Biden defeats Trump

First topic message reminder :

Joe Biden beats Donald Trump to win US election
Joe Biden has won the presidency by clinching Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes, the AP has just announced.

- The Guardian

Would really love to hear from IMO right now. Bet he has some feelings on this news

Syl wrote:I agree that standing up to a bully is sometimes the only way to stop them, but you stand up to them with words not fists.

Andy does only come here to stir up trouble, that doesn't make him a bully though.....and tbh, does anyone take any notice of him anyway?

For what it's worth, I liked posting with IMO, couldn't care less who he was before, I liked his threads, even though we argued a bit......every forum needs a bit of conflict (not abuse) to stay interesting.

Couldn’t agree more!
I did try to diffuse the situation but obviously fell flat on my arse.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I agree that standing up to a bully is sometimes the only way to stop them, but you stand up to them with words not fists.

Andy does only come here to stir up trouble, that doesn't make him a bully though.....and tbh, does anyone take any notice of him anyway?

For what it's worth, I liked posting with IMO, couldn't care less who he was before, I liked his threads, even though we argued a bit......every forum needs a bit of conflict (not abuse) to stay interesting.

Couldn’t agree more!
I did try to diffuse the situation but obviously fell flat on my arse.

Lol......sometimes it's best to let people just  get on with it and have a cup of tea instead. ....or a glass of wine.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I agree that standing up to a bully is sometimes the only way to stop them, but you stand up to them with words not fists.

Andy does only come here to stir up trouble, that doesn't make him a bully though.....and tbh, does anyone take any notice of him anyway?

For what it's worth, I liked posting with IMO, couldn't care less who he was before, I liked his threads, even though we argued a bit......every forum needs a bit of conflict (not abuse) to stay interesting.

Couldn’t agree more!
I did try to diffuse the situation but obviously fell flat on my arse.

Lol......sometimes it's best to let people just  get on with it and have a cup of tea instead. ....or a glass of wine.

Yes, but I’ll never learn. I always try to fix things, or people, and if I’m honest, it’s like a default setting. I’ve always been a bit of a doormat.

Back to the subject:

phil wrote:Its quite sad really, that the Democrats had to play this underhanded in wanting to have a woman President

I, too, think it is sad. It wasn't underhanded, but a matter of pulling the public through barriers that they still cling to: Women don't belong in high office. America is decades behind Europe and other nations in this, as in many things.

Now that a woman has made it to the vice-presidential office, the public is groomed to accept a woman in the high office. Because of his age, Biden may transition to Harris early. That will be fine.

People will find that Harris is not only a person of grace, but someone with a brilliant mind. I remember her as District Attorney of San Francisco County, a woman with magnificent people skills and a brilliant legal mind.

She went on to be elected to lead the second largest justice department in the land, Attorney General of the State of California. Her time in the Senate has been brief, true, but that is because her nation needed her, and was begging her to step up.

Now she is a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land. What a wonderful turn of events: that a woman (yes, a woman) of such skill and legal brilliance, could be a step away from the leader of the world.

It must have been fate. Chance could never have worked it out so well. It was truly a Devine Hand.

I dont see you like that at all.
Just because you want to help doesn't make you a doormat.

Syl wrote:I dont see you like that at all.
Just because you want to help doesn't make you a doormat.

I am so gonna marry you in my next life!

But I shan’t play scrabble with you because you cheat.
And I won’t wear roller skates either. I am terribly clumsy.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont see you like that at all.
Just because you want to help doesn't make you a doormat.

I am so gonna marry you in my next life!

But I shan’t play scrabble with you because you cheat.
And I won’t wear roller skates either. I am terribly clumsy.

Lol.

I dont cheat though, I really dont have to.

We can get you some stabilisers, you will be fine.

Original Quill wrote:Back to the subject:

phil wrote:Its quite sad really, that the Democrats had to play this underhanded in wanting to have a woman President

I, too, think it is sad.  It wasn't underhanded, but a matter of pulling the public through barriers that they still cling to: Women don't belong in high office.  America is decades behind Europe and other nations in this, as in many things.

Now that a woman has made it to the vice-presidential office, the public is groomed to accept a woman in the high office.  Because of his age, Biden may transition to Harris early.  That will be fine.

People will find that Harris is not only a person of grace, but someone with a brilliant mind.  I remember her as District Attorney of San Francisco County, a woman with magnificent people skills and a brilliant legal mind.

She went on to be elected to lead the second largest justice department in the land, Attorney General of the State of California.  Her time in the Senate has been brief, true, but that is because her nation needed her, and was begging her to step up.

Now she is a heartbeat away from the highest office in the land.  What a wonderful turn of events: that a woman (yes, a woman) of such skill and legal brilliance, could be a step away from the leader of the world.

It must have been fate.  Chance could never have worked it out so well.  It was truly a Devine Hand.

Sorry Quill, Eddie distracted me.


Back on topic......

That's fine.  I'm a late comer to the back end of this thread, so I wanted to get my two-cents in before we went to chit-chat.

Carry on, guys...

Original Quill wrote:That's fine.  I'm a late comer to the back end of this thread, so I wanted to get my two-cents in before we went to chit-chat.

Carry on, guys...  

Quill....No, you’re entirely correct. This thread is about Biden winning..and rightly so. Good for him.

I just derailed it with the whole didge/Andy fight. I do apologise.
I do so hate a thread being derailed. If another topic crops up, it should go elsewhere.

No worries. I just wanted Syl (and you) to know I wasn't being harsh. I really think that the Biden/Harris combination is the correct healing combination for these difficult times.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, sometimes ignoring works.  But sometimes it's a form of evasion when the right course of action is speaking up.  

There is probably too little of the latter around here.

And you are correct about violence. It is sometimes the best solution.

But it's not really an option on here.  

You think when someone is angry they’re going to listen to your anger, or even your calm? You can’t communicate with an angry person.

And when is violence ever an answer?

One can speak up without being angry.

Ignoring is a form of condoning. Condone certain behavior long enough and it becomes common and acceptable.

As for violence, I'm not a violent person, but I'm also not a pacifist. I dont think most are.

https://twitter.com/StephenAtHome/status/1325207672778444803?s=09

Ben Reilly wrote:https://twitter.com/StephenAtHome/status/1325207672778444803?s=09

I love the reverse escalator at the end

Test (ignore this)

Ben Reilly wrote:Joe Biden beats Donald Trump to win US election
Joe Biden has won the presidency by clinching Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes, the AP has just announced.

- The Guardian

                                

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, sometimes ignoring works.  But sometimes it's a form of evasion when the right course of action is speaking up.  

There is probably too little of the latter around here.

And you are correct about violence. It is sometimes the best solution.

But it's not really an option on here.  

You think when someone is angry they’re going to listen to your anger, or even your calm? You can’t communicate with an angry person.

And when is violence ever an answer?

One can speak up without being angry.

Ignoring is a form of condoning. Condone certain behavior long enough and it becomes common and acceptable.

As for violence, I'm not a violent person, but I'm also not a pacifist.  I dont think most are.  

Hey Maddog, what do you think to the idea I've heard from some Trumpists, that Jo Jorgensen and the Libertarians were spoilers? I saw a video that pointed out if all Jo's voters switched to Trump, then Trump would've edged the election with 289 votes.

Does this make you think you should've voted differently or do you consider the GOP still way too 'interfering' for you to vote for as a libertarian?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

One can speak up without being angry.

Ignoring is a form of condoning. Condone certain behavior long enough and it becomes common and acceptable.

As for violence, I'm not a violent person, but I'm also not a pacifist.  I dont think most are.  

Hey Maddog, what do you think to the idea I've heard from some Trumpists, that Jo Jorgensen and the Libertarians were spoilers? I saw a video that pointed out if all Jo's voters switched to Trump, then Trump would've edged the election with 289 votes.

Does this make you think you should've voted differently or do you consider the GOP still way too 'interfering' for you to vote for as a libertarian?

If the Republicans had all voted Libertarian Jorgensen would have won.

The truth of the matter is that libertarians pull from the left and the right. And from people that wont for either major party.

There is a common misconception that libertarians are part of the Republican party.

They do share some traits.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

One can speak up without being angry.

Ignoring is a form of condoning. Condone certain behavior long enough and it becomes common and acceptable.

As for violence, I'm not a violent person, but I'm also not a pacifist.  I dont think most are.  

Hey Maddog, what do you think to the idea I've heard from some Trumpists, that Jo Jorgensen and the Libertarians were spoilers? I saw a video that pointed out if all Jo's voters switched to Trump, then Trump would've edged the election with 289 votes.

Does this make you think you should've voted differently or do you consider the GOP still way too 'interfering' for you to vote for as a libertarian?

If the Republicans had all voted Libertarian Jorgensen would have won.

The truth of the matter is that libertarians pull from the left and the right.  And from people that wont  for either major party.  

There is a common misconception that libertarians are part of the Republican party.  

Yeah, I guess it only comes up when Republicans narrowly lose

I'm with you though. I was a Liberal Democrat in the UK until they were obliterated in 2015 and lost all direction. Prior to that Labour voters would call mine a wasted vote.
I didn't care. New Labour, for all the good they did, had turned to shit by the time I could vote in a GE (2005).

Nobody in America talks about the Libertarian Party.

To expand on that, though, nobody in America talks about the Libertarian Party siphoning votes away from the Democrats.

Libertarians in America often pretend to want the government out of their private AND financial lives. In practice, they care far more about their finances than they do about other people's social freedom.

There are many American libertarians who support banning abortion, for example. Most of them generally side with the Republican Party.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nobody in America talks about the Libertarian Party.

To expand on that, though, nobody in America talks about the Libertarian Party siphoning votes away from the Democrats.

Libertarians in America often pretend to want the government out of their private AND financial lives. In practice, they care far more about their finances than they do about other people's social freedom.

There are many American libertarians who support banning abortion, for example. Most of them generally side with the Republican Party.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Abortion isn't a litmus test. Like it used to be for the Dems and Reps.

People talk about libertarians stealing votes from the Dems all the time.

Maybe you're not running un the right groups?

This is why some dems become tired of their party and vote for Libertarians.

I see it mostly in younger females who have known nothing but a country at war, no matter which major party is in charge.