UKBouldering.com

U-S-A! The American Politics Thread. (Read 500050 times)

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1500 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 09:03:26 pm
For anyone interested in the empirical data on the actual extent of racially-motivated police brutality in the US and various similar topics, I strongly recommend (black) academic Wilfred Reilly's book "Taboo: 10 Facts You Can't Talk About".


Jeezus! Of course it’s a small minority. I think we’re all aware that there are ~300M people in the US and, as I said, immense variations in culture between states and regions.

....



Missed this response. Fairly typical of what passes for discussion on non-climbing matters on this forum: one guy writes a rambling takedown of a book that he hasn't read, Prof Pomp wads him.  ::)

Wilfred Reilly (as stated in my previous post: a black academic) makes a very large number of points in his book backed by data on a range of social issues in the US. He is not pro-Trump but is not sympathetic to BLM either. On the current topic du jour - alleged disproportionate targeting of african-americans by the police in the US - Reilly says that the data is almost exactly explained by african-american participation rates in violent crime. Thanks to Kindle for Desktop, here is a direct quote:

"Probably the archetypal taboo-but-obvious fact of the American race debate is this: there is no “epidemic” of African Americans being murdered by police in the U.S.A. The claim that there is such an epidemic is made constantly by members of movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM), the New Black Panthers (NBP), and Antifa. But it is flatly false. Serious empirical analyses done by everyone from myself1 to the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald to www.killedbypolice.net—an entire web resource set up to study this topic—invariably conclude that fewer than 1,200 people of all races and sexes are killed annually by American police officers. In a typical year, such as the representative year of 2015, roughly 250 (258) of these people will be Black. It is true that the Black percentage of the individuals killed by police, 22–24 percent, is slightly higher than the 13–14 percent representation of Blacks in the overall U.S. population. However, this roughly 10 percent gap is wholly explained by the fact that the Black crime rate, violent crime rate, arrest rate, and police encounter rate are all significantly higher than the equivalent rates for whites. There is no evidence for any of Black Lives Matter’s major claims."

It is of course common to explain that some racial groups get more caught up in serious crime than others based on systemic discrimination within the economy, longer-term cultural factors, etc. But any theory of that kind needs to explain why other racial groups do fine? Maybe, it's - you know - nuanced ... complicated?

"According to a 2014 U.S. Census Bureau graphic so pleasantly surprising that it became a trending online meme, the highest income group in the United States is not WASPs, but Indian Americans, with a median household income of $100,295. In order, the next three groups were Taiwanese Americans ($85,500), Filipino immigrants ($82,389), and Americans of Japanese heritage ($70,261). All told, at least eighteen groups—including Lebanese Arabs ($69,586), Iranians or “Persians” ($66,186), Nigerians ($61,289), and Syrians ($61,151)—finished ahead of “whites” when whites were analyzed together as a group. Foreign Blacks specifically did quite well in income terms. Nigerians were joined on the top-twenty list by both Black and “white” immigrants from the polyglot African nation of Egypt ($60,543) and by the Guyanese ($60,234). All available data also indicate that Black West Indians—Jamaicans, Bahamians, and so forth—finished not far behind whites. This is important stuff. Nigerians and Black Guyanese look essentially identical to Black Americans, the huge majority of whose ancestors came from West Africa. The same is obviously true of West Indians. Nor, except perhaps for slight traces of an accent, do these high-performing Black immigrants generally display cultural or linguistic characteristics which would allow white Americans to rapidly distinguish them from potentially less favored native Blacks."

I have no idea whether this guy's numbers are accurate or over-cooked but I have searched for a serious statistical rebuttal to his book and found precisely nothing. I find that pretty weird. Is he ignored because his data is provably-wrong but no-one dares take him down for fear of being thought racist (somewhat ironic) or is he ignored because his data is inconveniently accurate?

For anyone open to unfashionable ideas ( :tumble: ) I recommend Reilly's  Twitter feed.

Seriously Toby, read the linked stats from the other posters and then some of the articles that link to the FBI stats, then read my post again, which didn’t in anyway reference “THE BOOK”, then read some of the criticisms of the book (many) and try to remember you are not the only person who reads. I skimmed it, but couldn’t bring myself to really dig in. Some time back, just another one on my “will read someday”. Though it might move up the schedule if it’s actually worthy of debate.

None of that detracts or alters what is most certainly ingrained, cultural, racism in the US, which many people posting here have witnessed first hand, repeatedly. As I said, it doesn’t matter that “policemen killing black people “ is a minority “thing”, of course it is. It doesn’t matter, in this context, if black on black or black on white or white on black, crime is more or less prevalent than each or any of the other combinations.
This is about specific, well documented, incidents where black people were killed by police officers or vigilantes, without committing any crime or (if there was transgression) resisting arrest, because they were black.

Seriously, when was the last time vigilantes chased down and shot a white jogger for wandering into their neighbourhood?

As I said, pretty sure everyone posting in this thread is aware that these are the actions of a small number of people, trying to link this to crime stats is bogus.

There is an allegation, from the African American community (and something similar here) that they are disproportionately singled out for police attention/harassment without cause.
Since this can only be objectively assessed if every police encounter is logged and detailed, which patently isn’t going to happen; only the anecdotal evidence of the people who feel wronged is available. So it becomes an individual judgment call, whether you believe it’s a thing or not.

I find the various accounts I have read recently, along with my previous experience of attitudes that could well lead to such behaviour, convincing.

If saying “most violent crime is committed by black men”, even if it were true, would not justify the idea that “most black men are violent criminals”. That would be equivalent to saying (if hypothetically true) “most violent crime is committed by Short men wearing a green shirt and therefore all short men in green shirts are violent criminals”. Which is why the book seems irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Personally, I suspect the US police have become, in large part, overly violent and aggressive to the public, regardless of the ethnicity of that public. I can also see, that might in an equally large part be the result of a pretty violent, aggressive and well armed public.

Still, it doesn’t change the specific incidents that lead to the current explosion, only colours in the context.

If that’s incoherent, it’s because it’s typed on a phone after a long, bad, day; not proof read and certainly not comprehensive.
If you were not trying to discredit or belittle the BLM movement and just trying to broaden the debate, I apologise. That was how it appeared to me, however I’ve been getting some extra tuition in “how things appear to other people” around here recently, so I shouldn’t assume.

Edit:

I did find tome to reread it, quickly at least.
For clarity, the issue is not “do the police kill more black people than white people” because that’s a number(s) clouded by the “justifiable” kill.
The issue is “are innocent black people being killed by white people (including the police) because they are black”.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 09:31:55 pm by Oldmanmatt »

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2575
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#1501 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 09:25:03 pm
The c. ten percent difference actually means there’s nearly twice as many (proportionate to population)...

That’s significant I’d say.

Yeah ‘slightly higher’ 🙄 ffs

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1502 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 09:38:04 pm
Anyway, if Mohamed won’t go to the mountain...

 

Nutty

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 359
  • Karma: +17/-0
#1503 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 09:42:55 pm
I've not read the book habrich, but from the quotes you've picked I'm not convinced it would be worth my time.

Surely the statistics he uses to explain away the higher rate of police killings of blacks are also influenced by either racism of police officers or racist policing procedures? If you implement a stop and frisk policy that targets blacks, of course they're going to have higher police encounter rates, and then the higher arrest rates and crime rates flow from that. So his point is then that the fact that blacks are killed much more regularly by police can be explained because of racial profiling by the police?

And then he argues that America isn't racist because foreign blacks (who haven't grown up with American systemic racism limiting their opportunities) have income levels comparable to whites - ignoring the fact that US immigration favours those who work in higher earning professions/jobs. Of course the foreign blacks earn more than American blacks when you've filtered out the low earning foreigners. The question should maybe then be why they don't earn more than whites given this filtering? Would that be the racism again?

As tomtom says, 22-24% is not 'slightly higher' than 13-14%, it's a 70% increase. Calling it 'slightly higher' and a 'roughly 10 percent gap' is just poor stats.

So yeah, you've probably not seen a serious statistical rebuttal because it's so full of holes

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#1504 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 10:09:16 pm
If you're ever going to be able to sensibly discuss statistics in debates about identity I think you have to remove the emotion from the numbers. Not sure how you do that.. I'm not a statistician or criminology researcher. But surely it isn't beyond the wit of humans to properly and dispassionately analyse this stuff and understand why things are the way they are.
Fucking minefield. I wouldn't touch this topic online with a really long barge-pole.
Except to say I don't think Habrich should be shouted down for posting about that book, I get the impression he's more interested in trying to understand facts behind the numbers than in being discriminatory (maybe I'm wrong and he's a massive racist but I doubt it).

Lopez

Offline
  • ***
  • stalker
  • Posts: 257
  • Karma: +28/-0
#1505 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 10:37:21 pm
I'm banding with the disbelievers here i'm afarid. This author was used in the other dimension also as evidence, and so i spent some time reading what i could from him, or at least what was available without having to pay moneys, so granted, my readings of him are limited.

However i did find some problems with his approach to be able to accept the evidence as shown. I had a few things in my head which i thought it'd have been a waste of time to offer the other contributor, so i'll recycle them here.

Just from the paragraphs you copied there's some alarm bells. To dissect it slightly:

He claims 'Serious empirical analyses done by everyone'

Now, why is he writing 'serious'. Is there a need for that qualifier? Are empirical analyses normally not serious? Or is he trying to add credence to it?

 But ok, lets see, they were done 'by everyone', and then he lists 'everyone' as being himself, a highly contorvesial speaker known for her extreme pro-police views, and a website that just keeps tabs on how many people is killed by Police.

Uh ok, i thought 'everyone'meant, like, you know, everyone.

So what do the 'serious empirical analyses' show? That 'invariably conclude that fewer than 1,200 people of all races and sexes are killed annually by American police officers'. and how many of those are black.

Seems 'serious empyrical analyses' is slang for googling something and checking a website. But the 'fewer' sticks out. Why would he use that qualifier? Is he trying to lead the thoughts of the reader? And you know, no need to assert they 'invariably conclude'. It's like he's worried people won't believe him.

The same comes right after. 'the Black percentage of the individuals killed by police, 22–24 percent, is slightly higher than the 13–14 percent representation of Blacks'

Double the rate is 'slightly higher'? Seems an odd assertion to make. In no way or form can any sensible person claim that 22–24 percent, is slightly higher than the 13–14 percent. He's trying to lead the reader and he's not particularly subtle about it .

But the clincher is also there

'this roughly 10 percent gap is wholly explained by the fact that the Black crime rate, violent crime rate, arrest rate, and police encounter rate are all significantly higher than the equivalent rates for whites'

Uh ok. We been going about data, serious analyses, statistics, and the whole argument stands on a completely unsubstantiated random statement? What's the point of even putting any numbers to it when they are after all irrelevant?

How is that 'wholly explained'? Where's the conclusive evidence with numbers and stuff instead of just a hunch?

Reading his work it seems to be just a load of smoke and mirrors, (mis)leading statements to condition the reader and trying too hard to legitimise, something, and then a reveal around which all his argument revolves, which is nothing more than a personal assumption.

So yes, you can surmise that from all i read from him i was not too impressed with his scientific method.


Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1506 Re: Trump
June 09, 2020, 11:00:17 pm
If you're ever going to be able to sensibly discuss statistics in debates about identity I think you have to remove the emotion from the numbers. Not sure how you do that.. I'm not a statistician or criminology researcher. But surely it isn't beyond the wit of humans to properly and dispassionately analyse this stuff and understand why things are the way they are.
Fucking minefield. I wouldn't touch this topic online with a really long barge-pole.
Except to say I don't think Habrich should be shouted down for posting about that book, I get the impression he's more interested in trying to understand facts behind the numbers than in being discriminatory (maybe I'm wrong and he's a massive racist but I doubt it).

I don’t see how you could reliably get those numbers:

Stop and search, if it’s done for harassment purposes? Only if it’s officially recorded and if an officer is doing it for the wrong reasons, they’re hardly going to log it. So you’re left with victim complaints and anecdotes, unreliable.

As I said, in terms of overall share of “killed by the police” how would you filter out the justifiable from the malicious? Probably only when it’s blatant and confounding evidence is available to refute the “official” story(notable that an increase in such cases, clearly and demonstrably malicious, coincides with the increasing prevalence of high quality, personal recording devices).

I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to say that something is pretty wrong, when the recent high profile cases are considered. Set aside, perhaps, the Paramedic, killed in bed; as there seems a relatively high likelihood that that was just a fuck up. In the other cases, such as the choking or the jogger, the perpetrators had expectations of “getting away with it” or felt justified in their actions, despite the presence of witnesses and cameras. Even when some of those witnesses were not passive and were pretty loud in their objection to the perpetrator’s actions.


Anyway, don’t the protests, at base, simply reflect a desire to see the end of racism in all it’s forms? The specific events merely form the trigger?

Or are we saying racism isn’t a thing?

Oh yeah:

If your boss offers you a pay rise, of 13-14% and the turns to your colleague and offers them a 22-24% rise, tell me they’re pretty much the same thing...
« Last Edit: June 09, 2020, 11:05:43 pm by Oldmanmatt »

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#1507 Re: Trump
June 10, 2020, 10:54:38 am
George was accused of using a counterfeit twenty dollar note. He was safely in custody, unarmed and was cuffed. The officers knew it was being filmed by the public whilst they then grounded him and a big cop knelt on his neck whist cuffed. The officers were part of a police force that was under serious concern for past racist attitudes with a potential powder keg of protests and likely riots if something went wrong. They took 9 minutes to kill him on film. They then claimed he was resisting arrest despite no evidence on the filming or street CCTV. Think about that. That's a broken system with complete failure of everything: training, process, racial awareness and common sense. I thought the police were there to stop riots, not cause them.

Wilfred Reilly is an academic on the fringes, who online is forced to mainly publish this data on pretty extreme websites, despite his grand claims of public academic respectability,. His stats as Matt shows, don't match FBI data (data which doesn't show deaths proportional to racial criminal breakdown). The stats used in the way Reilly does, logically fail to meet sensible standards.. you are forced to detail what happens in shootings but if you target blacks more often, that will already have distorted the stats (more black potential criminals shot than white ones). He also points out that a black cop is more likely to kill a black criminal than a white cop; without reversing his own arguments and recognising black cops are on average more often policing mixed communities with the highest crime rates. Given how much publicly has been around BLM, remember this death has happened in police forces being more careful. We can add on that US courts convict blacks more often for the same crime with longer sentences on average for those convicted. Reilly is yet another example of how fact checking is unravelling in the US and how right wing propaganda spreads. His book fits the alt right support base perfectly. Racist cops are the latest group who have 'proof' from Reilly everyone else is wrong and that they don't need to change.

This doesn't deny that some of what is going on may relate to poverty (the much higher middle class African immigrant income doesn't protect them from racist motivated attack but does afford better lawyers to deal with the outcome). It's pretty shit being poor and white in the US as well.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2020, 11:22:47 am by Offwidth »

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1508 Re: Trump
June 11, 2020, 02:49:41 pm
Well this is puzzling. If the recent deaths of George Floyd, Brennan Taylor (and Ahmed Aubrey by ex police officer) represent 22-24% of police killings proportionately, there should be in the region of 6 or 7 non-black killings over the same period. Has any been reported?

These people were unarmed, so we should be comparing similar circumstances, not shoot outs when challenged.
[/quote]

Bump. Wonder if you could point me to the multiple other killings of non black US citizens  over the equivalent period Have there been any?
[/quote]

There certainly are, plenty of, police killings and even more non-fatal shootings. The vast majority of which will be “justified” (that is a whole other kettle of fish, morally speaking).

I think people are confusing the total number of “killings” with the obviously unjustified, criminal, examples in the headlines; even confusing the vigilante stuff with the police perpetrated (33% of you chosen examples😜) and they are all very different things.

Which is why I’m confused by anyone trying to, I don’t know, diminish (?) the core BLM or antiracism arguments by clouding the issue with either those total numbers or the relative crime statistics.
What is important, is that some of those killings are unjustified and their perpetrators motives were racially tinged and the “system’s” response to those killings (where it took public outrage to induce disciplinary action/criminal proceedings (Aubrey, for instance).

Those incidents alone, are sufficient to conclude that there is a systematic problem with racism and lack of accountability within the state.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 10:38:04 am by shark »

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
#1509 Re: Trump
June 11, 2020, 03:57:23 pm
Well put.  I did say Aubrey's murder was by an ex police officer which was why the equivalent proportions of killings of unarmed citizens would be 6-7 (from 2 examples) rather than 9-10 (from 3). But your point that it's the manner and context which are the key issues is absolutely right.

You may be interested in the Jt Chief of staff's apology for appearing at church with Trump … https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/milley-trump-appearance-mistake/index.html

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#1510 Re: Trump
June 11, 2020, 05:53:00 pm
Bump. Wonder if you could point me to the multiple other killings of non black US citizens  over the equivalent period Toby? Have there been any?

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1512 Re: Trump
June 16, 2020, 08:32:02 pm
This article adresses some of the aspects and context of the “police violence and it’s racial component” that I was trying to enunciate (poorly) further up this thread.
The numbers do clearly show a bias in the use of force and suggests a reasonable extrapolation to the killing of unarmed individuals.
Worth following the links to the studies:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-stats-on-police-killings/

TobyD

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#1513 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 10:00:34 am
 It's truly amazing how politically durable Trump is. He's about to hold a huge rally in a state with a steeply rising number of CV 19 cases, Boulton has leaked the stories about him trying to get China to help him in the election, foreign leaders saying he's full of shit, and his laughable ignorance ( he thought Finland was part of Russia) ; and yet he'll still win the election, guaranteed.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#1514 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 10:21:41 am
What odds are you offering on that assertion Toby? Looks pretty brave to me given most polls pundits and bookmakers expect a close race with Biden favourite.

https://www.casino.org/news/polls-odds-agree-joe-biden-man-to-beat-in-2020-presidential-election/

His durability is only really because the GOP establishment tolerate him and his election was based on solid GOP support and  voters who were promised change that would benefit them.  I can't see that GOP elastic stretching much further and voters seem to have sufferred (albeit C19 being the main disrupter). Then their are health rumours...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-health-ramp-walk-water-white-house-doctors-a9569531.html

TobyD

Online
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#1515 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 10:34:34 am
 He'll win. You're ignoring the fact that everyone who votes for him will discount everything said against him as fake news, the escalating death toll, job losses, well they're the fault of China, and the loser Dems.
Posting link from left wing or liberal British news media is rather pointless, to the average Trump voter they might as well be Lenin.
Trump's victory isn't 100% cast iron yet, he could blow it, but it's all his to lose.

seankenny

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#1516 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 10:36:23 am
The Economist have released a model which currently puts Biden as the likely winner.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#1517 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 10:51:33 am
The Economist have released a model which currently puts Biden as the likely winner.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

Yup.


Just like 2016.


Ru

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1972
  • Karma: +120/-0
#1518 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 11:19:51 am
Only 3 months ago they put Trump as the winner. A lot can change.

ali k

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +38/-1
#1519 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 11:25:46 am
Someone just needs to ask Zuckerburg. He probably knows who’s won already.

seankenny

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1007
  • Karma: +114/-11
#1520 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 11:34:05 am
The Economist have released a model which currently puts Biden as the likely winner.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

Yup.


Just like 2016.


It's updated daily, outcomes can change. Models can be improved.

This isn't a guarantee that Trump will lose, rather a picture of how things stand at the moment.

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5525
  • Karma: +347/-5
#1521 Re: Trump
June 18, 2020, 12:40:31 pm
I think he's far from guaranteed to win (though he might well). The much talked about base, those immune to all reason and evidence, is alone not enough for him to win and there are certainly signs of fatigue and disaffect amongst other groups that helped him win in 2016, such as college educated whites, women especially. He has handled the pandemic appallingly and that in turn is causing huge economic pain. Most surprisingly his reactions on race and policing have been weirdly out of step with the direction in which the nation has moved. The SCOTUS decision this week that LGBTQI employees have equal protection under the Civil Rights Act has deeply disappointed the Christian Right; most will still vote for him, but some may not.

And he didn't really win in 2016, Hillary lost through not getting the vote out. With the last four years having been so horrifying (not to mention everything that has gone on this year) Democratic voters should be motivated. Pennsylvania is a critical state and Biden should make a strong showing there, being a local boy made good.

But then again, there's voter suppression, which I am full of fears about.

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
#1522 Re: Trump
June 19, 2020, 08:51:45 pm
Two SCOTUS decisions against Trump in one week is surprising and encouraging.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2575
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#1523 Re: Trump
June 19, 2020, 08:58:54 pm

Sasquatch

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1984
  • Karma: +153/-1
  • www.akclimber.com
    • AkClimber
#1524 Re: Trump
June 19, 2020, 09:26:34 pm
I'm with Andy on this.  I think regardless of what Trump and his supporters want to believe and say, 2016 was less about Trump "winning" than it was about Hillary losing.  For 2020, it's on Biden to not lose. And he is much more personable/relatable than Hillary, which does indeed matter. 

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal