I really don't trust polls whatsoever,  I often find that most polls are biased so as to convince people that they either have people backing them but Nancy Pelosi is sure to give Trump power to win the next election and easily as well,  Even Clinton who lied under oath wasn't impeached.  They know that they don't have the vote to carry it out that's why they are stalling maybe they want to destabilize Trump's campaign for re-election.

O, OK, so it all about the ocean now...
First it was the acid rains - OMG amazon jungle will be poisoned and gone by the year 2000, act now! - Tax 'em
Then was the ozone layer - OMG we all gonna get cancer, atmosphere is to thin! - Tax 'em more
Next it was the warming - OMG we all gonna boil, the atmosphere is to thick! - Tax, Tax, Tax.
And now the oceanic life - OMG we all gona... what this time? Hunker for shrimps?

When will you wake up? It's nothing but a new religion. Technocratic gibberish for the masses to accept new forms of extortions.
I'm not saying it is a bad idea to care about your surroundings. But while you do, don't force ridiculous regulations on people.
Think about this, when was the last time young generations were so, so in favour of governmental actions? When was the last time teenagers where in favour for politicians? It's a precedence due to horribly effective mind control. Don't think about 27K monitored asteroids, on a possible collision course, don't think about those that we can't monitor, do not wonder about supervolcanos and especially forget about nano-plastic in the air and glyphosate, shush.

Constant DDoS attacks. ETA is when they stop attacking or when Tor fixes the vulnerability that let’s people DDoS a website (for the Tor mirror).

Here's the link to the news by CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/putin-2020-us-presidential-election-joke-intl/index.html

Newbies are not allowed to post links in the forum.

This is all joke by Putin.
They accused Russia of bringing up fake news and provocative statement to make people vote for Trump. But in reality that's just democrats not being able to accept their defeat.
And whoever wins this time, another party is surly going to blame Russia. This is why the US is losing their credentials in the world. They are now blaming another country for their simple domestic problems.

I don't like or use Twitter, but this isn't a fair criticism against them. If Twitter receives a DMCA takedown, then they have to remove the offending content or else they're sticking their neck out legally. If they say, "this is fair use," then they're liable for copyright infringement if they're wrong. You can't expect a company like Twitter to take risks like that if there's any possibility of them being wrong; nor can you expect them to dedicate resources to having lawyers carefully analyze each case. This is just the natural result of the way the DMCA law works: service providers always take things down after receiving a DMCA takedown unless the takedown is so obviously invalid that any court in the world would immediately throw it out.

Under the DMCA, Trump could in this case theoretically send Twitter a counter-takedown in which he asserts that the DMCA takedown was illegitimate (eg. due to fair use), and then Twitter could restore it without liability. I don't know if Twitter actually has a process for handling counter-takedowns, though. (They should.)

IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is fair use, mainly since Trump isn't commenting on the work itself (ie. the news piece), but rather the subject of the work. If he was criticizing the handling of the reporting, then that'd more likely be fair use. Probably a lawyer could convincingly argue in court that it isn't copyright infringement (maybe due to the excerpt being insubstantial moreso than fair use), but again, if there's any ambiguity at all, then service providers like Twitter aren't going to stick their necks out.

If people were using a decentralized, uncensorable version of Twitter (which technologically isn't even that difficult), then this wouldn't be an issue...

He also has cancelled ("postponed") some major ad buys in Iowa. I think this is probably indicative of a campaign coming to an end. The Iowa primary is only 4 months away, so he will need to resume campaigning and advertising quickly, or else his supporters in Iowa will move to other candidates, making it likely for him to do poorly in the Iowa primary. A poor performance in the Iowa primary may mean he looses supporters, and donors elsewhere.

There was a Monmouth (and a Economist/YouGov) poll out today that has Warren ahead of Biden. This is from Biden having double digit leads, and leads exceeding the total support of the next two highest candidates combined not long ago. I suspect that Biden may need to end his campaign because of the Ukraine 'scandal' and the purpose of the scandal may have actually been to harm Biden's campaign. 

I suspect that 'second choices' of voters are more malleable, and may change depending on who the candidate endorses after dropping out.

it's not actually confirmed that was the real reason why he was killed/murdered/disappeared (or even exactly what happened to him). Of course, it's not an unreasonable supposition to think it, but there is no genuine evidence.

I say this in particular because Kashoggi had a colorful family background; he was nephew to the famous Saudi arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi. Adnan Kashoggi has an extraordinary reputation and life story, he was selling weapons into the 1980's Iraq/Iran war, as well as the contras in Guatemala (or was it Nicaragua?). He was ridiculously wealthy, was well known for parties that lasted 3-4 days at his luxurious properties, in places like Spain and the USA. In other words, Uncle Adnan had some really strong political friends in US and Europe, which of course he needed to be an arms dealer in wars that US and European powers were involved in.

So was Jamal Kashoggi just an innocent Saudi journalist, fighting the House of Sa'ud for the Saudi people? Maybe, but growing up with an Uncle like Adnan, he could easily have been doing another job (or 3) at the same time, using the journalist role as cover (which also gave anyone he annoyed the cover they needed to kill him). Without any proper evidence, it's difficult to say anything for certain.

Some other candidates would be able to continue after this, but since the media hates Sanders, they'll constantly portray him as near death. Probably it will hurt his support enough to kill his inertia and force him to drop out after he performs poorly in the first few states.

According to the latest Morning Consult polling, Sanders supporters say that their second choice is:
 - 30% Biden
 - 28% Warren
 - 6% Harris

If you assume that Sanders drops out now, go based on the above numbers along with the current RCP average, and give one-tenth of Sanders' remaining support to candidates not listed in the Morning Consult poll, you get adjusted numbers of:
 - Biden 26.1 -> 31.1
 - Warren 24.4 -> 29.1
 - Buttigieg 5.6 -> 6.2
 - Harris 4.7 -> 5.7
 - Yang 3.3 -> 3.9

This (incredibly rough/unscientific analysis) makes it look good for Biden and to a slightly lesser extent Warren, but it really solidifies it into a 2-person race.

---

I would've really liked Sanders vs Trump because it's win-win in some ways: compared to previous presidents Trump is above average in most areas, while Sanders is excellent on foreign policy and civil liberties and terrible on policies that a president is more limited in affecting. Now I probably have to hope for Trump beating Biden or Warren.

In Trump vs Biden, I think Trump would probably win, but it wouldn't be a sure thing. President Biden would be like a mix between Obama and Bush. Biden himself is very authoritarian and pro-intervention, but he would probably appoint some Obama people to his administration, which might improve things somewhat on average. On the plus side, he is definitely not anti-capitalist.

In Trump vs Warren, Warren would have a very low chance of winning, but it'd be high stakes because Warren is really terrible. Warren is a horrible fusion of authoritarianism, interventionism, anti-capitalism, and corporatism, and her victory would embolden progressives while also giving them an opportunity to say, "Warren is destroying the country only because she's not progressive enough: she's no Bernie!". On the plus side, if she loses (which is the most likely outcome), it might diminish AOC-type progressivism in the Democratic party for a while.

This is without doubt going to be the end for Bernie Sanders campaign,  if he goes away for even two weeks without any events, it's going to affect his position on the opinion polls and am sure Joe Biden and Warren are going to capitalize on it and appeal to some of his supporters.

So B1tUnl0ck3r is basically making this forum unreadable.  The majority of threads are started by him, all incoherent and mostly 0 responses.  He also invades most of the rest of the threads with irrelevant anti-semitic rants.

I meant exactly what I said. All that you have done is note that no one ever can truly know another's internal motivations. Except to the extent that it is evidenced by his statements or actions.

Repeating,

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

Donald Trump should be ashamed of letting that guy into his administration who brags about drinking alcohol with his anus, when his own brother dies from alcoholism.

The 'price' is getting Trump in for at least the start of a 2nd term (before Yael Kushner takes over as the Trump brand figurehead.)  For the Dems this is a 'please don't throw me in the brier patch' type of thing.  Their instructions from their masters are to arrange for exactly that to happen which is why they put forward witches, pedo-creepers, etc when it's their turn to 'lose'.

There is a very useful analytical construct which goes 'Invert.  Always Invert.'  If you start with the basic assumption that Democrats want a Democrat in the whitehouse, all types of mental gymnastics are required to explain observations.  If, on the other hand, you drop that erroneous assumption things fall into place rather nicely.

This principle of throwing elections is certainly not limited to 'the Democtrats.'  The Republicans did it with McCain/Palin and with the Mormon.  If you realize that the 'two party paradigm' is nothing but gas-light fraud then it all makes a lot more sense.   All presidents are compliant on getting certain constructs in place and it takes more than 4 years to really solidify things like the medical/industrial peep-trap and money machine that we call a health care for instance.

Impeachment's polling pretty high among citizens. 44% independents. 78% democrats, 18% republicans. I think she's waiting until the number's above 50% for independents. Mind you, Nixon impeachment at the start was only polled at 18% public support.

When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above.

This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.

On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.

Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden.

I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee.