Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Saturday November 07 2020, @07:10PM   Printer-friendly

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:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Sunday November 08 2020, @10:23AM (13 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Sunday November 08 2020, @10:23AM (#1074621)

    Bush sr and jr invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (twice). Don't blame the lefties!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday November 08 2020, @11:47AM (6 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Sunday November 08 2020, @11:47AM (#1074633) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2020, @03:57PM (#1074706)

      > 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

        by deimtee (3272) on Sunday November 08 2020, @10:13PM (#1074850) Journal

        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)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 09 2020, @02:09AM (#1074946)

      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)

        by deimtee (3272) on Monday November 09 2020, @02:54AM (#1074959) Journal

        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

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 09 2020, @08:16PM (#1075307)

          Trump didn't want to start a war...

          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

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday November 09 2020, @09:02AM (#1075069)

      > 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)

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 09 2020, @04:02AM (#1074981) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 09 2020, @08:15PM (#1075306)

      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.

      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)

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2020, @01:09PM (#1076552) Homepage Journal

        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)

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday November 12 2020, @02:19PM (#1076576)

          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)

            by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 12 2020, @04:54PM (#1076627) Homepage Journal

            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."

            In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. In East Asia, the pattern of ...

            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

              by Thexalon (636) on Thursday November 12 2020, @06:42PM (#1076680)

              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.