The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-wins-presidency-trump-fox-news-projects

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has defeated President Trump, denying him a second term after a bitter campaign and dramatic, prolonged vote count in battleground states that sparked a flurry of lawsuits.

The Fox News Decision Desk projected Saturday that Biden will win the state of Nevada and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, giving the former vice president the electoral votes he needs to win the White House.

It's over.  Biden wins.

The Senate is on track to be 48D-50R, with two special elections in GA on January 5 for the remaining two seats (and control of the Senate).

Analysis to follow.

It's certainly relieving to see America reject Trump.  If we had anything remotely resembling a representative democratic republic, this would not have been close: when the counting is done, Trump will have lost by the second largest vote margin since 1984.

But that is little solace.  Trump was able to get over 8 million more votes than he did in 2016, getting more votes that the previous record-holder (2008 Obama) and becoming only the second American ever to surpass 70 million votes in an election (the first being, of course, Biden, who will likely end up with over 80 million).

Like many liberals, I told myself that 2016 was a fluke; that it was due to intense hatred of Hillary among her detractors, Comey's interference, Russian hacking, blank-slate self-projection on to Trump, or a combination of the above.  But I thought that after 4 years of President Trump - and especially this last year - that it would be clear what Trump is about.  And it is, and a huge chunk of Americans simply don't care.  Their only priority is Make Liberals Cry Again, and it doesn't matter how many Americans have to die, or how many jobs we have to lose, or how many immigrant babies we have to steal to get there.  None of it matters.

The idea that policy matters has been conclusively shattered by this election.  The GOP literally had no party platform in 2020.  The only "policy" that exists is Triggering The Libs.

2024 is not going to be good.  If still alive, Trump will certainly run again - he still enjoys the highest approval among Republicans of any President ever - and any Republican who opposes him in the primary would likely be committing career suicide.  I can't see anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 NOT voting for him in 2024.  (For the record, you can still run for President from prison: Eugene Debs received over 1 million votes for President in 1920 while incarcerated.  And I still don't think a Trump conviction would change the mind of a single Trump voter.)

So basically, Biden will have to rescue the economy AGAIN and deal with a national health crisis AGAIN while trying to keep all of the votes he got last time.  Doesn't seem likely.

Still, we've got four years to undo (some of) the damage that Trump has wrought, and if Dems can win the Senate seats in GA, we can get some meaningful change implemented before the country hands the reins back to the arsonists.  (PR finally voted in favor of statehood.)

Disappointed, but not totally surprised.

I wonder what the turnout for this year's election was compared to 2016.

Hello to more laziness and more people enjoying the good life off the American taxpayer.

Every day I wake up for work, I wish I could just go back to sleep, then wake up and do whatever I wanted.

Millions of Americans realized this dream under President Obama.

I actually went to a mental health clinic and asked, "Can you make my mental health WORSE?  I want to be on disability."

They threw me out.

(Well, that story is not true, but I think it would be cool to do)

By damage, do you mean let more people live the good life off the American taxpayer?     

Yes, disabled people, the elderly, and families with children will continue to live "the good life" at an income level well below middle class, unable to afford the hit of a $400 unexpected emergency (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html).

Even "worse": now people will be able to legally apply for asylum without having their children stolen by our government before the parents are deported.  But the good news is that there's plenty of time for another 50-100k Americans to die from COVID before Biden takes office and starts wasting the money of the American taxpayer to save their lives.

Don't know where you are coming from, but most people I know on disability drink, smoke, and party all day.

This statement from a liberal best encapsulates the attitude Obama instilled in this country

Me:  How many hours do you work per week?
Liberal:  20
Me:  Why don't you work more
Liberal:  Because I don't want to lose my benefits

She makes about 25,000 a year working 20 hours per week.

If that's not living the good life, I don't know what is.

They CAN afford the emergency because Obama's and liberal policies are that you can do whatever you want and make other people pay for it.

I would love the joy of getting a big fat check from the government every month

I would love the joy of having free time to do whatever I want.

It's not fair that so many people get to that and I don't.

Spider, do you know that people TRY to get on government assistance because they WANT to?  They don't WANT to work

That article you linked to is about WORKING FAMILIES.  Not people living the good life off taxpayer money.  Those people don't have anything unexpected to worry about because the government takes care of their every need.

WORKING FAMILIES have unexpected hits

People living off taxpayer assistance do not.  This is another thing Obama created which has led to many people trying to get on taxpayer assistance. 

What damage has Trump done?  He has worked hard to end this entitlement and welfare state Obama created.  He has created a strong economy.  People don't like him because it means they have to get off their asses and work, and not claim disability for some lame and pathetic condition like "Depression" or "Anxiety".   

dolphins4life, you have such a bizarre idea of what "taxpayer assistance" entails that it makes me question as to whether you have ever been financially independent, or even personally paid a bill.

The lazy liberals you refer to... have they all been homeless since 2017?  Did they starve to death three years ago?  Because it sounds like you currently know people "on disability" DURING Trump's presidency, which seems to be at odds with your belief that Trump will force all these people back to work.

As for the "strong economy" Trump created:

Trump has the worst job losses on record heading into the election (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/02/trump-has-the-worst-job-losses-on-record-heading-into-the-election/)

The US has had the single worst COVID response on the planet, which has made our economy demonstrably worse.  The economy IS Trump's fault.

Not sure what my financial independence has anything to do with other people not having to work.  I work over 40 hours every week at two jobs.   I wish I only had to work twenty hours a week and get a fat check every month for my ADHD and Asperger's, but it's too late now.  I might have been able if I had applied early instead of working. 

Maybe I should have done drugs as a teenager.  That is another pathway I have seen people use to get on disability. 

The point is, IT IS JUST NOT FAIR. 

Trump tried to do something about it.

You don't know what is. Obviously.

The reason you have to work 2 jobs to get to 40 hours instead of working 1 job for 40 hours is because of health insurance companies.

If you're a full time employee, of a large enough company,  you must be offered healthcare. As a response, companies that care only about their bottom dollar (99.99999999) of companies, will try to do anything they can to make sure they give you as little as they can.

The reason this exists as a system is because the health insurance companies want you (you individually or you companies) to HAVE to buy healthcare from them.

That's how they make money.
That's why they fight tooth and nail for any expansion of any sort of government paid health care.

The United States is the only country in the world that ties health insurance to employment.  When you talk to anyone outside the US about healthcare considerations as part of employment, they look at you like you have 2 heads.

The solution to this. Is to have universal single payer health care. Just like Canada, or England, or anywhere else. The specific flavor doesn't matter. As long as everyone is covered and nothing depends on your employment status.


so Instead of "hey i also need help for these reasons" the answer is instead "nobody should get help if i don't" .. seems pretty petty and selfish

Man, I wish I was back at the time in my life where I thought $25k was the good life. I had no idea how the world worked either then.

I work more than forty hours.  I get health insurance through my full time job.

I don't need help.  Most people on disability don't need help either.  They CAN work, it's just easier to get a fat check from the government every month.

It is the good life, from what I see, since those people drink, smoke, and party all day.

Trump used to be a Democrat, as did I.  It was only until I realized how laziness has impacted this country that I shifted over.

It's all relative. Plenty of people perfectly content to live on the streets and collect money at intersections. We used to run up on camps all the time when I was in the Geotech field. They share a car and take baths in a lake or stormwater pond but have no desire to work and live like what we would consider a normal life.

I don't think the online dating scene is a reliable barometer of how "those people" live.

I know the camps and can show you many. Of them. To hear a guy working two jobs to think that is the good life???

Do you look at people living that lifestyle and think, "Man, they have it so good... I wish I could trade places with them"?

I mean, they are living a life that I think you and I agree is pretty terrible.  Isn't that bad enough?  Or do they need to actually be miserable for it to count as a crappy life?

I look at people working 20 hours a week and getting benefits and I definitely think that.

Or not working at all, and definitely think that.

Every time I wake up for work, I wish I could go back to sleep and then get up and do whatever I want.

But you can, you can literally do whatever you want. If that lifestyle is that appealing to you, go for it.

I'd rather raise the floor for everyone rather than try to bring it lower just so you feel better about you relative to those who have less than you do.

Remember, this is a socialist country for the rich. It's only ruggedly capitalistic for the little guy

Too late for me now.  I can't just quit my jobs and apply for disability.  I'd never get on.

What those people do is apply before they work, so they can fool the system into thinking they can't work.

...you do know that there are people on disability who have previously worked in their lifetime, right?
Even more than that: you can work, and then go on disability, and then recover and go back to work, and then get worse and go back on disability, etc.

This happens frequently, as a human's current health status can improve OR decline over time.

Given your general attitude towards disability, I have to wonder: do you believe that there are no truly disabled people who deserve to be on disability?  If you believe some (most?) people are faking it, do you think you could also fake it?

You actually can do this, and you don't even need to be on disability.  CF just explained one way to do so.

The "poverty line" lifestyle may not be as glamorous as you think.

Some people truly are disabled, but many COULD work, but choose not too.

Many jobs don't require much.  Like greeting people at a store. 

Or bagging groceries.  Or being a delivery driver.

I just see many people collecting disability who CAN work. 

Like that person I told you about in the beginning of the thread.  She explicitly stated she COULD work more hours, but she'd rather get the fat check. 

I've asked you if you are married, because if you are you probably aren't exposed to it like I am.

Many people who collect are as disabled, or less disabled than I am. 

And yes they ARE living the good life.

Here's another example I'll give

I was talking a girl with a son in 2017 on POF.  I told her what I did for a living (Healthcare and Retail).

She said unfortunately she didn't work, she got social security for "mental health". 

When she told me she never worked, I told her I was not interested.  She accused me of being stuck up.  She blocked me before I could respond with, 'I'm not stuck up, I just don't think it's fair  I have mental issues, too.  You get to live the good life.  All your needs are provided for and you can go to bed every night and do whatever you want the next day.  Are you telling me you are so messed up you can't work, but you can raise a child?  Are you telling me you can't be a store greeter?  Are you telling me you can't put groceries into a bag?  Or items onto a shelf?  I don't buy it.

Again, you probably shouldn't use your dating life as a measuring stick for how lower-income people live in this country.

I'm not married, but I'm also not obsessed with punishing failed matches on dating sites.  It is somewhat troubling that nearly all of your examples of how the system is broken happen to be women whom you unsuccessfully attempted to date.

For the sake of reality, I hope you were being massively facetious there.

A person can run for President from a prison cell, but they cannot win a Presidential election from that cell. The GOP would understand this and make sure that Trump didn't win the primary.

I think you are overestimating the GOP.

Not necessarily unsuccessful.  I ended communication with them as soon as I found out they were living the good life.  It would awkward to date somebody when you are jealous of them.

You can also youtube this topic, if you have bowl handy to puke into.

Actually, they can.  As long as they meet the requirements to hold the office - natural-born citizen that is at least 35 years old and has not previously served two terms - they would indeed be eligible to be elected president.

There is some question as to whether the VP would be acting President until the President-elect finishes their sentence, but the general presumption is that if that were the case, the acting President would immediately pardon the President-elect (in accordance with the will of the voters who elected them).

 ::)   ::)

The only world where a convicted felon, in prison, could win a US Presidential election is not the world where the US currently resides.

Let's frame it this way:

Do you think Trump could win the Republican primary from prison?
I think he would win EASILY.  The entire trial was a scam!  They're pulling out all the stops to prevent him from winning again!

Once he's on the general election ballot, there will be millions of people who will make the same decision CF has repeatedly stated: they aren't voting for an angel-in-chief, and God uses flawed vessels to exert his will.  But they damned sure ain't voting for no socialist baby-killer.

Do I think Trump would win?  Probably not.  But after the events of the last week, where Trump received the second-most votes in American history after letting 230,000+ Americans needlessly die, can YOU say that he would lose any voters if he ran for President from prison?

I'm not envious of them but it works for them. If they are happy that way ... who is to say you and I are right? All I'm saying is being content with little money is relative to the person making it. Heck ... we think it's ridiculous what the general staff makes on cruise ships but where they come from they are revered for having such great jobs. 

Your first mistake is thinking most people think like you do. Most people do not think Trump let 230,000+ die. That isn't even a general Democrat thought. It's a leftist thought and talking point. Don't confuse people voting against Trump as buying into everything Harris, AOC, and the extreme are selling. In fact Dems have already come out to express how that kind of thinking hurt them in the elections.

President can only pardon federal crimes.  I don't see Governor Cummo pardoning Trump for violating state tax and charity laws any time soon.

If Trump runs in 2024 the election won't be just about Trump, it will be a referendum on how well Biden did in his 4 years.  Typically, when a person runs for reelection it is a referendum on the incumbent. 

Biden himself has directly blamed Trump.  The mainstream media has repeatedly questioned Trump to this extent, as well.

You have it exactly backwards: it's not a leftist talking point, or a Democratic talking point... it's an "everyone but the hard right" talking point.

So on the one hand, national Democrats - after gaining the Presidency, holding the House, and picking up seats in the Senate (with a chance to win it) - are looking inward for an explanation as to why they didn't do even better.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, national Republicans are... howling about stolen elections (from ballots that also elected Republicans) and refusing to acknowledge the President-elect.

I think I'll pass on conservative commentary about what Democrats are saying right now.  Get your own house in order.

I honestly see no situation in which Trump runs again in 2024. I think there are too many Nikki Haleys leading the GOP to go back to someone so crass. She's got the gonads to actually be conservative but also has tact. She was great in SC but was a rockstar at the UN.

CF, would you personally vote for Nikki Haley over Donald Trump in a GOP presidential primary?

Trump's lawyers would obviously dispute that statement, and this case would wind up at the Supreme Court.  Tell me: which five justices would issue a ruling stating that the newly-elected Republican president cannot be pardoned for state crimes and must remain in prison?

Desantis would though

I would hope it wouldn't even have to be discussed. Hopefully the lower courts rule adequately and then the Supreme Court gives the big middle finger and doesn't even listen to arguments. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

Easily. I voted for Marco Rubio over Trump in the 2016 primary and while I'm still high of Marco (who is a big Dolphins fan) ... I think she is the perfect candidate. She's a strong conservative, very well spoken, doesn't bring a ton of baggage, and a minority woman. Like many of his current supporters  ... I didn't start out a fan of Trump and pretty much voted for him because of the possibility of a better economy and his list of SC justices that he would choose from.  As it turns out he did much more than I could have hoped for.

I don't know if you saw it but many conservatives were trying to get Trump to replace Pence with Haley before the 2020 election.

Irrelevant being the NY AG is the one who would have jurisdiction over most of the Trump Organizations activities.

Personally, I would love to see a Kamala Harris vs. Nikki Haley general election.
Don't think there's any chance the GOP nominates Haley, though.  (ever)

The GOP is pretty obsessed with identity politics, I wouldn't put it past them. Hell the proud boys put up a token minority into a leadership position and then got rid of him and went full nazi after the election.

You are seriously funny. The Proud Boys were never right wing and you know it. They didn't token anyone. There are a lot of minorities and even gays in the Proud Boys. Left = identity politics.  It's the left that wants to call people out by race, age, or eve who they vote for. Ask a minority that is conservative who has sprouted the racial hatred towards them and it's never the conservatives.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the Proud Boys the last couple of days?

You mean the racist they kicked out that is trying stage a coup? He isn't the Proud Boys. In fact ... he isn't even in the Proud boys any longer.

CF defending a far-right group that condones violence against anyone that isn't far right?

Say it ain't so, Joe!!

 ::)   ::)

I think 2024 Republican primary comes down to Trump (or a Trump die hard protege) vs. a never Trump. Haley is neither of those two.

My way too early prediction: Mike Pompeo or Barr wins the nomination edging out Charlie Baker.

So do you believe the Proud Boys are centrist, or apolitical, or what exactly?

It's hard to think of a more textbook example of conservatism than a group of self-described "western supremacists" who "believe in the great values that built the western world," to say nothing of a founder who openly declares, "The left has declared war on free speech and we've declared war on them."

I have to bring this up:

Does the fact that Donald Trump got the second largest amount of votes in history mean anything?  Don't we have to consider population growth?   I mean, of course George Washington probably got one of the lowest, if not the lowest vote totals in history in his first term.

Yes.

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008.  Trump is going to wind up with ~5 million more votes than 2008 Obama.

    Again, that was twelve years ago.  Surely the Population of the United States has increased by at least ten times that amount.                                                                                                                                                                                   

It's like comparing how much a candidate spent on their campaign in the 1920s vs today without accounting for inflation.

Let me try this again:

Neither candidate in 2012 or 2016 got as many votes as Obama did in 2008. Just because your election comes later, that doesn't mean you get more votes.

No, the population of the United States did not increase by "at least" 50 million over the last 12 years.  It has increased by about 22 million or so, many of whom are children or non-citizens who cannot vote.

But if you would like a more straightforward mathematical explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

In 2008, about 57% of the voting eligible population turned out to vote.
This year, we don't have the final numbers yet, but it looks like about 70% of the voting eligible population turned out.  That will be the highest percentage turnout we've had in over 100 years.

That does make more sense, my point was that you need to account for increases in population in comparing different elections.

I think such a high turnout is definitely something to be proud of as a country

Depends on if you are voting to vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone. My gut says this year the difference was mainly people voting AGAINST one of the candidates. Just my opinion.

The predictions in this thread are... amusing, 4 years later.