Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 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?"

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.