Presidential Election 2020 Biden vs. Trump

Quote: Evenbob

That all slowly changed to now
I have no idea who my neighbors
are and don't want to know.
Every fam has 2-3 cars, and ways
to get things delivered we could
only dream about in the 60's.

I tried to explain to my mother that this is how Phoenix is. Cinder block walls. You stay inside. You don't know your neighbor, you do not want to know your neighbor. You tune the neighborhood out. When I was a kid you knew most of the neighborhood at least by name. You were closer with people closer to your house and with kids more your age, though there were few of them as I was born in a fertility trough.

True story I took a temp job with a guy lived nearby. I did not know him before but he was 2 blocks over. He lived in "Rose's house" for years until he divorced and wanted to stay close to the kids. He was describing the house he bought. Eventually says "some guy Leon lived there for years." I said, "Why didn't you just say 'Leon's house?'"

Leon was a great guy lived MGTOW 30 years before the term was invented. Worked in mine safety. Just rented the same house for like 20+ years. Knew him from my paper route in the 80s.

If you do not remember pre-80s you cannot get how different it is.

Quote: AZDuffman

If you do not remember pre-80s you cannot get how different it is.

Never saw drugs in the 60's,
not even weed. Then is the
late 60's, 1969, I started to
be aware of it. Snowballed
in the 70's till by mid 70's
everybody was doing it.
Moved to Calif in 76 and by
78 coke was the rage. Now
you have kids in the burbs
shooting up smack. You never
saw that outside the ghetto 40
years ago.

Yet people think softening the
drug laws is the answer. You'll get
China in the 40's if that happens,
the majority of the population
hooked on narcotics. We know
how Mao handled that and how
it effected China's future for the
better.

Quote: Evenbob

Never saw drugs in the 60's,
not even weed. Then is the
late 60's, 1969, I started to
be aware of it. Snowballed
in the 70's till by mid 70's
everybody was doing it.
Moved to Calif in 76 and by
78 coke was the rage. Now
you have kids in the burbs
shooting up smack. You never
saw that outside the ghetto 40
years ago.

Yet people think softening the
drug laws is the answer. You'll get
China in the 40's if that happens,
the majority of the population
hooked on narcotics. We know
how Mao handled that and how
it effected China's future for the
better.

I am ready to say leagalize all the junk. Let people use it. At least the profits will stay in the USA. Get the collapse over with.

A huge reason for drugs is boredom. As people got wealthier they had more time to do dope.

Quote: Evenbob

Never saw drugs in the 60's,
not even weed. Then is the
late 60's, 1969, I started to
be aware of it. Snowballed
in the 70's till by mid 70's
everybody was doing it.
Moved to Calif in 76 and by
78 coke was the rage. Now
you have kids in the burbs
shooting up smack. You never
saw that outside the ghetto 40
years ago.

Yet people think softening the
drug laws is the answer. You'll get
China in the 40's if that happens,
the majority of the population
hooked on narcotics. We know
how Mao handled that and how
it effected China's future for the
better.

We smoked weed in the 70's, ditch weed though, nothing like todays. And we drank beer, lots of beer. I remember distinctly riding around with my friends and talking, we knew, absolutely knew, not to ever try heroin. We knew as kids that heroin, or opiods were addictive, and bad bad. So we never tried it.

I see these adverts on TV about suing Perdue because people are claiming they didn't know Oxy, or opiods were addictive. They are either stupid, or lying imo. I have considered calling Perdue and talking with them, [again] ? How could me and my friends know in the 60's and 70's that opiods were incredibly addictive, and not to mess with them, and by the 2000's that knowledge had been forgotten?

I meet people that have either been on pain meds or are on pain meds, and no one has to tell them that opiods are addictive. If you take them, you know already how addictive they are, unless you are dummer than a cabbage.

It kind of burns me also, that who's doing the suing is city's and states that have spent skads of money because of the addictiveness of Oxy. The addicts, and the family's of addicts and the familys that lost members to opiods won't get a dime of the billions that Perdue offered. It's always about the money. But hard for me to digest without heartburn that folks were so surprised that heroin [oxy] is addictive, and now want compensation.

And it's also very unfortunate that the people that those meds were designed for have an extremely hard time getting those medications now, and many turn to heroin for pain management.

We have two different sets of friends that have keys to our house. They are not neighbors but they would come if we called them.

I have at least $10,000 on Trump. Right now you can get him at around +110. Before George Floyd, you had to lay about -140. In my opinion, it's a good time to get him at a cheap price. Voters have a very short memory.

Quote: Evenbob

So actually 8 incumbents have won, and only 1 has lost. Jimma Carter.

I) President Ford won 13 elections as Michigan congressmen (MI had 17 delegates in 1948 and swelled to 19 by 1962). Ford never won a national election and was POTUS for only 895 days (the shortest term for a POTUS who did not die in office). He lost the election in 1976 to Carter.

Days
895 Gerald Ford One partial term
881 Warren G. Harding Died
492 Zachary Taylor Died
199 James A. Garfield Assassinated
31 William Henry Harrison Died

II) President Carter lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan where a third-party candidate, John B. Anderson, took 6.6% of the popular vote

III) President GW Bush lost enough votes to Perot in 1992 that Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the popular vote.

There have been 8 incumbents that have won since WWII (1948 election). Four Democrats and four Republicans.

Although many people believe incumbents get blamed for everything that went wrong in the preceding few years, statistics seem to indicate that incumbency gives you an advantage.

Quote: Wizard

I have at least $10,000 on Trump. Right now you can get him at around +110. Before George Floyd, you had to lay about -140. In my opinion, it's a good time to get him at a cheap price. Voters have a very short memory.

Very good bet. Floyd will not matter a ton IMHO as it is not directly tied to Trump. OTOH, I look for Biden to at least give a wink to the crazies and their ideas. Democrats do not do well in times of riots and unrest. The Floyd hump will be over in a week or two.

Plus Biden sooner or later has to talk.

Quote: AZDuffman

Very good bet. Floyd will not matter a ton IMHO as it is not directly tied to Trump. OTOH, I look for Biden to at least give a wink to the crazies and their ideas. Democrats do not do well in times of riots and unrest. The Floyd hump will be over in a week or two.

I agree 100%. I view what is going on now like the reaction to a school shooting. For a week or two everybody is hot and bothered about it, but then everybody forgets and nothing much changes.

It's possible this could look like the 1968 election, where Nixon won looking like a strong law-and-order candidate, especially compared to Humprey.

1968 United States presidential election.

Quote: Wizard

I agree 100%. I view what is going on now like the reaction to a school shooting. For a week or two everybody is hot and bothered about it, but then everybody forgets and nothing much changes.

It's possible this could look like the 1968 election, where Nixon won looking like a strong law-and-order candidate, especially compared to Humprey.

1968 United States presidential election.

I guess maybe kind of similar, except more of a two man race with both candidates getting popular vote totals in the middle (42.5-47.5%) forties, I think. Nixon would have absolutely trounced Humphrey in popular vote if Wallace hadn't been in that one.