CNN Poll - Biden leading Trump by almost 20 points

Isnt that the same CNN poll that had Hillary leading Trump by 20+ Points? in 2016? arent they just oversampling democrat supposed voters? and problary the same people who said they would vote for Hillary the last time?
 
Trump got an F in that debate.

Well of course he did,the debate was rigged for Biden, why else you think Biden looked ready to read scripted questions? the debate was unfair for Trump was being interrupted by wallace.
 
Here in NH the lines of demarcation are pretty well marked out.

Working class nieghborhoods, rural people, farms, small businesses...Trump signs mostly.

Lily white enclaves of rich pricks, mostly from away, lakeshore properties worth millions, gated communities and expensive in-town homes...Biden and BLM signs.

Which is really funny considering that if a houseful of Chicago South Side or NOLA 9th Ward blacks were to move in next door, these people would freak the fuck out.

Lol...True story.

Everybody's for helping someone until it requires effort or them actually getting into your club.
 
Hillary won, in the polls, too!

Only thing that concerns me is that polling data has rarely been wrong. And it's not like she DIDNT win the general......but too bad for the Electoral.
 
I think this is spot-on. I would only quibble with counting the neo-conservatives as part of the "right."

Certainly a valid point. I only include them to illustrate the huge spectrum of what the left considers deplorable racists worthy of purging. At least the neo-cons of old were united in the opposition to Marxist expansion under the Soviets.

The problem is that the "right" is not (and never really has been) a distinct "thing" unto itself. Not in the way that the left is and has been. The left is homogeneously "progressive" in nature. But the right, at its most reducible, seems to resolve down to merely being "not the left" - with an attendant lack of ideological unity and coherence among its various factions. It is only due to the vagaries and looseness of English that the "right" has (erroneously) come to be considered equivalent to or synonymous with "conservatives" (who are but one element of the right).

Very true, but maddeningly the left is even less united or having common ground than the right: their grievance groups are constantly at each other's throats. The only thing that unites them is hatred of us, and The Orange Man.

Unfortunately, I don't see what can be done about this - except to secede/separate/decentralize as a way of "scattering out" from in front of the aggressive juggernaut of unchecked progressivism that is trying to steamroll everything and everyone.

That is one of only a few options left.

Even if one or more elements of the right were able to successfully withstand the left, it seems that this would require some kind of fascistic authoritarianism to hold things together and forcibly keep a lid on "counter-reaction" from the left. This is why I think the possibilities are ultimately limited to right-fascist authoritarianism, left-socialist authoritarianism, or secession/separation/decentralization. (And of course, in the latter event, there are no guarantees that some of the seceded/separated/decentralized parts won't end up falling under the heel of some flavor of authoritarianism ...)

Without a doubt and I've said the same many times.

The only way you can keep a lid on a "diverse" population of people who generally loathe each other all packed together in close quarters is with a hard assed dictator wielding a heavy hand of authoritarianism.

This is what I think the Marxists have come to understand and are pushing for.

Comply or else.
 
Hat tip to Anti Federalist and Occam's Banana. Great points being made by both.

However, I must disagree that decentralization is a way out of the mess. The leftists will not tolerate it, and the result would be little different from some kind of civil war in which those that decentralized are forever playing defense and suffering more. The leftists are going to bring the fight to anyone that desires freedom whether we like it or not.

The right will likely unite under some authoritarian-type or fall to the leftists due to a simple lack of organization. Collectivism is going to rear its ugly head one way or another. Those that embrace individualism are going to be swept aside by one or both sides, because of the absolute inability of individualists to effectively work toward common goals on a grand scale. The zealots on the left will gleefully persecute individualists with the approval of their conscious and will work tirelessly toward their ends.

I hope my pessimism proves unwarranted. Regardless, food, guns, ammunition, and having a tight knit group of friends that will work together if and when shit hits the fan are priorities. The upside is even if widespread civil unrest occurs those things are still useful.
 
Senate? Yeah, I doubt that as well.

I'm of the mindset the Rubicon has been crossed...it's now just about impossible for a GOP candidate to win the presidency.

The following states are pretty much a blue "lock" for now and the foreseeable future HI - CA - OR - WA - MN - IL - VA - DC - MD - DE - NJ - NY - CT - RI - MA - VT - ME

These are states that will vote for a can of Spam as long as it had a D before it's name.

That's 17 states and 205 EC votes before you even start.
How many times have we heard that Hillary won the popular vote in 2016? With that in mind, it is important that people that live in those locked up liberal states get out and vote. Even if their vote won't matter as far as electoral college, it will matter with popular vote. Last election I did not vote. I am certain many conservatives in the lost states figured there was no reason because their state was and always will be liberal.
 
Only thing that concerns me is that polling data has rarely been wrong. And it's not like she DIDNT win the general......but too bad for the Electoral.
Is it possible that those that live in solid Democrat states has fewer conservatives that went out to vote? Maybe they thought it was pointless. AF shows that Biden has 17 states before he starts. A conservative living in one of those states might think it a waste of their time to go out and vote because their guy could never win. I did not vote in 2016. I am sure there were lots of Conservatives in those states that did vote. I am voting this year.
 
Most of the people I know say they are for Trump. Maybe it is just the area I live in. My brother travels all over the country and says that he almost never sees a Biden bumper sticker or yard sign. Maybe the Biden voters are hiding their signs I don't know what it is.

I wonder if Biden wins and they come after guns what will happen then? What will happen when he raises taxes? My guess is nothing.
 
I wonder if Biden wins and they come after guns what will happen then? My guess is nothing.

Your guess is correct.

Outside of a few committed outliers, nuts and die hards, the vast, huge majority of the "From my cold dead hands" crowd will meekly submit, turn in their guns and ammo and thank the officer taking thousands of dollars of their property (not to mention their God given rights) to the burn pile for his service.

The few that do resist will be crushed, and headlines like this will be their epitaph:

Nest of Racist Vipers Smashed: Weapons Cache Destroyed, Many Arrested
 
I think this is spot-on. I would only quibble with counting the neo-conservatives as part of the "right." As far as I can tell, they've always been lefties in "sheep's clothing" (and the fact that the neo-cons have decamped nearly in toto in support of Hillary and Biden, along with other NeverTrumpers, only confirms this to me). In any case, the control by the left of media organs, entertainment organs and academia is already a fait accompli.

The problem is that the "right" is not (and never really has been) a distinct "thing" unto itself. Not in the way that the left is and has been. The left is homogeneously "progressive" in nature. But the right, at its most reducible, seems to resolve down to merely being "not the left" - with an attendant lack of ideological unity and coherence among its various factions. It is only due to the vagaries and looseness of English that the "right" has (erroneously) come to be considered equivalent to or synonymous with "conservatives" (who are but one element of the right).

Unfortunately, I don't see what can be done about this - except to secede/separate/decentralize as a way of "scattering out" from in front of the aggressive juggernaut of unchecked progressivism that is trying to steamroll everything and everyone.

Even if one or more elements of the right were able to successfully withstand the left, it seems that this would require some kind of fascistic authoritarianism to hold things together and forcibly keep a lid on "counter-reaction" from the left. This is why I think the possibilities are ultimately limited to right-fascist authoritarianism, left-socialist authoritarianism, or secession/separation/decentralization. (And of course, in the latter event, there are no guarantees that some of the seceded/separated/decentralized parts won't end up falling under the heel of some flavor of authoritarianism ...)

Of course this is illegal, and therefore impossible, but the left would fall apart if the Billionaires like Soros were removed from the equation. So much that has been happening for a long time has been the plan of folks like Soros, Rothschild, etc.
 
Of course this is illegal, and therefore impossible, but the left would fall apart if the Billionaires like Soros were removed from the equation. So much that has been happening for a long time has been the plan of folks like Soros, Rothschild, etc.

These guys are just middlemen...what is happening right now in AmeriKa is state sponsored Marxist revolution.

And there is only one communist country on the face of the earth right now that has the power and money and OPSEC to accomplish that goal.

iu
 
Very true, but maddeningly the left is even less united or having common ground than the right: their grievance groups are constantly at each other's throats. The only thing that unites them is hatred of us, and The Orange Man.

As with any fanatical religious cult, the heretics and apostates are hated even more than the heathens are. If the woke crowd ever does get its hands on enough power, their first step will be to consolidate that power by purging their own ranks first. Then they'll be coming for the rest of us ... (see, for example: Bolshevism, Russian, history of).

I recently heard something about some woke activist groups (in the southwest US, I think) who had a nasty falling-out with each other over whether Blacks [sic] were higher-ranking "victims" than Native [sic] Americans. Apparently, the "I" part of BIPOC thinks that the "B" part are/were colonizing "settlers" (albeit unwilling ones), and thus, I > B. The "B" part, of course, thinks that slavery is the trump suit, and thus, B > I. I'd be laughing like a hyena at all this nonsense if it weren't so dangerous (and perhaps eventually, literally lethal).

Hat tip to Anti Federalist and Occam's Banana. Great points being made by both.

However, I must disagree that decentralization is a way out of the mess. The leftists will not tolerate it, and the result would be little different from some kind of civil war in which those that decentralized are forever playing defense and suffering more. The leftists are going to bring the fight to anyone that desires freedom whether we like it or not.

You may be right. Things might well play out that way. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. It won't be enough for the left that they merely don't want to tolerate it. That will of course be the case (just as the Soviets did not want the Soviet Union to collapse). But they will also have to have both the will and wherewithal to actually enforce it (as the Soviets did not).

I have elaborated my thoughts on this particular subject elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here. Anyone who is interested can find some of what I think about the matter in this thread, especially in post #14 and post #21.
 
As with any fanatical religious cult, the heretics and apostates are hated even more than the heathens are. If the woke crowd ever does get its hands on enough power, their first step will be to consolidate that power by purging their own ranks first. Then they'll be coming for the rest of us ... (see, for example: Bolshevism, Russian, history of).

I recently heard something about some woke activist groups (in the southwest US, I think) who had a nasty falling-out with each other over whether Blacks [sic] were higher-ranking "victims" than Native [sic] Americans. Apparently, the "I" part of BIPOC thinks that the "B" part are/were colonizing "settlers" (albeit unwilling ones), and thus, I > B. The "B" part, of course, thinks that slavery is the trump suit, and thus, B > I. I'd be laughing like a hyena at all this nonsense if it weren't so dangerous (and perhaps eventually, literally lethal).



You may be right. Things might well play out that way. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. It won't be enough for the left that they merely don't want to tolerate it. That will of course be the case (just as the Soviets did not want the Soviet Union to collapse). But they will also have to have both the will and wherewithal to actually enforce it (as the Soviets did not).

I have elaborated my thoughts on this particular subject elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here. Anyone who is interested can find some of what I think about the matter in this thread, especially in post #14 and post #21.

I guess if BLM and ANTIFA and left radicals can use violence to promote an illogical agenda, true patriots might choose to utilize violence when all their peaceful options have been eliminated. It is possible that Conservatives are dying off and the indoctrinated society is the mass population so there will not be anybody left that even knows right from wrong.
 
Back
Top