SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fox News (among many other outlets[*]) is reporting: Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House:
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has defeated President Trump, denying him a second term after a bitter campaign and dramatic, prolonged vote count in battleground states that sparked a flurry of lawsuits.
The Fox News Decision Desk projected Saturday that Biden will win the state of Nevada and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, giving the former vice president the electoral votes he needs to win the White House.
[...] "I am honored and humbled by the trust the American people have placed in me and in Vice President-elect Harris," Biden said in a statement. "In the face of unprecedented obstacles, a record number of Americans voted. Proving once again, that democracy beats deep in the heart of America."
He added: "With the campaign over, it's time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation."
Biden's campaign announced that the president-elect and Harris, his running mate, will speak at an event in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware at 8 p.m. ET.
Joseph Biden would become the 46th President of the US; U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California, the 49th Vice President.
Also at: NY Post, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, CNBC, and USA Today.
IMPORTANT: There are still votes to be counted, a recount has been requested in one state, and there are numerous court challenges launched by the Trump campaign. Further, nothing is official until the actual vote by the Electoral College.
See Also:
- https://www.foxnews.com/world/reaction-world-leaders-biden-presidential-election
- https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54836636
- Boris Johnson congratulates Joe Biden on US election win
(Score: 0, Troll) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 08 2020, @12:48AM (25 children)
I look forward to the new war in Syria, Comrade. Glad to be on the right side of history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2020, @02:58AM
Don't be a fool
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday November 08 2020, @06:38AM (9 children)
As the AC says, they won't be going into Syria. They'll be going into Iran.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2020, @09:35AM (5 children)
C'mon! Dick "Dick" Dick Cheney is on his second decade on a stolen young man's heart, and his daughter does not qualify for a Wyoming fishing license for another two years, so the chance of the "Projection for aNew Amercian Centoblast" taking over again, is rather slime. Wolfowitz is still trying to get oral sex, so actual military action is not in his portfolio. And The most Clinton ever did, was a cruise missile attack on Al Quaida bases in Afghanistan, which is about what Trump did in Syria. So what was your point, again? If Trump attempts to flee to any country, we should declare a hot pursuit, legal under the current laws of armed conflict? Or, are you just an asshole Republican warmonger? Reagan: Grenada. Bush, GW, Panama. Clinton? Not so much. GW? Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, and Florida. Republicans are less invasive? Not. Eisenhower: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador. And, a left over, Cuba. Yeah, Trump is only like that because of bone spurs and being traumatized by a Miltiary Academy his father sent him to, after he caught him with a switch-blade. True! Look it up.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday November 08 2020, @01:25PM (4 children)
With Grenada, the US was invited in by its head of state.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 09 2020, @02:05AM (3 children)
Grenada's head of state was dead when America invaded. [wikipedia.org]
No surprises there then.
Reagan claimed the new airport runway could be used by the Soviets to refuel military aircraft heading to Central America, despite that making no sense, and also being a lie.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday November 09 2020, @03:58AM (2 children)
Grenada's head of state was its governor general. As such, he's the one with the right to call elections, but the government used its usurped power to prevent the election.
That's when he (in exile) called on the US to invade.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 09 2020, @08:28PM (1 child)
It took me a little while, but you're right:
Reagan took very little convincing as he was always happy to kill some Communists. Margaret Thatcher was pissed off however. Not that Reagan cared what she thought.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:11PM
Perhaps that's why he chose Reagan?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday November 08 2020, @07:23PM (2 children)
Not likely: Towards the end of Obama's administration, the US secretary of state John Kerry had done a lot to cool down tensions between the US and Iran, and Joe Biden was working in that White House helping him do that. Both Biden and the Iranians know that doing so worked out just fine for both sides of that. The people who got butthurt about the US *not* attacking Iran were the Israelis and the Saudis, but their interests shouldn't be driving US foreign policy.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 11 2020, @06:01AM (1 child)
The people who got butthurt about the US *not* attacking Iran were the Israelis and the Saudis, but their interests shouldn't be driving US foreign policy.
Republican voters completely disagree with you. Defending Israel at all costs, no matter what Israel does, seems to be one of the Republican Party's platform planks.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 11 2020, @08:21PM
For the Republican base at least, it's not really "defend Israel no matter what Israel does". The real story there is that they want Israel to conquer the remainder of what they believe are the Biblical borders Israel and have all Jews move there, because that's a pre-requisite for the Second Coming of Jesus (in which all those Jews will be slaughtered and sent to Hell). And barring that, the Republican base also wants Israel to just kill as many Muslims as they can because they think all Muslims are evil and need to be killed.
A lot of this was also motivating the Republican base's support of the Iraq War. From their point of view, 800,000 dead Iraqi civilians is a good start.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Sunday November 08 2020, @10:23AM (13 children)
Bush sr and jr invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (twice). Don't blame the lefties!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday November 08 2020, @11:47AM (6 children)
Nobody is blaming the lefties. They are blaming the MIC, which both USA parties are now kowtowing to. I didn't like him, but Trump was the last politician who wasn't controlled by them. I fully expect that within two years the USA (and lapdogs like us in Oz) will be invading Iran.
Not happy Jan.*
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2akt3P8ltLM
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2020, @03:57PM (1 child)
> They are blaming the MIC, which both USA parties are now kowtowing to. I didn't like him, but Trump was the last politician who wasn't controlled by them.
Try a search for:
Trump connections to military industrial complex
The pattern I see is typical Trump lies on the surface, but plenty of connections slightly behind the curtain. For example,
How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-military-industrial-complex_n_5f89cbbcc5b69daf5e12d23b [huffpost.com]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday November 08 2020, @10:13PM
The fact that he was "played by them" would indicate that he was not one of them. There is a difference between a politician doing deals to locate pork in key states and someone who would kill thousands to millions of soldiers and Iranians for profit.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 09 2020, @02:09AM (2 children)
America is not invading Iran, with or without help from Australia.
Iran is nothing like Iraq. Any president that asked the joint chiefs or whoever to get a plan going would be talked out of it.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday November 09 2020, @02:54AM (1 child)
I hope AU and NZ don't go, but with or without us I expect the yanks to.
The neocons want to. The Israelis want them to. The Saudis want them to. Trump didn't want to start a war, and his unexpected win over Clinton derailed the MIC's plans. I expect Biden to go along with them.
"Anyone can go to Baghdad; real men go to Tehran."
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 09 2020, @08:16PM
That seems to be largely true, which is good.
I still think wiser heads will prevail and the US will not invade Iran, because it would be worse than Vietnam, and the result would be the same, and the military will be well aware of that.
New Zealand would definitely not send troops, and I don't think Australia would either.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday November 09 2020, @09:02AM
> I look forward to the new war in Syria, Comrade.
My mistake - I took Comrade to be a reference to communism, as in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comrade [wikipedia.org]
but I could have been over-interpreting.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Monday November 09 2020, @04:02AM (5 children)
The first invasion of Iraq was under UN auspices to liberate Kuwait, which had just been invaded by Iraq. Bush withdrew when this mission was accomplished because
(1) he had no UN mandate to go further
(2) There was no viable exit plan if he *had* gone further.
The second Bush, presumably to outdo his daddy, went and did the second invasion, which got mired in exactly the way the first Bush had predicted.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 09 2020, @08:15PM (4 children)
I think it's significant that the key people who were involved in making the Iraq War happen (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Powell) were all involved in the Gulf War as well. And I don't consider it an accident that the most hawkish of the lot were the guys that had never gotten anywhere near actual combat before. So I don't think it was W trying to outdo his daddy as much as the guys behind desks who like to get people killed halfway around the world getting mad that the Gulf War didn't end with a complete conquest of Iraq.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:09PM (3 children)
I have read that the day the second Bush took office he asked his advisors, "Can't we do something about Iraq?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 12 2020, @02:19PM (2 children)
More damning is the document Rebuilding America's Defenses [cryptome.org], written by the Project for a New American Century, a pro-war group that included Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld. Released in the year 2000, before Bush had become president and well before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Which among other things suggests attacking Iraq the moment there's some sort of national crisis.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday November 12 2020, @04:54PM (1 child)
It's a very interesting document, but I don't see where it suggests "attacking Iraq the moment there's some sort of national crisis". The closest I see to it is this quote, from the section "Guarding the American security perimeter today – and tomorrow – will require changes in U.S. deployments and installations overseas."
Perhaps I just haven't found that advice, or perhaps it's in another document?
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:42PM
Once you take that out of bureaucracy-speak, what they're saying is that they want to control the Persian Gulf region (which, at the time meant replacing both Iraq and Iran with US-friendly governments), and they want to "resolve" the conflict with Saddam Hussein at first opportunity. Guys like this like to use technical-seeming language to advocate for monstrous acts, because it helps disguise what they're doing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.