Biden could actually win

[Trailblazer]

Miken, There are 60,000 votes uncounted in Georgia, and Trump is only ahead by 14,000 votes, and most of the uncounted are in heavily democratic areas, the Republican areas have already been counted.

You're not very good with math on the Pennsylvania thing, like I said 740000 uncounted, mostly democratic big cities, have been coming in at about 77% for Biden if that continues today Biden will end up with something like a 100,000 vote lead. Just this morning about 2 % of the vote counted Trumps lead has gone from 145,000 to 114,000 at this rate Trump can't win, impossible.

Thanks.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

".....when it comes to blacks" is that demonstrable w facts?

Not just racism, but also encouraging violence. Also, as evidence against @Revoltingest ’s claim, both old history and continuing unabated though to today.
Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020
5 years of hate: Trump’s history of encouraging violence, from 2015 to 2020

....and for full disclosure, let’s review “Biden’s racism”.
Biden Vows To Ease Racial Divisions. Here's His Record

Being a quasi-religious belief, "Trump is racist" needs no evidence.

Being a quasi-religious belief, “Trump is not racist” only needs to ignore all evidence.
Wakey wakey time!
Actually that should have been 4 years and 3 days ago. Whoops! Too late.

 

[ronki23]

Touch wood that Arizona doesn't go to Trump

If we ignore Arizona for now then Biden is at 253 : winning Pennsylvania makes him President .

If we don't ignore Arizona then Biden only needs to win Nevada.

 

[Lyndon]

Pennsylvania is the quickest way to victory for Biden, may be decided by tomorrow, other states will take longer though Georgia is claiming they'll be done today, but I don't see that happening. Nevada and Arizona will be at least a week

 

[Revoltingest]

Not just racism, but also encouraging violence. Also, as evidence against @Revoltingest ’s claim, both old history and continuing unabated though to today.
Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020
5 years of hate: Trump’s history of encouraging violence, from 2015 to 2020

....and for full disclosure, let’s review “Biden’s racism”.
Biden Vows To Ease Racial Divisions. Here's His Record

You just offered evidence of Biden's racism.
So the popular leftish chant about Trump's racism
rings hollow. If it really mattered to them, they'd
have run someone other than Biden.

 

[suncowiam]

You just offered evidence of Biden's racism.
So the popular leftish chant about Trump's racism
rings hollow. If it really mattered to them, they'd
have run someone other than Biden.

Some of us acknowledged the shortcomings of Biden and his racist past.

I can't answer for others but I specifically said that Biden is still less worst than Trump, hence, why we should support Biden over Trump.

I need to repeat this again because you're paraphrasing falsely for many of us.

I am not voting for the Biden of the past. I am voting for the Biden of the present compared to Trump of the present.

I have decided that Biden is the better candidate for racial relations for the next 4 years.

Your logical error is assuming we need a perfect candidate with a perfect past to justify a better moral and ethical position against Trump.

If you want to call Biden a racist because of his past, then that is fine by me because his past justifies it. But the other context here is that that was decades ago.

Do me a favor and compare the two candidates in the last 4-8 years? Now what can you say? Should that matter more?

Calling Biden a racist doesn't prevent me from saying Trump is the worst racist between the two.

 

[Revoltingest]

You still try to claim equivalence between the two candidates, again, being dishonest as usual.

Well there's the discussion ender.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You just offered evidence of Biden's racism.
So the popular leftish chant about Trump's racism
rings hollow. If it really mattered to them, they'd
have run someone other than Biden.

'The left' isn't a homogenous group, though.
Some of the left DID want to run a different candidate, and some of the left probably did so due to their beliefs on race, and how they saw Biden's background in the area.
Some of the left didn't.

It's like how they say atheists eat babies. Sure, you and I do, but not all atheists do. Actually, it's nothing like that. Forget I mentioned it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Some of us acknowledged the shortcomings of Biden and his racist past.

I can't answer for others but I specifically said that Biden is still less worst than Trump, hence, why we should support Biden over Trump.

You still try to claim equivalence between the two candidates, again, being dishonest as usual. You know these types of fallacies better than most here.

I need to repeat this again because you're paraphrasing falsely for many of us.

I am not voting for the Biden of the past. I am voting for the Biden of the present compared to Trump of the present.

I have decided that Biden is the better candidate for racial relations for the next 4 years.

Your logical error is assuming we need a perfect candidate with a perfect past to justify a better moral and ethical position against Trump.

If you want to call Biden a racist because of his past, then that is fine by me because his past justifies it. But the other context here is that that was decades ago.

Do me a favor and compare the two candidates in the last 4-8 years? Now what can you say? Should that matter more?

Calling Biden a racist doesn't prevent me from saying Trump is the worst racist between the two.

Thank you @suncowiam .

Well there's the discussion ender.

It doesn’t have to be.
If there are 50 grains on one side of the scale and 50,000 grains on the other; it doen’t mean we’re unwilling to talk about the grain; as long as everyone recognizes the fact that the scale is unbalanced.

 

[Revoltingest]

'The left' isn't a homogenous group, though.

Of course. Neither is the right.
Nonetheless, the majority of them selected Biden over the others.

Some of the left DID want to run a different candidate, and some of the left probably did so due to their beliefs on race, and how they saw Biden's background in the area.
Some of the left didn't.

It's like how they say atheists eat babies. Sure, you and I do, but not all atheists do. Actually, it's nothing like that. Forget I mentioned it.

We're still seeing nearly everyone on the left entirely
ignoring Biden's record & statements regarding race.
They have only "Trump is worse", yet they don't support
it...they only chant it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course. Neither is the right.
Nonetheless, the majority of them selected Biden over the others.

Yep. It wasn't a judgement based on race, but more on who they could all live with, and thought they could win the election with.
And yes, I get (and agree) that there is an underlying point here. Political pragmatism exists on both sides of the fence, and ideologues seem more content to ignore this with their opponents than with themselves.

We're still seeing nearly everyone on the left entirely
ignoring Biden's record & statements regarding race.
They have only "Trump is worse", yet they don't support
it...they only chant it.

I'm not sure if you consider me left or not, but I don't remember ever 'chanting' it. Full disclosure, I intensely dislike Trump, AND I wouldn't vote for him. Those two things have some level of correlation, but I could vote for someone who has made the sort of racist comments he has (just like I could vote for someone who has made the sort of racist comments Biden has) since I think there are a range of things we need to measure candidates on, and racial sensitivity is just one of those things.
Other things Trump has said worry me far more than a 70+ year old white man saying racist things which are somewhat generational in nature. That's not to excuse them, but it's entirely possible for a President to be loose and even offensive with remarks, and yet be effective in policy around this area.

I'd be much more worried on Trump's willingness to be a 'fighter' to the point that he'll use everything at his disposal to 'win'. Some of his supporters no doubt see that as a strength of his. That, to me, is far more problematic and divisive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure if you consider me left or not

I haven't considered this about you.
Now that I think about it...I don't know.
This is good.

Full disclosure, I intensely dislike Trump, AND I wouldn't vote for him.

This is fine with me.

Those two things have some level of correlation, but I could vote for someone who has made the sort of racist comments he has (just like I could vote for someone who has made the sort of racist comments Biden has) since I think there are a range of things we need to measure candidates on, and racial sensitivity is just one of those things.
Other things Trump has said worry me far more than a 70+ year old white man saying racist things which are somewhat generational in nature. That's not to excuse them, but it's entirely possible for a President to be loose and even offensive with remarks, and yet be effective in policy around this area.

You address many things that make it difficult to pick the
lesser of 2 evils. To recognize this would help some people
overcome hatred for the other side's choices.

I'd be much more worried on Trump's willingness to be a 'fighter' to the point that he'll use everything at his disposal to 'win'. Some of his supporters no doubt see that as a strength of his. That, to me, is far more problematic and divisive.

My biggest concern with Trump was his temper &
immaturity leading us into war. (Hillary repeatedly
voted for war as a Senator.) We dodged that bullet.

 

[Tambourine]

View attachment 44694
Counting in Wisconsin and Michigan swung in his favor late last night and this early morning, giving him a path to, if he can secure those two states as well as Nevada... a path to victory even if he doesn't win his home state of Pennsylvania.

Don't worry, he won't win.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't worry, he won't win.

Who won't win?

 

[Tambourine]

Who won't win?

Everybody.

 

[Trailblazer]

Everybody.

If you mean that their candidate wins, everybody can't win, because only one candidate can win.

 

[Tambourine]

If you mean that their candidate wins, everybody can't win, because only one candidate can win.

I see you have trouble with double negatives.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see you have trouble with double negatives.

How so?

 

[Revoltingest]

If you mean that their candidate wins, everybody can't win, because only one candidate can win.

My candidate won a respectable 3rd place.

 

[Trailblazer]

My candidate won a respectable 3rd place.

I meant that everyone who wants their candidate to win can't win, because only one candidate can win.