnumbered, by their NATO allies.

The current fear in Europe is that that NATO does not have currently enough ground combat forces stationed in Eastern Europe, specifically Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in order to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. The fear that Russia would invade Estonia or Latvia has been increased by the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. Countries like Estonia and Latvia fear that they are next. It was a shock to see Russia invade Ukraine and annex Crimea. Given that event, it makes it far more likely now that a similar Russian incursion could take place in the Baltic states leading to a war between NATO and Russia. It is Russian actions, Russian aggression that have created the current hostile environment. Its why Eastern Europe pushed hard to get into NATO back in the 1990s and 00s. They knew a day would come when Russia would rebuild itself from the Collapse of the Soviet Union and feared being overrun again by the Soviets as they had just after World War II.

 

[U2Edge]

Sanders? Didn't you see what Clinton and the DNC did to that guy? He was curled up in a ball and went away quietly. Honestly, I will debate Biden. But, Sanders is in it just for attention. He is a super lightweight and would be crushed by any number of the other candidates.

On to Biden, he has been a terrible national candidate his entire life. He is now pushing 80 and no longer relevant. At his peak, Biden wasn't winning nationally. He knew in 2016 that he could never beat Clinton and went away quietly as well. And that was when everyone was 99.9% sure that whomever won the Dem nomination was a shoe in to win the Presidency. Biden is a pushover.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates can beat Trump. But, I do know that many of them are much younger and hungrier than Biden. I also suspect that Harris a few others are a lot tougher than he is as well.

Nice opinion, but you have no data to support your conclusions.

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

Yep, the real data, hard data, is old data. Based on recent data my guess is Biden will be a no show.

I put a date on every poll I post. Its current. Do you have any polling data showing Biden losing the nomination or an election battle against Trump? Do you? Didn't think so.

 

[MisterBeale]

WRONG!

Iran has not invaded or annexed any countries like Saddam did. Iran has not fired any ballistic missiles at other countries like Saddam did. Iran has not seized and destroyed oil wells of another country vital to the global economy like Saddam did.

That's why regime change was justified in Iraq but not in Iran. Iran is generally a paper tiger that hides behind proxy's when conducting its foreign policy.

The rise of ISIS was in part due to the premature pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. U.S. troops returned to Iraq in 2014, and ISIS was largely defeated in Iraq by mid-2017. The only remaining territory ISIS currently controls is in Syria. As of today they control a space of territory along the Euphrates River in Syria that is a little less than 500 meters long and 250 meters wide.

Kuwait, Bahrain, U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Europe, Japan, the United Sates and the rest of the industrialized world all benefited from the removal of Saddam. Saddam was a threat to global energy supply and seized and sabotaged assets vital to global energy supply in the past setting off a global recession. You can't let someone like that remain in power. That's even before discussing is vast history with the production and use of WMD.


Nobody tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait on August 2, 1990. But even if they did, he was given a chance to leave Kuwait long before the operation to remove him from Kuwait began in January 1991. Instead of leaving Kuwait, Saddam ANNEXED Kuwait in mid-August 1990. NOBODY ever stated that Saddam had a right to ANNEX KUWAIT wiping it off the face of the map.

You would think that no one in the right mind would be willing to defend someone like SADDAM, but here you are doing just that. Wonder what you would say about Hitler.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Their goal is to establish a Persian Empire in the Middle East. Add Russia who wants to establish a world empire and that spells danger for the US.

Wow.

Could you be anymore a victim of propaganda?

NATO expansion map. (CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)


Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness
Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness

There is nothing wrong with NATO expansion. It was important for NATO to take in as many countries as it could since the collapse of the Soviet Union, since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again. Europe, especially western Europe is much safer now that the line Russian tanks are not allowed to cross is hundreds of miles further to the east.

Notice, every country that joins NATO does so because they volunteer freely to do it. They also have to meet a number of conditions in terms of Democracy, government, human rights, stability etc.

"since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again."


The Soviet Union only ever had a defensive posture. Can you blame them after what happened to them after WWII? Or are you that dumb you don't know the history?

What makes you so sure Russia would be aggressive.

Who has a more aggressive stance? Who has whom encircled with bases and a global military presence?

Who spends the most on military expenditures?

You make a lot of unqualified and unsupported statements that are completely meaningless.

Do not these nations get some benefit from joining NATO?

Hasn't the president even carped on the free rider problem? If these nations actually had to contribute the same share of GDP that the US spends on defense, are you really so dumb as to believe they would still join?

Seriously?




Wow, your whole post was just nothing but parroting the false paradigm and propaganda of the CFR and the military industrial complex. HELLLO? D.C. is calling, the Mueller Report even said the whole Russiagate thing was a hOaX. . . . didn't you hear? They do not have an aggressive posture. GET OVER IT.

The Soviet Union NEVER had a defensive posture!

01. At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union crushed attempts at Democracy in the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany.

02. They imposed communist dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany. These were puppet governments directly controlled by the Soviet Union.

03. When these countries or governments did not bend to the will of the Soviet Union, they would invade them and arrest or kill anyone that got in their way. They did this in 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and came close to doing it in Poland in 1981.

04. They put up walls around West Berlin to keep people from East Germany from escaping there. They tried multiple times to starve West Berlin into submission.

05. The Soviet Union supported communist revolution and take over all over the world from nearly half a century. They supported Mao's rise to power in China. Influenced North Korea into invading South Korea. Supported the Communist take over of Vietnam. In each case were talking about crushing democracy, killing freedom of religion, and imposing communist dictatorship and Atheism everywhere they could. The EVIL EMPIRE indeed.

06. The Soviet Union supported the Arab countries invasion of Israel and attempt to wipe Israel off the map in 1948. After that, they supported the Arabs action in every war against Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East.

07. Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Humas were armed and equipped by the Soviet Union.

08. The Soviet Union followed by China were the biggest Supporters of SADDAM who invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power.

09. If all that were not enough, the Soviets maintained a massive military force of over 5 million men under arms and often over 200 armored and mechanized divisions in its army alone.

10. In 1990, near the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had over 60,000 main battle tanks, while its client states in the Warsaw Pact had another 20,000. Main Battle Tanks are offensive weapons used for invasions. The Soviet and Warsaw Pact had nearly 4 times as many main battle tanks in their inventories than did NATO.

11. In terms of being able to defend Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact attack, nearly ever scenario run in their early days saw the Soviets and Warsaw Pact forces overrunning Western Europe in a matter of weeks unless NATO used nuclear weapons. But the use of nuclear weapons could bring about uncontrolled escalation and the destruction of the planet.

12. It was only in the 1980s that the United States and NATO were barley able to cobble together a conventional defense of Western Europe that might succeed in defending against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack without resorting to the use of Nuclear Weapons.

13. By the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had stockpiled more weapons of any kind than any country EVER in history. The Soviet Union had 220 total Divisions in its ground forces compared to only 44 divisions for the United States. Plus more than half of the United States divisions were reserves and stationed in the United States, a whole ocean away from where the front line would be in Europe. The Soviets had the advantage of being able to support a potential war effort only a few hundred miles from some of its major cities.

14. The Soviet Union was an aggressive communist dictatorship guilty of the worst human rights abuses, murdering millions of its own citizens. They were dedicated to imposing this communist dictatorship all over the world as well as destroying religion and imposing ATHEISM on the entire planet. You really don't get more evil than that.

Thankfully, the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s thanks to the weight of its cold war military spending and Saudi Arabia's pumping as much oil as possible to cut the price of oil in the 1980s crushing Soviet attempts to survive its economic troubles.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, countries that had long be controlled by first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia and others finally became independent states. In Ukraine, the Soviets had attempted to wipe out Ukrainian language and culture. Luckily they failed.

The Russian Federations much weaker position in the 1990s and into the early 2000s allowed countries normally controlled or dominated by Moscow to escape and come under the protection of the western military alliance in NATO. A military alliance dedicated to democracy and freedom! Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all joined NATO because they NEVER wanted to experience the horror of occupation and control by Moscow ever again. Given what they had experienced previously, they wanted to be apart of the west and protected by its military alliance in NATO. They joined NATO because they no longer wanted to be controlled and raped repeatedly by Moscow.

But as Russia became stronger in the late 00s and into the 10s, they began to become more aggressive in their foreign policy. They invaded Georgia in 2008. Then in 2014, Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea from the Ukraine. This was the first invasion and annexation of another country, or part of another country, in Europe, since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s.

The Russians have launched a vast military build up of its armed forces over the last 10 years developing the most modern Tanks, armored personal carriers, Artillery and Air Defense Artillery the world has ever seen.


As far as current military spending is concerned, what you do not understand is that military spending does not equal military capability. Countries with highly developed economies naturally have higher defense budgets because they cost of competitively paying and training their forces is greater. But when you look at the actual forces these countries can put on the battle field, they are dwarfed by countries who only spend a tenth of what they do on defense at least In nominal terms.

So military spending does not equate to raw military capability.

As for most of the NATO countries being under the proposed idea of spending at least 2% of GDP on the military, NATO countries in Europe still make up the vast majority of the ground troops, and combat aircraft that would be immediately available to respond to a Russian invasion of NATO territory. The United States has only recently started to deploy more ground combat units in Europe since cutting way back on them after the end of the cold war. United States troops stationed in Europe are still, as of today heavily outnumbered, by their NATO allies.

The current fear in Europe is that that NATO does not have currently enough ground combat forces stationed in Eastern Europe, specifically Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in order to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. The fear that Russia would invade Estonia or Latvia has been increased by the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. Countries like Estonia and Latvia fear that they are next. It was a shock to see Russia invade Ukraine and annex Crimea. Given that event, it makes it far more likely now that a similar Russian incursion could take place in the Baltic states leading to a war between NATO and Russia. It is Russian actions, Russian aggression that have created the current hostile environment. Its why Eastern Europe pushed hard to get into NATO back in the 1990s and 00s. They knew a day would come when Russia would rebuild itself from the Collapse of the Soviet Union and feared being overrun again by the Soviets as they had just after World War II.

I'm not going to debate any of that. Well, except that Crimea part, that is a lie.

. . . and yet, it seems, you are TOTALLY incapable of putting yourself in another's shoes. JUST LIKE DONALD TRUMP.

DO you know what they call the quality of having no empathy? narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder.


If you do not understand the impetus for these policy directives of the Soviets, and afterwards, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, you can never proceed to have a rational policy discussion. It is the actions of the Banking cartel which motivates all nations which oppose them. I suppose you also want to invade and oppress the poor and destitute of Venezuela too, eh?

Most nations only seek self-preservation from the hyper-imperialism of the raping of the planet.

Your blind jingoism and nationalism is juvenile and foolish. You have no idea how the world really works.

 

[U2Edge]

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. Their goal is to establish a Persian Empire in the Middle East. Add Russia who wants to establish a world empire and that spells danger for the US.

Wow.

Could you be anymore a victim of propaganda?

NATO expansion map. (CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)


Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness
Pelosi and McConnell Crank Up NATO Madness

There is nothing wrong with NATO expansion. It was important for NATO to take in as many countries as it could since the collapse of the Soviet Union, since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again. Europe, especially western Europe is much safer now that the line Russian tanks are not allowed to cross is hundreds of miles further to the east.

Notice, every country that joins NATO does so because they volunteer freely to do it. They also have to meet a number of conditions in terms of Democracy, government, human rights, stability etc.

"since it would be only a matter of time before the Russian Federation would recover and start up its aggressive policies towards the west and the world again."


The Soviet Union only ever had a defensive posture. Can you blame them after what happened to them after WWII? Or are you that dumb you don't know the history?

What makes you so sure Russia would be aggressive.

Who has a more aggressive stance? Who has whom encircled with bases and a global military presence?

Who spends the most on military expenditures?

You make a lot of unqualified and unsupported statements that are completely meaningless.

Do not these nations get some benefit from joining NATO?

Hasn't the president even carped on the free rider problem? If these nations actually had to contribute the same share of GDP that the US spends on defense, are you really so dumb as to believe they would still join?

Seriously?




Wow, your whole post was just nothing but parroting the false paradigm and propaganda of the CFR and the military industrial complex. HELLLO? D.C. is calling, the Mueller Report even said the whole Russiagate thing was a hOaX. . . . didn't you hear? They do not have an aggressive posture. GET OVER IT.

The Soviet Union NEVER had a defensive posture!

01. At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union crushed attempts at Democracy in the countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany.

02. They imposed communist dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany. These were puppet governments directly controlled by the Soviet Union.

03. When these countries or governments did not bend to the will of the Soviet Union, they would invade them and arrest or kill anyone that got in their way. They did this in 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, and came close to doing it in Poland in 1981.

04. They put up walls around West Berlin to keep people from East Germany from escaping there. They tried multiple times to starve West Berlin into submission.

05. The Soviet Union supported communist revolution and take over all over the world from nearly half a century. They supported Mao's rise to power in China. Influenced North Korea into invading South Korea. Supported the Communist take over of Vietnam. In each case were talking about crushing democracy, killing freedom of religion, and imposing communist dictatorship and Atheism everywhere they could. The EVIL EMPIRE indeed.

06. The Soviet Union supported the Arab countries invasion of Israel and attempt to wipe Israel off the map in 1948. After that, they supported the Arabs action in every war against Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East.

07. Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Humas were armed and equipped by the Soviet Union.

08. The Soviet Union followed by China were the biggest Supporters of SADDAM who invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power.

09. If all that were not enough, the Soviets maintained a massive military force of over 5 million men under arms and often over 200 armored and mechanized divisions in its army alone.

10. In 1990, near the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had over 60,000 main battle tanks, while its client states in the Warsaw Pact had another 20,000. Main Battle Tanks are offensive weapons used for invasions. The Soviet and Warsaw Pact had nearly 4 times as many main battle tanks in their inventories than did NATO.

11. In terms of being able to defend Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact attack, nearly ever scenario run in their early days saw the Soviets and Warsaw Pact forces overrunning Western Europe in a matter of weeks unless NATO used nuclear weapons. But the use of nuclear weapons could bring about uncontrolled escalation and the destruction of the planet.

12. It was only in the 1980s that the United States and NATO were barley able to cobble together a conventional defense of Western Europe that might succeed in defending against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact attack without resorting to the use of Nuclear Weapons.

13. By the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had stockpiled more weapons of any kind than any country EVER in history. The Soviet Union had 220 total Divisions in its ground forces compared to only 44 divisions for the United States. Plus more than half of the United States divisions were reserves and stationed in the United States, a whole ocean away from where the front line would be in Europe. The Soviets had the advantage of being able to support a potential war effort only a few hundred miles from some of its major cities.

14. The Soviet Union was an aggressive communist dictatorship guilty of the worst human rights abuses, murdering millions of its own citizens. They were dedicated to imposing this communist dictatorship all over the world as well as destroying religion and imposing ATHEISM on the entire planet. You really don't get more evil than that.

Thankfully, the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s thanks to the weight of its cold war military spending and Saudi Arabia's pumping as much oil as possible to cut the price of oil in the 1980s crushing Soviet attempts to survive its economic troubles.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, countries that had long be controlled by first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia and others finally became independent states. In Ukraine, the Soviets had attempted to wipe out Ukrainian language and culture. Luckily they failed.

The Russian Federations much weaker position in the 1990s and into the early 2000s allowed countries normally controlled or dominated by Moscow to escape and come under the protection of the western military alliance in NATO. A military alliance dedicated to democracy and freedom! Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all joined NATO because they NEVER wanted to experience the horror of occupation and control by Moscow ever again. Given what they had experienced previously, they wanted to be apart of the west and protected by its military alliance in NATO. They joined NATO because they no longer wanted to be controlled and raped repeatedly by Moscow.

But as Russia became stronger in the late 00s and into the 10s, they began to become more aggressive in their foreign policy. They invaded Georgia in 2008. Then in 2014, Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea from the Ukraine. This was the first invasion and annexation of another country, or part of another country, in Europe, since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s.

The Russians have launched a vast military build up of its armed forces over the last 10 years developing the most modern Tanks, armored personal carriers, Artillery and Air Defense Artillery the world has ever seen.


As far as current military spending is concerned, what you do not understand is that military spending does not equal military capability. Countries with highly developed economies naturally have higher defense budgets because they cost of competitively paying and training their forces is greater. But when you look at the actual forces these countries can put on the battle field, they are dwarfed by countries who only spend a tenth of what they do on defense at least In nominal terms.

So military spending does not equate to raw military capability.

As for most of the NATO countries being under the proposed idea of spending at least 2% of GDP on the military, NATO countries in Europe still make up the vast majority of the ground troops, and combat aircraft that would be immediately available to respond to a Russian invasion of NATO territory. The United States has only recently started to deploy more ground combat units in Europe since cutting way back on them after the end of the cold war. United States troops stationed in Europe are still, as of today heavily outnumbered, by their NATO allies.

The current fear in Europe is that that NATO does not have currently enough ground combat forces stationed in Eastern Europe, specifically Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in order to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. The fear that Russia would invade Estonia or Latvia has been increased by the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. Countries like Estonia and Latvia fear that they are next. It was a shock to see Russia invade Ukraine and annex Crimea. Given that event, it makes it far more likely now that a similar Russian incursion could take place in the Baltic states leading to a war between NATO and Russia. It is Russian actions, Russian aggression that have created the current hostile environment. Its why Eastern Europe pushed hard to get into NATO back in the 1990s and 00s. They knew a day would come when Russia would rebuild itself from the Collapse of the Soviet Union and feared being overrun again by the Soviets as they had just after World War II.

I'm not going to debate any of that. Well, except that Crimea part, that is a lie.

. . . and yet, it seems, you are TOTALLY incapable of putting yourself in another's shoes. JUST LIKE DONALD TRUMP.

DO you know what they call the quality of having no empathy? narcissistic personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder.


If you do not understand the impetus for these policy directives of the Soviets, and afterwards, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, you can never proceed to have a rational policy discussion. It is the actions of the Banking cartel which motivates all nations which oppose them. I suppose you also want to invade and oppress the poor and destitute of Venezuela too, eh?

Most nations only seek self-preservation from the hyper-imperialism of the raping of the planet.

Your blind jingoism and nationalism is juvenile and foolish. You have no idea how the world really works.

Sorry, Crimea is no lie. Its apart of Ukraine. Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine insuring its territorial integrity back in 1994. In return, Ukraine gave up control of nuclear weapons on its soil to Russia. Prior to 2014, every country in the world recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which includes Crimea as part of Ukraine just as Alaska is part of the United States.

In early 2014 when Russia realized that Ukraine was tilting towards the west and preferred joining the European Union over some pathetic economic union with Russia, that's when things really turned nasty. Their attempts to keep their puppet dictator in charge in Ukraine failed, despite the murder of hundreds of unarmed civilians protesting in the streets. Knowing that Ukraine was lost, they decided to take control of parts of it they felt were important. Crimea was the easy grab. They made other attempts throughout the country, but most of them failed except in Lughansk, and Donetsk. The fighting instigated by Russia in Lughansk and Donetsk has taken over 10,000 lives. Half of both provinces have effectively been taken from Ukrainian control although Russia has not officially annexed the territory. All of what Russia has done in Ukraine, from Crimea, to Lughansk and Donetsk has been ILLEGAL. Internationally, there are almost no other countries that recognize Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea.


Sorry, but there is no policy directive that would ever justify slaughtering your own people, destroying religion and imposing atheism, taking over your neighboring countries and forcing them to be your slaves. It would be like me justifying holding everyone in my neighborhood hostage because my home was invaded. Its insane. Self Defense was never the motive though. World domination and control similar to Adolf Hilter, was the goal of Stalin and those that followed him.

The only one that has come close to invading Venezuela is the Russians. The Russians have troops on the ground in Venezuela, not the United States or any of its allies. I know all too well how the world works and wonder how someone like yourself could bend over and defend someone like Putin. Crimea was stolen from Ukraine. Every part of UN international law as well as Ukraine's own constitution show that Crimea was stolen. Over 110 countries around the world recognize Crimea as being part of Ukraine. Only 20 countries recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Most of those 20 countries are essentially stooges of the Russian Federation.

 

[JWBooth]

Here is all the national polling data I could find on potential Trump vs. Biden race in 2020 starting from the latest poll going back in time.

February 16, 2019 - Emerson Poll - Biden 55% Trump 45% - Biden +10

January 22, 2019 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 41% - Biden +12

June 13, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 39% - Biden +14

March 27, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 39% - Biden +17

February 14, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

January 23, 2018 - CNN Poll - Biden 57% Trump 40% - Biden +17

December 14, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

October 31, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 38% - Biden +18

October 16, 2017 - Emerson Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

September 28, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 40% - Biden +13

August 23, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 39% - Biden +12

July 18, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 39% - Biden +15

June 12, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 41% - Biden +13

May 16, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

April 20, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

March 30, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14


When you average the margin of victory in the 16 polls, Biden beats Trump on average by 13.5 points, just 6 points less from a total overwhelming landslide when it comes to electoral Presidential politics.

Trumps percentages in these head to head races, around 40%, match his average approval rating over the past two years in the GALLUP poll.

Pretty sure that la douche nozzle was a lock at this time in 2015.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Here is all the national polling data I could find on potential Trump vs. Biden race in 2020 starting from the latest poll going back in time.

February 16, 2019 - Emerson Poll - Biden 55% Trump 45% - Biden +10

January 22, 2019 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 41% - Biden +12

June 13, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 39% - Biden +14

March 27, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 39% - Biden +17

February 14, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

January 23, 2018 - CNN Poll - Biden 57% Trump 40% - Biden +17

December 14, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

October 31, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 38% - Biden +18

October 16, 2017 - Emerson Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

September 28, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 40% - Biden +13

August 23, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 39% - Biden +12

July 18, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 39% - Biden +15

June 12, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 41% - Biden +13

May 16, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

April 20, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

March 30, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14


When you average the margin of victory in the 16 polls, Biden beats Trump on average by 13.5 points, just 6 points less from a total overwhelming landslide when it comes to electoral Presidential politics.

Trumps percentages in these head to head races, around 40%, match his average approval rating over the past two years in the GALLUP poll.

/—-/ I still like the Weiner Holder ticket.

 

[U2Edge]

Trump's abuse of women:

"Trumps abuse of Women, even of dead ones: 1981 Jessica Leeds (sexual assault), 1989 1st wife Ivana (testimony of violent sexual assault or rape; under gag order), 1989 Gabriela Sabatini (affair), 1990 Marla Maples (affair), 1993 Kristen Anderson (sexual assault), 1994 Jane Doe 13 year old (rape; case dropped out of terror), 1996 Lisa Boyne (sexual assault), 1997 Cathy Heller (assault), 1997 Temple Taggart (sexual assault), 1997 Miss Teen Mariah Billado (dressing room), 1997 Jill Harth (1992 attempted rape; case dropped out of terror), 1997 Allison Giannin (affair), 1998 Karena Virginia (sexual assault), 2000 Miss New Hampshire Bridget Sullivan (dressing room), 2001 Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon (dressing room), 2001 Miss USA (dressing room), 2003 Melinda McGillivray (sexual assault), 2005 Rachel Crooks (sexual assault), 2005 Natasha Stoynoff (sexual assault), 2006 Ninni Laaksonen (sexual assault), 2006 Miss North Carolina Samantha Holvey (dressing room), 2006 Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) (paid $130,000 in 2016 to silence), 2006 Karen McDougal (paid $150,000 to silence in 2016), 2007 Summer Zervos (sexual assault), 2013 Cassandra Searles (sexual assault), 2008 Jessica Jones (sexual assault), 2017 Communications Director Hope Hicks (affair)? Then there are innumerable times he had himself let into the rooms of contestants in his hotels to “talk” with the girls."

Now compare that with what has been alleged about Joe Biden.

Oh, and before you automatically dismiss what's above, remember Trump was caught on tape bragging about just going up to women, grabbing them by the pu%$$ and kissing them.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

The winner of Florida wins the 2020
Election and may lose the popular vote because of so many conservatives fleeing New York and California to the swing states

Popular gov Desantis will bring Florida to trump


Pro-Trump DeSantis Has Highest Approval Of Any Florida Governor In A Decade

Florida will be extremely close. Michigan and Pennsylvania are good bets to go Democrat, The 1 electoral vote that Trump won in Maine is likely to go to Democrats because of the state's numbered voting system. Republicans are in potential trouble in Georgia and Arizona, Even Texas Republicans are worried. No states in the Clinton column seem to be in comparable danger.

The big rise in the steel industry will win PA again for trump

Suburban voters, especially women, will likely put the state back in the Democrat column. Also their far right wing extremism on abortion will hurt as well in the suburbs.

Them voting different from men will have men rise up and stop this system that destroys

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Sanders? Didn't you see what Clinton and the DNC did to that guy? He was curled up in a ball and went away quietly. Honestly, I will debate Biden. But, Sanders is in it just for attention. He is a super lightweight and would be crushed by any number of the other candidates.

On to Biden, he has been a terrible national candidate his entire life. He is now pushing 80 and no longer relevant. At his peak, Biden wasn't winning nationally. He knew in 2016 that he could never beat Clinton and went away quietly as well. And that was when everyone was 99.9% sure that whomever won the Dem nomination was a shoe in to win the Presidency. Biden is a pushover.

I don't think any of the Dem candidates can beat Trump. But, I do know that many of them are much younger and hungrier than Biden. I also suspect that Harris a few others are a lot tougher than he is as well.

Nice opinion, but you have no data to support your conclusions.

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

Yep, the real data, hard data, is old data. Based on recent data my guess is Biden will be a no show.

I put a date on every poll I post. Its current. Do you have any polling data showing Biden losing the nomination or an election battle against Trump? Do you? Didn't think so.

The real polls are trumps rallies in the 5 swing states. Trump is winning easily

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Trump's abuse of women:

"Trumps abuse of Women, even of dead ones: 1981 Jessica Leeds (sexual assault), 1989 1st wife Ivana (testimony of violent sexual assault or rape; under gag order), 1989 Gabriela Sabatini (affair), 1990 Marla Maples (affair), 1993 Kristen Anderson (sexual assault), 1994 Jane Doe 13 year old (rape; case dropped out of terror), 1996 Lisa Boyne (sexual assault), 1997 Cathy Heller (assault), 1997 Temple Taggart (sexual assault), 1997 Miss Teen Mariah Billado (dressing room), 1997 Jill Harth (1992 attempted rape; case dropped out of terror), 1997 Allison Giannin (affair), 1998 Karena Virginia (sexual assault), 2000 Miss New Hampshire Bridget Sullivan (dressing room), 2001 Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon (dressing room), 2001 Miss USA (dressing room), 2003 Melinda McGillivray (sexual assault), 2005 Rachel Crooks (sexual assault), 2005 Natasha Stoynoff (sexual assault), 2006 Ninni Laaksonen (sexual assault), 2006 Miss North Carolina Samantha Holvey (dressing room), 2006 Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) (paid $130,000 in 2016 to silence), 2006 Karen McDougal (paid $150,000 to silence in 2016), 2007 Summer Zervos (sexual assault), 2013 Cassandra Searles (sexual assault), 2008 Jessica Jones (sexual assault), 2017 Communications Director Hope Hicks (affair)? Then there are innumerable times he had himself let into the rooms of contestants in his hotels to “talk” with the girls."

Now compare that with what has been alleged about Joe Biden.

Oh, and before you automatically dismiss what's above, remember Trump was caught on tape bragging about just going up to women, grabbing them by the pu%$$ and kissing them.

The media lied about trumps tape by omission. Trump said if one is a star they can do anything to women even grab their private parts. Trump showed his disgust of women with how they worship rock stars and not their husband and real heroes their military

Trump will lead men to stop the woman's harmful vote for crooks and make a wisdom test for voters

Trump will lead this movement to change all western democracies wit logjc tests for voting that stops the unwise from electing crooks

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Michigan had a rally for trump and the numbers were staggering

Vast numbers of Michigan voters became so energized and then will themselves rally more Michigan voters with their excitement

Now since trump has exposed the deep state as liars and totally dishonest people now will not believe anything the caught liars say. Including the polling companies that are tied to the deep state

Trump rallies are proving trump is winning

 

[U2Edge]

Nice opinion, but you have no data to support your conclusions.

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

Yep, the real data, hard data, is old data. Based on recent data my guess is Biden will be a no show.

I put a date on every poll I post. Its current. Do you have any polling data showing Biden losing the nomination or an election battle against Trump? Do you? Didn't think so.

The real polls are trumps rallies in the 5 swing states. Trump is winning easily

The rallies are meaningless because they represent a tiny minority of the voting public and primarily consist of only the most dedicated of followers. The fact that his hardcore base goes out to seem his speak when he is in town is not something that will save him in any general election anywhere.

 

[U2Edge]

Trump's abuse of women:

"Trumps abuse of Women, even of dead ones: 1981 Jessica Leeds (sexual assault), 1989 1st wife Ivana (testimony of violent sexual assault or rape; under gag order), 1989 Gabriela Sabatini (affair), 1990 Marla Maples (affair), 1993 Kristen Anderson (sexual assault), 1994 Jane Doe 13 year old (rape; case dropped out of terror), 1996 Lisa Boyne (sexual assault), 1997 Cathy Heller (assault), 1997 Temple Taggart (sexual assault), 1997 Miss Teen Mariah Billado (dressing room), 1997 Jill Harth (1992 attempted rape; case dropped out of terror), 1997 Allison Giannin (affair), 1998 Karena Virginia (sexual assault), 2000 Miss New Hampshire Bridget Sullivan (dressing room), 2001 Miss Arizona Tasha Dixon (dressing room), 2001 Miss USA (dressing room), 2003 Melinda McGillivray (sexual assault), 2005 Rachel Crooks (sexual assault), 2005 Natasha Stoynoff (sexual assault), 2006 Ninni Laaksonen (sexual assault), 2006 Miss North Carolina Samantha Holvey (dressing room), 2006 Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) (paid $130,000 in 2016 to silence), 2006 Karen McDougal (paid $150,000 to silence in 2016), 2007 Summer Zervos (sexual assault), 2013 Cassandra Searles (sexual assault), 2008 Jessica Jones (sexual assault), 2017 Communications Director Hope Hicks (affair)? Then there are innumerable times he had himself let into the rooms of contestants in his hotels to “talk” with the girls."

Now compare that with what has been alleged about Joe Biden.

Oh, and before you automatically dismiss what's above, remember Trump was caught on tape bragging about just going up to women, grabbing them by the pu%$$ and kissing them.

The media lied about trumps tape by omission. Trump said if one is a star they can do anything to women even grab their private parts. Trump showed his disgust of women with how they worship rock stars and not their husband and real heroes their military

Trump will lead men to stop the woman's harmful vote for crooks and make a wisdom test for voters

Trump will lead this movement to change all western democracies wit logjc tests for voting that stops the unwise from electing crooks

Trump specifically said in the tape that HE, not anyone else just goes up to women and starts kissing them. He talked about going after a women that was married on the tape. He said he "MOVED ON HER LIKE A BITCH". Donald Trump has admitted he has assaulted women on this tape as well as have NO RESPECT for the institution of marriage. It is unbelievable that ANY conservative would vote for him. He is obviously a con-man and the tape exposes that.

 

[U2Edge]

Michigan had a rally for trump and the numbers were staggering

Vast numbers of Michigan voters became so energized and then will themselves rally more Michigan voters with their excitement

Now since trump has exposed the deep state as liars and totally dishonest people now will not believe anything the caught liars say. Including the polling companies that are tied to the deep state

Trump rallies are proving trump is winning

Scientific polling still has a far better and more accurate history of predicting elections than candidates rally statistics do.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I disagree.

Biden did very poorly in his prior attempts at becoming President.

Biden is almost 80 years old. Harris, Beto and others are much younger. Also, the evidence seems to point to the conclusion they hungrier, as Biden has spent years just trying to make up his mind. And still hasn't.

On Sanders, Clinton swatted him aside with little effort.

What other proof do you need?

But back in his prior attempts to become President he was not polling very well, and a lot less people knew who he was. Often times half of running for President and doing well or getting elected is being already well known by the public.

Joe Biden polled better than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 but did not run because of the loss of his son Bo Biden.

Joe Biden has served as the Vice President of the United States for 8 years. He was elected with Barack Obama in 2008 and then re-elected with Barack Obama in 2012. People know Joe Biden and like Joe Biden in ways they didn't before he became Vice President.

Now Biden is killing it in the polls, both when it comes to match up against Trump and match ups against the other nominees. Polling data is the hard data that I'm talking about. Not something that happened 30 years ago.

Donald Trump is almost 80 and so is Bernie Sanders. If being 80 or pushing 80 was something that would disqualify you, Trump would not be President and Sanders would not have the support he has received.

Joe Biden is younger in terms of his REAL AGE than either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. What I mean by that is that he has taken better care of himself than either Trump or Sanders. He looks younger, healthier and can actually run down the street as he recently did in a video from January. So in terms of health, which is what were really talking about when we talk about age, Biden is well ahead of Trump and Sanders.

Biden has not declared he is running yet because he does not have to. You need to get out there early when your an unknown and polling low. That's not Biden. Biden is well known and polling high, the highest in fact. He can take his time.

Again, the real data, hard data, proof if you will, is in the polling. That's tells you approximately where things are at. Biden is doing great.

Yep, the real data, hard data, is old data. Based on recent data my guess is Biden will be a no show.

I put a date on every poll I post. Its current. Do you have any polling data showing Biden losing the nomination or an election battle against Trump? Do you? Didn't think so.

The real polls are trumps rallies in the 5 swing states. Trump is winning easily

The rallies are meaningless because they represent a tiny minority of the voting public and primarily consist of only the most dedicated of followers. The fact that his hardcore base goes out to seem his speak when he is in town is not something that will save him in any general election anywhere.

/——-/ Hildabeast and Bill canceled their rallies because no one showed up.

 

[dblack]

Here is all the national polling data I could find on potential Trump vs. Biden race in 2020 starting from the latest poll going back in time.

February 16, 2019 - Emerson Poll - Biden 55% Trump 45% - Biden +10

January 22, 2019 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 41% - Biden +12

June 13, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 39% - Biden +14

March 27, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 39% - Biden +17

February 14, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

January 23, 2018 - CNN Poll - Biden 57% Trump 40% - Biden +17

December 14, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

October 31, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 38% - Biden +18

October 16, 2017 - Emerson Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

September 28, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 40% - Biden +13

August 23, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 39% - Biden +12

July 18, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 39% - Biden +15

June 12, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 41% - Biden +13

May 16, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

April 20, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

March 30, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14


When you average the margin of victory in the 16 polls, Biden beats Trump on average by 13.5 points, just 6 points less from a total overwhelming landslide when it comes to electoral Presidential politics.

Trumps percentages in these head to head races, around 40%, match his average approval rating over the past two years in the GALLUP poll.

Sure, is he the new most qualified candidate?

I'm still holding out hope that Democrats will find a great candidate, one who can guide enough sane Republicans back to the light to win the election. But I'm also still hoping those Republicans will rediscover their spines and run someone against Trump in the primaries. So much for hope.

 

[U2Edge]

Here is all the national polling data I could find on potential Trump vs. Biden race in 2020 starting from the latest poll going back in time.

February 16, 2019 - Emerson Poll - Biden 55% Trump 45% - Biden +10

January 22, 2019 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 41% - Biden +12

June 13, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 39% - Biden +14

March 27, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 39% - Biden +17

February 14, 2018 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

January 23, 2018 - CNN Poll - Biden 57% Trump 40% - Biden +17

December 14, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

October 31, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 56% Trump 38% - Biden +18

October 16, 2017 - Emerson Poll - Biden 51% Trump 42% - Biden +9

September 28, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 53% Trump 40% - Biden +13

August 23, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 51% Trump 39% - Biden +12

July 18, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 39% - Biden +15

June 12, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 41% - Biden +13

May 16, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

April 20, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14

March 30, 2017 - PPP Poll - Biden 54% Trump 40% - Biden +14


When you average the margin of victory in the 16 polls, Biden beats Trump on average by 13.5 points, just 6 points less from a total overwhelming landslide when it comes to electoral Presidential politics.

Trumps percentages in these head to head races, around 40%, match his average approval rating over the past two years in the GALLUP poll.

Sure, is he the new most qualified candidate?

I'm still holding out hope that Democrats will find a great candidate, one who can guide enough sane Republicans back to the light to win the election. But I'm also still hoping those Republicans will rediscover their spines and run someone against Trump in the primaries. So much for hope.

A Primary run against Trump is unlikely give Trump's support within the Republican party. But, I think Biden will be able to peal of some Republicans who are tired of Trump or just plain shocked by what he has done as President and his behavior as President. The Democrats will concentrate 80% of their time and money getting out the vote in just three states which they neglected in 2016, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump won these states by TINY margins. Plus, when the democrats flip them blue, there are no other states Trump can take that went Blue in 2016 to make up for their losses. Once Trump loses Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania on November 3, 2020, its over for him. In Pennsylvania, the Democrats just need to flip three counties to take the state back, Erie, Northampton, and Luzerne. Luzerne is in the Scranton area where Joe Biden grew up.