The Morning Dispatch: Judgment Day

What to watch and what to expect on a historic election night.

By
706

Happy Tuesday! Tune in to a special edition of Dispatch Live tonight at 10 p.m. ET / 7 p.m. PT. Sarah, David, Steve, and Jonah will be breaking down the early election results, and what conclusions we can—and can’t—draw from them. Details here!

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • At least 22 people were killed and 22 more were injured in a terror attack on Kabul University in Afghanistan. The shootings, which Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani denounced as a “despicable act of terror,” have been claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.

  • Several people were injured and several more are believed to be dead in what Austria’s interior minister Karl Nehammer called “an apparent terror attack” in Vienna’s Inner City district. One attacker was killed in the exchange of gunfire and the other is “on the run,” according to Nehammer.

  • President Donald Trump alluded to plans to fire Dr. Anthony Fauci—the leading federal infectious disease expert—after the election. Following chants from a Florida crowd to “Fire Fauci,” Trump responded, “Don’t tell anybody, but let me wait until a little bit after the election.” Joe Biden fired back during a campaign event in Ohio: “Elect me, and I’m going to hire Dr. Fauci, and we’re going to fire Donald Trump.”

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
706
By
Comments (706)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Hanna Reinhart

    The police won’t be defunded (probably).

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Matmos

    Wow, today's comments seem a lot more heated than usual. I'm feeling everybody's pain and angst. Here's a bright side, no matter who wins: we still have each other. The Dispatch has been keeping me sane, and I look forward to it keeping me sane when we come out the other side. There's nowhere I have found that is a better place for reminding me that no matter who you support, there are a lot of thoughtful people who wish the best for us as a community and are willing to engage with each other, even if they don't agree on how to achieve that or what 'the best' looks like.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jess

    "Name one positive thing that would come from the candidate you are not supporting winning the election."
    Thanks for asking—I like a challenge. My entire extended family and all of our close friends are supporting Biden. If he loses, I won't know anyone who is happy, or even relieved. I am one of the most moderate and optimistic of us, and even I had trouble finding a potential bright side.

    Here's what I came up with:

    1. I appreciate that Trump restricted travel from China on February 2nd. That us bought time, delaying the exponential growth of Covid. Some doctors and scientists were able to use that time to get a head start.

    I hope that when the next respiratory pandemic emerges, whoever is in charge will actually stop anyone from entering the country, and only allow American citizens to return with testing and quarantines.

    2. The administration did a good job with Operation Warp speed. They provided federal funding, and cooperated with HHS, CDC, NIH, BARDA, DoD, and the private sector, to accelerate the development of therapeutics and vaccines for Covid. I'm not sure Trump had much to do with it, and I doubt he will have any positive effect on our fight against the virus if he wins a second term. Still, I'm giving credit where credit is due.

    3. As a more classical liberal, I do not like the way many progressives are comfortable restricting the freedom of speech, and punishing those who deviate by calling for them to be fired. They have gone too far. However, moderate liberals are the ones who can best reign them in, and win their hearts and minds back to the Bill of Rights. As far as I can see, lectures by those who support Trump just make progressives more extreme. In fact, having Trump in power makes people fearful rather than thoughtful, and they speak and act from the gut (like he does), which naturally causes trouble.

    4. I thought the Obama era policy on campus sexual assault went too far, and I'm glad it's been rescinded. I also think that those who would like legal protections for people who are transgender or nonbinary many not have not thought through the many potential negative consequences of such a move. At least a supposedly conservative administration might keep us from encouraging/supporting the blocking of puberty in kids, and potentially harmful surgeries.

    Okay, that's it. I care about a great many other issues, the top ones being: the environment, respect for career federal workers, and political compromise, but I couldn't find a silver lining with those issues. I find everyone's answers interesting, and thanks for providing a forum for civil political conversation.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      Hard to win their hearts and minds "BACK to the Bill of Rights" when their hearts and minds were never there to begin with.
      It's a package deal, folks. This isn't Burger King - you don't get it "your way". No more picking and choosing which are the "REAL important rights". Lookin' at you, 2nd and 10th Amendment haters.
      Also, I've noticed that there are many on Twitter and other social media that are happy to harp and lecture when they disagree and then say "Don't lecture me" or "finger wagging doesn't work".
      I'd suggest to these people to be the example they want and miss me with the double-standard BS.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jess

        Hi, Richard. You took my words about freedom of speech to an extreme. I should not have phrased my comment in a way that invited you to paint liberals with a broad brush. Also, I don't think my post was "double-standard BS," but maybe you were talking something else.

        What I meant was that moderate liberals can convince progressives to take another look at the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, and reconsider how to counter speech they don't like.

        It is not unconstitutional for private organizations to restrict speech, or for people to use cultural norms to pressure others to speak a certain way. The Bill of Rights is about stopping the government from restricting freedoms. It does not stop citizens from speaking up against speech the disagree with.

        Liberals are not flouting the Constitution, they are protesting speech they think is hateful. I disagree with some of the forms their protest takes, such as turning their backs on a speaker, and cancel culture (especially when aimed at those who are not wealthy and famous). However, those things are not unconstitutional. Nor do they mean that liberals don't respect the Bill of Rights.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Richard Maxton

          Not disagreeing with you. I'm with you that private organizations can limit how they choose (though I question the wisdom of using those organizations as means of "public square" discourse if that's going to be the case).

          The media, in my mind, seems to be trying to have it both ways here. See for instance, recent NYT opinion page decisions and the even more recent Intercept issues with Glenn Greenwald.

          The problem with being against hate speech (to me) boils down to who gets to decide what exactly that is. Of course, I think we can all agree that derogatory words (we all know which ones) should never be used in polite society or even heated discussion. But there is a hell of a lot of gray area and I just don't trust the "powers that be" - WHOEVER they are - to make the right and unbiased call each time. Free speech means hearing things you won't like. Gotta take the bad with the good.

          Only my first sentence was really directed at you - the rest was a soliloquy (or perhaps just a rant) inspired by the "hearts and minds" part of your post. I should have made that clearer and apologize for not having done so.

          I try not to generalize "liberals are flouting the Constitution" but I'm sure I've failed at that a time or two. Again, I'll offer my apologies. Unfortunately, on the Left and Right edges both we're seeing the kind of illiberalism that doesn't mesh well with the Constitution. Personally, I think the Left edge is in the lead as far as becoming a more dominant part of the Mainstream view, but it's definitely a "both sides" issue.

          I will stand by my underlying belief (shared by some SC Justices) that there are some more favored rights in society right now, and some less, and I don't think that's appropriate.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jess

            Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your discussion of hate speech, and I agree on the vast gray area. For the most part, I think the way to counter speech you don't like is with more speech. In a free marketplace of ideas, the best ones rise to the top. This generally seemed to work before the internet. Now, we have some new and complex problems regarding not only hate speech, but false and misleading speech, libel, etc.

            I appreciate your retraction on the use of the broad brush. I'm guilty too, especially online when I start to use a shorthand for ideas which have been expressed many times.

            I agree that illiberalism is an issue for both sides. If we're measuring which side is leading, in my mind, it's a toss up. The progressives are creating an oppressive atmosphere in many quarters with their cancel culture and secret woke-language, but Republicans did nominate and elect a president who says norm crushing things like:

            "I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

            "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

            “A few days ago I called the fake news the enemy of the people and they are. They are the enemy of the people.” (Any journalist, reporter, editor, who writes anything he doesn't like is an enemy of the people, a term famously used by folks like Robespierre, Nazis, Lenin and Stalin.)

            I wish politics could start from a mutual good faith agreement that both sides do fundamentally respect the Constitution. We all believe in protecting our rights (not just the trendy ones for our side). Speaking of trendy ones, the right hasn't been super respectful of the right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances (ie Lafayette Square).

            Anyway, we also think there should be restrictions on freedoms, so that my rights don't end up trampling someone else's. We can decide to leave restrictions up to the states, (which I'm mostly fine with as long as the Supreme Court doesn't decide that NY can't have laws against permitless canceled carry, or something similar). Or, we can do the hard work of hammering out compromises we can all live with.

            I know many would scoff at my last sentence. But people like those of The Dispatch community could do it.

            Collapse
    2. deathtomcmansions

      I agree with you for all but 1. By the time the border was closed to China, it was already spreading within the US, on both coasts, but especially on the East where it came from Italy/Europe. So it was pretty much useless by then. However, if somehow it hadn't gotten in at all, I would have been quite ok with closing to all but US persons (including green card holders and members of the same household as both categories) IF even quarantines had been implemented and enforced for those people, since testing wasn't available that early on. For a novel virus, those make sense but with other diseases, such as Ebola, you have to consider other factors like ease of contagion so that for example. like the medical missionary who contracted it, you could return an American person for medical treatment, since Ebola was not an airborne virus.

      Collapse
  4. Ingenero.lux

    Let’s see, I oppose both of them, so in alphabetical order:
    If Joe Biden wins, maybe we get a Parks and Recreation special with an overjoyed Leslie Knope.
    If Trump wins, the 1980s ‘Bloom County’ roasting of him will continue to be politically relevant.

    And if anyone wins, the election is over and I should have at least a year or two not having to hear about the >+%{=>+.€ 2024 election.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    "Name one positive thing that would come from the candidate you are not supporting winning the election." Jo Jorgensen would prioritize tackling the federal debt. :)

    Collapse
  6. Frank Pepp

    The number of women for every man at my polling place was insane. We had a lot of early voting, and I know anecdotes don't make evidence. But it was stunning. At least 80/20. I was the only man out 12 inside as I voted, though two men came in as I was leaving.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Every single time you read something about supposed "GOP voter suppression in Texas," please consider this:

    ---begin quote---

    Only the Toyota Center will be available for drive-thru voting in Harris County on Election Day, [Harris] County Clerk Chris Hollins said late Monday, eliminating nine other drive-thru options for voters to cast their ballots just hours before the polls open.

    Nearly 127,000 Harris County voters cast drive-thru ballots during the early voting period at 10 polling sites across the county, a safer option for some voters during the coronavirus pandemic.

    ....

    Hollins, after saying Monday afternoon that the 10 sites [for drive-through voting, under tent coverings, in Harris County] would remain open on Election Day, reversed course.

    "This evening [i.e., the night before election day, U.S. District] Judge Hanen issued his order upholding drive-thru voting during the Early Voting period. He also stated his view that the tents that house most of the drive-thru voting centers would not qualify as 'buildings,' which are required for Election Day polling places," Hollins wrote on Twitter. "My job is to protect the right to vote for all Harris County voters, and that includes those who are going to vote on Election Day. I cannot in good faith encourage voters to cast their votes in tents if that puts their votes at risk."

    ---end quote---

    link: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/02/harris-county-drive-thru-locations-closed/

    Like almost everything else Hollins says publicly, there is some truth, but a great deal of misinformation, in this statement. What Judge Hanen ACTUALLY said from the bench was that he is of the opinion that the drive-through sites are ILLEGAL under the Texas Election Code, but that the plaintiffs before him couldn't show the sort of irreparable harm needed to justify a federal judge intervening on the day before the election.

    Hollins job isn't to protect the right of Harris County citizens to vote, but to COLLECT AND SAFEGUARD their votes in accordance with the Election Code. He is, as his job title indicates, quite literally a CLERK, someone without discretionary authority, someone whose job is to follow the statutes, and certainly NOT to violate them!

    The last time the Texas Legislature considered expanding voting opportunities in Texas, it debated allowing no-excuse voting by mail — and it rejected that possible expansion, instead extending no-excuse voting by mail only to the disabled and those age 65 or older. Hollins nevertheless planned to send mail-in ballots to EVERY Harris County voter, blatantly defying the Legislature, until shut down from those plans by the Texas Supreme Court in September.

    When he tweeted last night to say that he could "not in good faith encourage voters to cast their votes in tents if that puts their votes at risk," he tacitly but inescapably admitted a BAD FAITH decision earlier to let nearly 127,000 Harris County voters — who are not charged by statute with implementing the Election Code, but who are instead entitled to rely in good faith upon his doing so — put their votes at risk.

    EVERY time the Dems have screamed "Voter Suppression in Texas!" this election cycle, there has been a double-edge to that sword: The hyperpartisan elected officials in a handful of Democrat-controlled highly populated counties have been putting at risk the votes of those who've relied not just on these officials good faith, but their basic competency to follow the law.

    NOTE: Hollins and his fellow county clerks had other resources available to them besides the bare text of the Election Code. The Texas Secretary of State has statewide supervisory authority over the county officials who conduct elections for statewide offices, and Hollins could have asked the Secretary of State for help if he was having trouble understanding the statutes. The Texas Attorney General's office also can and will write advisory opinions for the benefit of state officials seeking guidance on Texas law. And Texas courts have the power to consider disputed issues of law via declaratory judgment actions, thereby bringing the judicial branch into the picture BEFORE the harm from a faithless, lawless county clerk occurs.

    Instead these county officials have chosen to ignore the law, to violate it, and then to scream "Voter Suppression by the Republicans!" to a national press which is all to eager to parrot those false claims.

    The Dispatch has, frankly, done a poor job of covering these Texas issues. I hope that's discussed in its internal post-election after-action summaries, since Texas is the largest reliably red state in recent election cycles and therefore important to the entire country.

    But for now, I'm left lamenting, with respect to Chris Hollins: Damn his eyes, and damn his lying mouth. And damn the press for helping conceal his misconduct from the public.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Yeah, wrong. Drive thru voting is NOT illegal in Texas, AND Harris county used drive thru voting back in JULY for primary voting to NO controversy. It was only after the huge turnout in Harris county for voting of all kinds that Republicans, looking for ANYWAY to bring down the numbers, said that the extension of curbside voting in these drivethru tents was "illegal" and should be stopped.

      So the statute is not clear, yes, agreed. But in a situation like this, you err on the side of protecting the voters and their votes, you don't blame them for Texas having unclear statutes and then trying to make those votes NOT COUNT.

      If Republicans were so upset about drivethru voting, they would have said something way back in July, when this was first tried. It was tried to help keep people socially distanced, everyone knows that, not to somehow "cheat Republicans". And the solution is to get the statute cleaned up so there is no doubt about what it means , not to disenfranchise those that have already voted.

      It is not the fact that Republicans want the statute made more clear, or that they think it should be stopped, but the fact that they would disenfranchise people who have already voted that way, instead of saying "well, we of course will let those votes stand, we just need to stop this method of voting until we get a cleaner statute", then no one would accuse them of trying to suppress voting. But they don't. They always want to strip people of their vote, or prevent them from voting at all.

      THAT IS SUPPRESSION.

      Collapse
      1. Marc Whipple

        Absolutely, it was an attempt at voter suppression. Fortunately, the courts, state and federal, seem to have put a stop to the argument for throwing out votes cast in compliance with election procedures. If someone with standing believes a government promulgated election procedure violates applicable law, they can seek an injunction. Discarding votes retroactively is disgusting and would be an act of voter suppression. I would have thought that is obvious, but evidently this needs to be added to the Democrats' list of election reforms.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

          What actually happened yesterday in Judge Hanen's courtroom, Mr. Whipple, was Judge Hanen refusing to decide whether to throw out any votes, which is slightly different than deciding not to throw them out. And he recognized from the bench that the Fifth Circuit might disagree with him regarding his reason for that ruling (so far, they haven't; I don't expect them to), and that other plaintiffs might have standing for this kind of suit, or that these ballots might be challenged through different sorts of proceedings than an injunction lawsuit in federal court. As for the ballots in question having been "cast in compliance with election procedures," it's precisely that upon which he cast doubt, or rather, recognized that the statute casts doubt, unless a tent is a building.

          Given, however, that it appears that the voter ID laws were satisfied and the other requirements of the Election Code were generally met (including those regarding poll watchers and election judges), and ESPECIALLY given the public interest in being able to rely upon one's county clerk not to violate the law in ways that spoil ballots, but instead to follow the law, I will be surprised if any of the 113,000+ drive-through ballots end up being disallowed.

          I'm much less confident that the tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that were instead handed back in at satellite locations, before Early Voting started, with neither poll watchers nor election judges, have not been spoiled by this lawless county clerk.

          That would be a TRAGEDY, because those voters were also relying on Chris Hollings not to screw up their ballots! But let's put the blame for that tragedy precisely where it belongs, which is neither on the Texas Legislature (controlled by the Republicans), nor Gov. Abbott (who's a Republican), nor the Texas Secretary of State (who's a Republican), nor the members of the Texas Supreme Court (who are Republicans), nor on the various judges of the Fifth Circuit (some, but not all, of whom have been appointed by Republican presidents).

          The blame is on Chris Hollings. He's who's violated his public trust. He's who's sh@t the carpet here. He's who's showing contempt for the law, and contempt for the voters who are supposed to be able to rely upon him to follow the law.

          Lots of words. You want the TL/DR version:

          Chris Hollings is the bad guy here, and nobody else.

          Collapse
          1. Marc Whipple

            Disagree. Not sure about Hollings. I do know that the people suing to try to throw out votes right before the election are disgusting and unAmerican. I am very confident their litigation will be unsuccessful, but regardless the timing of the lawsuit was disgusting.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        It wasn't challenged in court in July. That doesn't mean a legal challenge in July would have failed, Scarlette. It doesn't mean the courts should reach a wrong result today, on elections taking place today.

        It's unfair to impute bad motives to people who want to see full compliance with election laws. There are good reasons for having election laws, and to follow them — that actually protects the act of voting and the operation of democracy in general.

        The Republicans are your all-purpose boogeyman, but when, for example, an all-Republican Texas Supreme Court throws out a slap-dash and too late challenge by Republicans to the right of Gov. Abbott, challenging his decision to open Early Voting to enable six extra days of it, you give no Republicans any credit for that.

        I get it, you're a partisan.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

          The Democrats, by the way, have to take the position in court that these are NOT the extension of curb-side voting in connection with polling places located in buildings. It's 100% clear that that curb-side voting is limited to disabled voters. The Texas Legislature considered curb-side voting for everyone, and rejected that as a policy judgment. Instead, these Democratic county clerks have taken the position that these tents are their own separate polling places. Well, okay, then they need to be buildings with an address.

          These statutes are all part of an interlocking whole. It's not the job of county clerks, acting as partisans for partisan purposes, to try to override the legislative choices reflected in the Election Code. Maybe the next Texas Legislature will make a different balancing of the policies, maybe for general application, or maybe just for emergencies like pandemics and hurricanes. Regardless, it's the Legislature's job to represent the will of the people, and that's not the job of Chris Hollings, who, notwithstanding his staff of thousands and his very important clerical job, is a CLERK.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            A last bit, for now:

            Protecting voters is very important. Making sure votes are not spoiled is important. Making sure that they're CAST in a lawful way is therefore VERY IMPORTANT.

            I wish Harris County Clerk Chris Hollings would actually protect voters by doing his job, meaning: follow the law scrupulously, without these reckless detours! Instead, his refusal to follow the Election Code has now put 133,000+ drive through ballots at risk — in addition to the tens of thousand of hand-delivered mail-in ballots he accepted at remote locations, without election judges or poll watchers, before he was stopped from doing that. Short of piling ballots in a dumpster and setting them on fire, it's hard to imagine how he could be DOING any worse job of protecting voters.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      Erratum: The Texas Supreme Court's decision shutting down Hollins' plan to mail ballots to every registered voter in Harris County was actually on October 7, 2020. That lawsuit demonstrates how this kind of dispute OUGHT to be litigated — with an injunction lawsuit filed by the State of Texas (through its Secretary of State) against Hollins in his official capacity, in a state district court, which made an appropriate record with any necessary fact-findings, followed by expedited appeals through the Texas Courts of Appeals and then expedited discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court. No bases were skipped, and the resulting opinion is clear and persuasive:

      https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11452376273573709223

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      Oh no watch out for Ms SSM!!

      As I said in my argument with her earlier where I had limited information and was less smart:

      You should be able to vote in your car. However, you can’t vote in a car. It’s illegal.

      🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

      Laws??

      *taps on microphone with fingers

      Hello? Laws??

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        It is, and has long been, legal to vote from a car in Texas IF YOU ARE DISABLED. These voters weren't.

        Collapse
        1. tla

          I think David French’s oddly garbled take on take on pandemic laws seemed right to me. There is a window where the government may behave inconsistently to the laws on the books because of the pandemic. i.e we can’t always wait for the laws to catch up the situation. I also agree that we are past that window. Again, my amateur reading of the court decision seems like they got this right. Yes, the drive through voting was inappropriate but the invalidating the votes would be more so. Again, this seems like the the appropriate decision to be made by Judges. There is room for some wiggle.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            I agree that the voters who relied upon Hollins and his fellow lawless county clerks aren't in any way at fault, and I therefore would have made the same ruling as Judge Hanen, on the same pleadings and in the same circumstances, on the day before Election Day.

            The parallel mandamas case in the Texas Supreme Court by most or all of these same plaintiffs was rejected summarily without written opinion. An earlier mandamus petition by some of the same plaintiffs, with the same (not very capable, in my opinion) lawyers — challenging Gov. Abbott's use of discretionary authority granted him in public health emergencies by the Government Code to open the in-person Early Voting period six days sooner, and likewise to allow in-person return of mail-in ballots throughout the 40 days of the Early Voting period instead of just on Election Day — was explicitly rejected on grounds that the plaintiffs had unduly delayed in bringing their mandamus petition. I strongly suspect that was the unstated basis for the Texas Supreme Court's rejection of this mandamus petition, too.

            This is ugly gamesmanship being fought out between a handful of hyperpartisans identified with both of the two major political parties in the state and federal courts. The Dem officials have deliberately engaged in brinksmanship, daring the GOP officials to challenge them; the GOP officials have often waited until the very last minute to do so, cloaking themselves in urgency that's at least party of their own making. Both sides claim to be protecting voting rights; both sides are riddled with hypocrisy IMHO.

            But the inescapable fact is, in response to the pandemic, Texas' existing laws allowed Gov. Abbott to dramatically expand voting opportunities during this pandemic. And that fact has, unfortunately, been distorted and concealed by the avalanche of hostile press drummed up by the Democrats.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            IF it is wrong to invalidate the ballots (which I agree it certainly seems that way) then you can just gather ballots using any means available and then after the fact point to how it’s unfair to invalidate the ballots

            It’s unfair to invalidate ballots because the envelope is wrong. That person wanted to vote. It IS somewhat ‘unfair’

            We have laws or we don’t

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          Yes that’s how they stretched it. I mentioned that. Ms. SSM is still mad at me.
          😢😢

          Collapse
  8. Fatigued Testudine

    I have been following the comments in the Dispatch since its beginning. It seems the majority seem to have a feeling of security and omniscience in their ability to accurately assess every situation and come up with the only "right and correct" solution to every problem. I just wonder if that confidence would prevail if they were actually in the arena, having to decide what to do with any of these situations facing our President over the last four years. Would their "wisdom, knowledge and experience" actually be enough to foresee all consequences of even one decision? We have now had, for a couple of generations, relative peace and tranquility in which they have grown up. They don't have parents who lived through a depression or fought in WWII, Korea or many, even Vietnam. With no mandatory draft they have not had to be concerned with ever having to go in harms way to defend the country unless they chose to. Which brings up the quote of George Orwell: "“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” (I would add brave women to that group nowadays). Consequently, perhaps if many here actually had been one of the "rough men or brave women" who actually fought, and I mean in real battles with their lives in peril, if they would be so easily convinced that a Biden/Harris or Harris, with a new VP to be named Administration would be good for America?

    Collapse
    1. Harlon Martin

      Ahh yes Fatigued Testudine; Oh so true, the life lessons that one learns from having had command responsibility -- living with your implemented decisions that have life or death consequences for those whom you command. It does definitely tend to give one a different and far more skeptical worldview of those people that offer plans and solutions that seem oh so easy, oh so clear & obvious, and feel emotionally oh so right (with confirmation by everyone around me also agreeing it feels and seems oh so right). What could go wrong? Continue the march!

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      My World War II marine vet father who served in the Pacific theater just very happily voted for Biden.

      Collapse
    3. Lylegruby

      Your point is self-defeating. Presidents don't make decisions purely on their past experiences and currently-held knowledge. They become informed by reading and listening to advisors who are more knowledgeable than them in certain areas. They then critically analyze their options and make a decision they believe is in the best interest of the country. We have countless reports and mountains of evidence that Trump doesn't do a single one of those things. So, yes, I'll happily remove him and vote for someone who will, even if I'll disagree with some (perhaps all) of their policy positions.

      Collapse
      1. Fatigued Testudine

        You prove my point.

        Collapse
        1. Lylegruby

          What an incredibly dumb comment.

          Collapse
          1. Fatigued Testudine

            If you cannot see the truth in my statement yet you state: "So, yes, I'll happily remove him and vote for someone who will, even if I'll disagree with some (perhaps all) of their policy positions." I would think you might reconsider which is the "dumb" statement?

            Collapse
    4. Tim Johnson

      The simplest act of leadership would have been simply wearing a mask. He can't even do that.

      Collapse
      1. Fatigued Testudine

        If you are distanced from people or have testing every day there is no need to be like Biden. Yes, Trump caught the virus, but there is a whole lot to be said for continue life as much as normal when faced with adversity. Having the country hide in their basements for long periods won't help families or our economy. The draconian Dem Gov's and all the politicians get paid whether they work or not. Not so for the majority of Americans. Live life--yes, take some reasonable precautions, but live life.

        Collapse
        1. deathtomcmansions

          You are skipping out on the mask question.
          1. Leaders model what should be done. Do what I say not what I do is the opposite of leadership.
          2. Wearing masks == hiding in basements and in fact makes getting out of the basement happen much sooner.
          3. Some spokeshole said about pence going to rallies and not masking: the VP is tested every day so he's fine. It's not about protecting pence from getting ill, it's about him not infecting someone he gets close too, because he's had a lot of infected people around him lately. Although pence wearing a mask also protects himself, the statement was framed to be all about pence, not the supporters who will come close to him.
          4. Again, leaders model good behavior.

          ANSWER the question about trump, leadership, and WEARING A MASK, not pivot to "basements and the economy."

          Collapse
          1. Fatigued Testudine

            You again prove my point.

            Collapse
          2. Fatigued Testudine

            You prove my point.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      merseyyank

      What about 'rough me' with bone spurs?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Durant?

        Bone spurs is more legit than asthma (Biden’s excuse). They don’t have inhalers for bone spurs.

        Fight me.

        Collapse
        1. deathtomcmansions

          Ummm...it was the military that rejected Biden, due to an actual exam not a note from a doctor, and I'm not sure there were inhalers or the ability to maintain a supply of them in the Vietnam era. And even if those 2 conditions were possible, inhalers don't always work, so now you have someone down that you were counting on. Asthma is still sometimes a rejection for military service.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            Trump is terrible.

            Do you see how easy that is? As you sit here and extol the virtues of JOE BIDEN??

            You don’t feel dumb at all? He’s a hero and his empathy will cure COVID? Is that you? Alright

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          merseyyank

          I can't, I have flat feet.

          Collapse
      2. Fatigued Testudine

        You are proving my point.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Angie

          Only to you?
          You, apparently, are not all in on the idea of a community that disagrees often, but is still civil and even friendly...as this is one of the defining principles of why the Dispatch exists, I find that puzzling...

          Collapse
          1. Fatigued Testudine

            Perhaps you have not seen some of the "civil" remarks when I put forth something with which it seems a majority of those here disagree. I truly am beginning to believe this is more HuffPo than a place for reasoned debate.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        merseyyank

        *'rough men'*

        Collapse
        1. Tim Johnson

          That's the challenge of attacking Trump's political foes - most are things that Trump has already done, and in spades.

          Collapse
  9. Jaybrown

    I'm not supporting either candidate, so:
    Good thing about Biden winning: Less rioting and violence in major cities.
    Good thing about Trump winning: Harris will not be president any time soon.

    Collapse
  10. Fatigued Testudine

    On the issue of ballot fraud. It is now being poo pooed and it always has been. Any instance of it is downplayed. When calls for actually going through voter rolls and updating them there is the usual hue and cry of "voter suppression" even though many voters have died or moved. When Democrats talk about cheating it gets no publicity but when a Republican questions the security of a vote, all hell breaks loose. The Supreme Court ruling in Penn, whereby no signature check is required and ballots must be accepted several days late is the recipe for corruption but all we hear is "every vote must be counted", and they mean whether valid or not. If a bogus vote is cast, then some citizen has had his/her vote "suppressed". Why is that not a concern? Here is just one instance of voter fraud here in Texas which got very little if any press: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/elliebufkin/2020/10/08/texas-mayoral-candidate-charged-with-fraud-in-absentee-ballot-scam-n2577740 There have been other reports, but again, they are squashed quickly. So Trump actually has little to do with stirring up skepticism in the validity of the vote--that has been around for decades and has been growing. Do not be surprised if it explodes this week no matter which side looks to be winning.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      Voter fraud investigations require reporting to law enforcement agencies by election authorities

      That’s all you need to know

      Collapse
      1. Fatigued Testudine

        You have accurately illuminated the problem!

        Collapse
Load More