Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
View Poll Results: Who will win the US election?
Trump/Pence 11 52.38%
Biden/Harris 10 47.62%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1681  
Old 27.10.2020, 19:21
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

I prefer FiveThirtyEight
Name:  Untitled.jpg
Views: 293
Size:  73.8 KB
  #1682  
Old 27.10.2020, 19:34
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 2,243
Groaned at 113 Times in 81 Posts
Thanked 4,240 Times in 1,649 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Trend is the same though.
  #1683  
Old 27.10.2020, 20:20
TonyClifton's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 1,678
Groaned at 589 Times in 336 Posts
Thanked 4,108 Times in 1,726 Posts
TonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
So basically, what you're saying is, it's a level-playing field then? So where's the problem?

I agree that CNN has lost a lot of credibility, so has the BBC, their somewhat biased coverage on both Trump and Covid has left them permanently scarred, but I don't think that Trump has suffered at all from this. The readership is now strictly along party lines. Btw, I absolutely hate this new stupid website design trend in which videos start automatically without me even wanting to. And Chrome doesn't allow me to disable that nonsense. Both Fox and CNN are guilty of this perversion.

Btw, the only traditional media I still read, and pay for, is the Financial Times. They are quite objective and try to cover all aspects. I read an article last week titled (something like) the case for re-electing Trump. They didn't stand behind him, far from it, but they tried to point to the examples in which he has been consistent with election promises and delivered on them. Something that CNN would rather commit mass suicide rather than publish.
Pretty much, they're all as bad as each other now! Overall, it probably balances itself out in the "damage" it does to President Trump, but that doesn't really concern me as much as the demise of journalistic integrity. Once upon a time you could rely on newspapers to at least give a semblance of the facts.

To be fair, the FT has managed to improve its credibility since the GE last year. Even so, there were times in the last 2-3 years when they just printed utter garbage so long as they could kick Brexit.

The worst thing about the debasement of the press is that this politicisation its finding its way elsewhere. Just imagine that Nature has come out and endorsed Joe Biden. What on earth is a scientific journal doing endorsing US Presidents?! Not only has the press been lost, but we're now in the process of losing science to political alignment.

We're already witnessing the consequences, scientific journals refusing to publish papers that don't conform to the political consensus on topics like herd immunity and masks. This is a very dangerous path we're going down.
This user would like to thank TonyClifton for this useful post:
  #1684  
Old 27.10.2020, 20:30
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 1,091
Groaned at 164 Times in 111 Posts
Thanked 2,920 Times in 1,062 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
Trend is the same though.
Don't care about the trend as long as the gap remains for another few days
This user would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
  #1685  
Old 27.10.2020, 20:36
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 2,243
Groaned at 113 Times in 81 Posts
Thanked 4,240 Times in 1,649 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
Don't care about the trend as long as the gap remains for another few days
I agree with you, Al Gore.
This user would like to thank komsomolez for this useful post:
  #1686  
Old 27.10.2020, 20:46
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
Pretty much, they're all as bad as each other now! Overall, it probably balances itself out in the "damage" it does to President Trump, but that doesn't really concern me as much as the demise of journalistic integrity. Once upon a time you could rely on newspapers to at least give a semblance of the facts.

To be fair, the FT has managed to improve its credibility since the GE last year. Even so, there were times in the last 2-3 years when they just printed utter garbage so long as they could kick Brexit.

The worst thing about the debasement of the press is that this politicisation its finding its way elsewhere. Just imagine that Nature has come out and endorsed Joe Biden. What on earth is a scientific journal doing endorsing US Presidents?! Not only has the press been lost, but we're now in the process of losing science to political alignment.

We're already witnessing the consequences, scientific journals refusing to publish papers that don't conform to the political consensus on topics like herd immunity and masks. This is a very dangerous path we're going down.
Actually, the worst thing is people throwing fact-free allegations around about the press and scientific journals.
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1687  
Old 27.10.2020, 20:53
ennui's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Kt Zurich
Posts: 995
Groaned at 35 Times in 27 Posts
Thanked 3,164 Times in 1,101 Posts
ennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
The worst thing about the debasement of the press is that this politicisation its finding its way elsewhere. Just imagine that Nature has come out and endorsed Joe Biden. What on earth is a scientific journal doing endorsing US Presidents?! Not only has the press been lost, but we're now in the process of losing science to political alignment.

We're already witnessing the consequences, scientific journals refusing to publish papers that don't conform to the political consensus on topics like herd immunity and masks. This is a very dangerous path we're going down.
Actually 5 journals have told people not to vote for Trump. Of those 5, two have specifically endorsed Biden.

Should scientists agree (with their silence) with the US President‘s attempts to deny, ignore and marginalize science? If their editorial boards are in agreement that the President sets a dangerous precedent with his attitude, why should they not speak up?

Those papers that were not published - was it political pressure or just the fact that the papers were flawed?
The following 3 users would like to thank ennui for this useful post:
  #1688  
Old 27.10.2020, 21:06
TonyClifton's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 1,678
Groaned at 589 Times in 336 Posts
Thanked 4,108 Times in 1,726 Posts
TonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
Actually 5 journals have told people not to vote for Trump. Of those 5, two have specifically endorsed Biden.

Should scientists agree (with their silence) with the US President‘s attempts to deny, ignore and marginalize science? If their editorial boards are in agreement that the President sets a dangerous precedent with his attitude, why should they not speak up?

Those papers that were not published - was it political pressure or just the fact that the papers were flawed?
If it has just happened once, there may be a case for the papers being flawed, however with every report of another paper being rejected that challenges political orthodoxy, the more the evidence grows.

Science journals explicitly SHOULDN'T become political as it goes outside their remit and removes layer by layer their scientific credibility. How are you going to trust what they're publishing when you have to consider the content through a prism of political bias?! This specifically the one way to lose public trust is science.
This user would like to thank TonyClifton for this useful post:
  #1689  
Old 27.10.2020, 21:11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SZ
Posts: 2,243
Groaned at 113 Times in 81 Posts
Thanked 4,240 Times in 1,649 Posts
komsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond reputekomsomolez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
If it has just happened once, there may be a case for the papers being flawed, however with every report of another paper being rejected that challenges political orthodoxy, the more the evidence grows.

Science journals explicitly SHOULDN'T become political as it goes outside their remit and removes layer by layer their scientific credibility. How are you going to trust what they're publishing when you have to consider the content through a prism of political bias?! This specifically the one way to lose public trust is science.
With a president who is so obviously anti-science, I have absolutely no problem with scientists / journals calling this out. With two normal candidates I would agree.
The following 5 users would like to thank komsomolez for this useful post:
  #1690  
Old 27.10.2020, 21:25
ennui's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Kt Zurich
Posts: 995
Groaned at 35 Times in 27 Posts
Thanked 3,164 Times in 1,101 Posts
ennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond reputeennui has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
If it has just happened once, there may be a case for the papers being flawed, however with every report of another paper being rejected that challenges political orthodoxy, the more the evidence grows.

Science journals explicitly SHOULDN'T become political as it goes outside their remit and removes layer by layer their scientific credibility. How are you going to trust what they're publishing when you have to consider the content through a prism of political bias?! This specifically the one way to lose public trust is science.
I trust them because I know the process, and have been involved with the review process. I’m retired now, but am still an occasional reviewer for a medical journal, though Infectious disease is not my specialty.

You‘re basing your claims of bias on reports of papers being rejected. Do you have a complete sample of those rejections? Or just an idea of rejected papers whose authors have complained? What if there were many many more rejected papers appealing to what you call orthodoxy?

Are science journals becoming political or merely advocating among their readers for support of science. Trump ignores and marginalizes science. Why not tell people to not support him?

There are two distinct issues here. To be honest, I don‘t know much about the rejection stuff because I don‘t follow UK research. I know more about the US stuff. And what you call politicizing I view as support. It‘s all in the frame, I reckon.
The following 4 users would like to thank ennui for this useful post:
  #1691  
Old 27.10.2020, 21:30
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
If it has just happened once, there may be a case for the papers being flawed, however with every report of another paper being rejected that challenges political orthodoxy, the more the evidence grows.

Science journals explicitly SHOULDN'T become political as it goes outside their remit and removes layer by layer their scientific credibility. How are you going to trust what they're publishing when you have to consider the content through a prism of political bias?! This specifically the one way to lose public trust is science.
It might be evidence if the disappointed authors published the written reasons given for their paper's rejection and those reasons supported your claim..

If you are talking about Nature scientific journal then to be fair you should post that in the real world they reject 92% of the papers submitted to them. Your claim that they reject papers because of political bias is laughable or are you claiming 92% of the submissions challenge political orthodoxy.
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1692  
Old 27.10.2020, 22:29
TonyClifton's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 1,678
Groaned at 589 Times in 336 Posts
Thanked 4,108 Times in 1,726 Posts
TonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond reputeTonyClifton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
With a president who is so obviously anti-science, I have absolutely no problem with scientists / journals calling this out. With two normal candidates I would agree.
Quote:
View Post
Are science journals becoming political or merely advocating among their readers for support of science. Trump ignores and marginalizes science. Why not tell people to not support him?

There are two distinct issues here. To be honest, I don‘t know much about the rejection stuff because I don‘t follow UK research. I know more about the US stuff. And what you call politicizing I view as support. It‘s all in the frame, I reckon.
You're right, it is two issues, and I'm going to park the one regarding rejected papers because it's been done to death on the Coronavirus thread. The other point is more relevant, in that journals are becoming more political, whoever wins the election next week. This is freely admitted in Nature's editorial on the subject (I'll post a link below).

What the journals seem not to have realised, is that this is a two way street. If they start casting judgment on politics then logically people should no longer be viewing their publications from a purely scientific perspective.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02797-1
This user would like to thank TonyClifton for this useful post:
  #1693  
Old 27.10.2020, 22:39
MusicChick's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Cote
Posts: 17,488
Groaned at 414 Times in 275 Posts
Thanked 20,428 Times in 10,577 Posts
MusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond reputeMusicChick has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
What the journals seem not to have realised, is that this is a two way street. If they start casting judgment on politics then logically people should no longer be viewing their publications from a scientific perspective.
Some people will not. But others will consider this particular political support as even more scientific. Such is the nature of human judgement.
This user would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post:
  #1694  
Old 27.10.2020, 22:51
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 9,412
Groaned at 499 Times in 370 Posts
Thanked 12,499 Times in 6,485 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
This is called trolling and they are called trolls. I'll give you an example. You can say here "The weather is so beautiful today but I'm gonna stay inside because I have so much work to do" and you'll get a few people here saying "You often say here the weather is horrible and you can't get anything done because of it." I mean...WTF? No, seriously, it's like throwing your thoughts into a vacuum. I don't know why they're doing it (I can only guess) but it's getting way too old. And silly.
Obviously you also consider it trolling to describe a certain pattern, like a certain group calling others names like racist or sexist, and getting confirmation in less than 24 hours.

I didn't put Pancakes in that category, she did that herself. Despite her being a woman she's not the victim, she's the agent.
This user would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
  #1695  
Old 27.10.2020, 23:01
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SG
Posts: 9,412
Groaned at 499 Times in 370 Posts
Thanked 12,499 Times in 6,485 Posts
Urs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond reputeUrs Max has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
Deutsche Bank is a public company, it's not owned by the German government.
True. But following the events since 2008/09, where governments around the world forced banks to reduce their leveraging you'd expect the same from Germany. However quite a bit later, IIRC during the Greek crisis, it became public that Deutsche still was leveraged by considerably more than 30:1, at least what UBS was leveraged with when they had to be saved by the Swiss central bank. It's the same pattern that applied to the takeover of Dresdner bank by Commerzbank, for example.

It looked like Germany was tailoring regulations along Ackermann's directions and wishes (A. was the bank's chairman of the board CEO for many years [a decade or so] until ~2012/13). With the result that the bank has been troubled since his final years there and after he left, and without an end in sight. The share price has lost 93% since the long-term high in 2007, and 75% since he left, not a sign of a well-run company.
Quote:
View Post
The fact that Trump criticizes Germany is not a valid litmus test re how he'll treat Deutsche separately. The overall problem is that right now we are merely hypothesizing. However, the fact that such a massive conflict of interest could be created is a worrying sign even with the most careful and transparent Presidents. With someone like Trump, who thrives on reality distortion and opaqueness, this is truly a red sign for me. But I'm no a US voter, so the point is mute
I agree with most of this.
WRT lithmus test, of course it's not proof. It's impossible to prove a negative, feel free to try. But it's a significant indicator - action speaks louder than words let alone speculations.

Now, this kind of potential problem is nothing new at all, allegations about Trump getting financing from Russia have been swirling since before his election. Woodward for instance is still active and clearly on the Democrats' side, the MSM definitely had (would have had) the knowledge, clout, and necessary resources for this kind of big task (and if not there's always WaPo owner, Trump opponent and richest man in the world Jeff Bezos), yet they found it better, and probably more lucrative, to go for the clickbaits. Instead of doing the legwork, digging deep and hard into this kind of real danger the MSM resorted to being outraged and deeply offended, to decidedly stomp the feet like a 4yr-old, to call Trump names, try to ridicule him for his hair and design a ballon that kinda looks like him, etc.
The following 3 users would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post:
  #1696  
Old 27.10.2020, 23:01
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
You're right, it is two issues, and I'm going to park the one regarding rejected papers because it's been done to death on the Coronavirus thread. The other point is more relevant, in that journals are becoming more political, whoever wins the election next week. This is freely admitted in Nature's editorial on the subject (I'll post a link below).

What the journals seem not to have realised, is that this is a two way street. If they start casting judgment on politics then logically people should no longer be viewing their publications from a purely scientific perspective.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02797-1
From your link
Quote:
Since Nature’s earliest issues, we have been publishing news, commentary, and primary research on science and politics
So Nature has always commented on politics, it is not new.

There is nothing in your link about "start casting judgment on politics", in fact, they write "the journal is looking to publish more primary research in political science."
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1697  
Old 28.10.2020, 00:13
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Looks like Trump's debts can be magicked away
Quote:
New York Times: “The president’s federal income tax records… show for the first time that, since 2010, his lenders have forgiven about $287 million in debt that he failed to repay. The vast majority was related to the Chicago project.”

“How Mr. Trump found trouble in Chicago, and maneuvered his way out of it, is a case study in doing business the Trump way.”

“When the project encountered problems, he tried to walk away from his huge debts. For most individuals or businesses, that would have been a recipe for ruin. But tax-return data, other records and interviews show that rather than warring with a notoriously litigious and headline-seeking client, lenders cut Mr. Trump slack — exactly what he seemed to have been counting on.”
  #1698  
Old 28.10.2020, 08:13
gaburko's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BL
Posts: 1,091
Groaned at 164 Times in 111 Posts
Thanked 2,920 Times in 1,062 Posts
gaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond reputegaburko has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
However quite a bit later, IIRC during the Greek crisis, it became public that Deutsche still was leveraged by considerably more than 30:1, at least what UBS was leveraged with when they had to be saved by the Swiss central bank. It's the same pattern that applied to the takeover of Dresdner bank by Commerzbank, for example.
This is an altogether different discussion. Part of the problem then in most of the European countries was that the regulators powers and governments fire-power were only a fraction of what the US had. It was an awkward situation where governments were often the David (vs. Goliath) vs. hugely leveraged banks. The Swiss particularly were and still are very vulnerable (especially if the leaked info that UBS and Credit Suisse were discussing a merger). They simply cannot reign in those behemoths. Naturally in such a setup, the senior European bankers have a massive say. In the US, the senior bankers are quiet, humble and very attentive if the Fed talks to them.


Quote:
View Post
Instead of doing the legwork, digging deep and hard into this kind of real danger the MSM resorted to being outraged and deeply offended, to decidedly stomp the feet like a 4yr-old, to call Trump names, try to ridicule him for his hair and design a ballon that kinda looks like him, etc.
Yes, indeed. The whole thing resembles much more a Barcelona vs. Real Madrid fans "discussing" who is more worthy. It's not a policy talk for quite a while now and both sides are to blame, there's no denying this. It has gotten to the point where it literally doesn't matter what the other side does/says - it will always be objected on the grounds on WHO said it/did it, not WHAT is said/done. Who started the fight is irrelevant, today both sides are to blame. I would have still voted Biden, not even the slightest hesitation there. But that doesn't mean that I believe the Democrats are all white, right and good, far from it.
This user would like to thank gaburko for this useful post:
  #1699  
Old 28.10.2020, 08:34
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nyon
Posts: 5,390
Groaned at 300 Times in 213 Posts
Thanked 7,338 Times in 3,449 Posts
bowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Meanwhile
Quote:
Seven state legislators, all Republicans, have tested positive for the coronavirus in the last week in Arkansas, where daily case reports and hospitalizations are soaring to record levels.
This user would like to thank bowlie for this useful post:
  #1700  
Old 28.10.2020, 10:26
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,153
Groaned at 511 Times in 434 Posts
Thanked 20,077 Times in 10,579 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Trump or Biden .Who you got?

Quote:
View Post
I would have still voted Biden, not even the slightest hesitation there. But that doesn't mean that I believe the Democrats are all white, right and good, far from it.
Basically, it is about voting for the least bad, not the best.

In the event of a Biden win then hopefully it will not turn out to have been a case of "better the devil you know".

Interesting for me is that there have been over 70 million votes already cast, around half the number who voted in 2016, 138,847,000 (including all candidates).

Many people say this indicates there will be a larger than usual voter turnout (55.5% last time). If so then who are these extra voters?
People, who like what Trump has done so much that they vote this time but not in 2016?
Or people who hate Trump so much .........?

I have not seen any analysis of who those extra voters might be.
__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
Closed Thread




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How will Trump Presidency End? Jim2007 International affairs/politics 61 23.08.2021 22:43
New: Trump Jokes Ardneham Jokes/funnies 15 29.01.2021 13:59
Will Trump get reelected robBob International affairs/politics 129 02.03.2020 21:15
The New Trump Tax Cuts ToothCentral International affairs/politics 11 05.04.2017 22:14
Will Trump be the next US President? Phil_MCR International affairs/politics 2618 14.11.2016 11:16


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 23:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0