The reason I don't think Trump will start a war is the same reason why Biden is the wrong candidate

[mtnsnake]

In 2016, Trump went after Hillary for her Iraq War vote. He used Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution, which Joe Biden also voted for, as his way of painting himself a president who would avoid war, while trying to paint Hillary as a president who would get us into more wars. For sure it wasn't the only reason he won, but his premise was effective, and unfortunately for us it had results.

For a country who is sick and tired of wars, If Biden is the nominee, and if Trump hasn't gotten us into another war by 2020, Trump's message will be that he is the president who kept us out of war, and Biden is the nominee who voted us into a disastrous war that was based on the false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, followed by years of horrible consequences for our country and everyone else involved.

Not even considering all the other baggage that Biden is loaded down with, his vote to go to war with Iraq could very well be the kiss of death for us in 2020 if he is our nominee.

I honestly think that Biden's Iraq War vote is one of the biggest aces that Trump has up his sleeve for 2020 if Joe Biden becomes our nominee.

[marylandblue]

1. Interesting. Maybe that's why we are not in a war yet, despite all of Trump's bluffing.

I thought he'd start a war pretty quickly, but he always backs down.

[Eliot Rosewater]

33. Nope, the ONLY reason we (USA, Rump) do ANYTHING is Putin. He calls ALL the shots.

[unblock]

2. sick and tired of wars? i doubt it.

you may be on to something, but i think it has more to do with timing than anything else.

we're sick and tired of *long* wars.

donald fraud still stands a chance to get a big electoral boost by starting a war next summer. if he starts it now, people will sour on it by election time.

[happyaccident]

76. Bring back the draft, no standing armies

Going to war is the absolute most hardcore thing we can do to another country, how can one man decide that for everyone. It's not a volunteer army, they get paid. does that make them mercenaries? And what is the person who wants to serve responsible for? Isn't joining the military also a moral choice?I'm not military, would like to hear from some.

[left-of-center2012]

3. If Trump thinks a war will help him in 2020 ...

It's bombs away !

[pwb]

4. You do remember the Senate was lied to before the Iraq war vote?

Or maybe you don't.

[mtnsnake]

5. I also remember how so many smart people didn't believe the lies & predicted what would happen,

while all the senators who fell for the lies are still eating humble pie to this day for voting for that disgusting war.

[pwb]

6. Your talking about the Senate vote, not smart people.

I happen to think Democrats are patriotic and will vote to defend us when lied to or not.

[shanny]

10. um, "defending us" on the basis of a lie is not defending us

it is endangering us.

[pwb]

12. I don't see it that way.

.

[shanny]

15. oy vey

ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf? When we lie, and are shown to have lied, we lose all credibility...but that's not a problem when there is a real threat?

[pwb]

17. The Pukes lied, not Biden.

You have the cart before the horse. I blame the war on the lies that created the yes votes. Not the patriotic votes of democrats. But you go ahead. nn

[marylandblue]

47. I think mtnsnake's point is that Biden's war vote will be used against him

regardless of facts or reasons. As it was with Kerry and especially Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

52. For sure

Thank you. And if Biden ends up being the nominee, I hope he's prepared during the debates for that issue because I think Trump will be all over him for it just as he used it in 2016 against Hillary.

[BannonsLiver]

98. The Iraq war hasn't been a significant factor in a GE since 2008

That'll be more than a decade by the time 2020 rolls around. It's been litigated already by the vast majority of Americans. Most of them blame W.

[marylandblue]

99. In a close election, it's really hard to say what was "significant" and "most people" don't matter

We lost by 80,000 votes in 3 states. That's about 0.3% of the population of those states, or about 1 person in a typical sized poll.

No polling or DU spitballing method can tell us exactly why those 80,000 voted the way they did, or why a different 80,000 potential Clinton voters stayed home.

I can think of maybe 20 different factors that might have influenced their vote and easily imagine a significant portion of the 80,000 were influenced by one or more of them, even if it's just a small percentage of total voters.

If we are trying to capture as many votes as possible, we need to think of every possible factor. You know they are.

[Celerity]

24. ofttimes NOT going to war is 'defending us' nt

[shanny]

9. a shambolic exercise if ever there was one

if they fell for it, they were stupid. if they voted for it regardless, for political gain, they should be excoriated. either way, they should be denied further office.

[mtnsnake]

11. Well said.

thank you!

[shanny]

13. backatcha

[Demsrule86]

34. No, they shouldn't. It was along time ago and the only ones who are are the candidates who are

losing and their supporters.

[shanny]

53. Thousands of American lives lost

and thousands more altered forever, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed (at a minimum), the Mid-east in shambles, the rise of even more extremist groups, the huge loss of American credibility and influence, and--oh yeah!--a multi-trillion hole in the budget, which of course wasn't paid for.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Vegas Roller]

69. And Biden did all of that single-handedly? LMAO

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[shanny]

72. of course not. duh.

He could have helped stop it.

smdh

[Vegas Roller]

74. You realize that IWR would have passed

regardless of whether Biden voted for it or not?

And … the "brave" Bernie Sanders ALWAYS voted to fund that war every single time.

[BannonsLiver]

19. Conveniently forgotten, I'm sure.

[Martin Eden]

71. That is a very good reason to vote AGAINST giving the liars authority to go to war

What, exactly is your point?

Are you suggesting that United States Senators did not know they were being fed lies?

If so, they were unqualified to be US Senators.

I was here at DU in 2002, and there was mountains of evidence that Bushco was lying.

[emmaverybo]

7. " He tried to slow Bush's rush to war before he voted for it." You need some background

if you are going to compare Biden to Trump,and by extension, all the Dems who voted for, not the war, actually, but for an authorization for Bush to use if it was found Hussein had WMD.

From Mother Jones by David Corn

As Joe Biden joins the far-too-wide 2020 Democratic field, various media outlets have published stories noting that his 2002 vote in the Senate for a resolution that granted President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq could come to haunt his campaign. After all, during the 2008 Democratic primary, Barack Obama effectively cited Hillary Clinton’s vote for that measure, which led to Bush’s war and its awful aftermath, as a reason to question her judgment. And Biden was one of the 29 Democrats to support the Iraq war resolution. (The final vote was 77 to 23, with 21 Democrats saying nay.) Yet Biden’s role in that episode is more complicated than a single vote—and this one chapter in his long career of government service illuminates key aspects of Biden’s political personality.

In the summer of 2002, less than a year after the horrific 9/11 attacks, the Bush-Cheney administration initiated a PR campaign to win support for the idea of attacking the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In a speech at the national conference of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vice President Dick Cheney proclaimed, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” Actually, that was a lie. Within the intelligence community, there was no consensus that Saddam was stockpiling WMD to strike the United States. Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command and then a Middle East envoy, was sitting onstage during Cheney’s address, and, as he later said, he was stunned by the vice president’s remarks: “It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing [WMD] program.”

But thus began the notorious White House spin crusade to convince the American public that Saddam posed a WMD threat to the United States to justify a military invasion of Iraq. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was in the middle of the WMD debate. As Michael Isikoff and I reported in our 2006 book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, a few weeks after that Cheney speech, in late September, Biden was chairing a classified hearing at which CIA Director George Tenet was the key witness. Tenet told senators that there was intelligence showing that Saddam had acquired aluminum tubes used for enriching weapons-grade uranium, that he had a fleet of mobile biological weapons labs, and that he was developing drones that could transport and deliver chemical and biological agents. As Tenet testified, Biden envisioned these drones being launched off tankers cruising along the coast of the United States and attacking Philadelphia or Charleston, South Carolina. This was hair-raising stuff.

But Biden and other committee members pressed Tenet for evidence backing up these frightening claims. And a staffer passed Biden a note with a suggested question: What “technically collected” evidence of Iraqi WMD did the CIA possess? In other words, did Tenet have any concrete proof? Had the CIA tracked radioactive emissions from supposed nuclear sites, gathered electronic intercepts in which Iraqis communicated about their various WMD, or obtained samples of biological agents? “None, Senator,” Tenet answered.

End snip Full article:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/joe-biden-and-the-iraq-war-its-complicated/

[mtnsnake]

8. I realize this doesn't go over well with Biden supporters, obviously, but

anyone who doesn't think that Trump will do to Joe Biden in 2020 the same thing that he did to Hillary in 2016 concerning her Iraq War vote, then they need to sit down and concentrate and really think again.

[awesomerwb1]

22. I'm not a "Biden supporter"

but I am very comfortable with him and his Iraq vote.

If that is an issue that will keep people from voting for him or causing them to vote third party if he's the nominee, "then they need to sit down and concentrate and really think again" because the only options are a Democrat, or Trump.

[Thekaspervote]

61. Thank you!! Some sanity left somewhere...

Progressives keep saying we need to look forward not back, but conveniently keep dragging up the past!! Which is it, cause you can’t have it both ways

[Demsrule86]

32. Trump's win had nothing to do with Iraq...he eked out an electoral college win in the blue wall

states promising to end bad trade deals and help the working person...big lie of course. And of course the Stein voters helped as well...

[marylandblue]

49. You don't know how many people in those three states disliked Hillary for her war vote.

But I bet it was more than 1 or 2. They probably would have the same problem with Biden. Unless you are a mind-reader, you just don't know.

[Demsrule86]

50. I live in Ohio ... most supported the war and still do to a point...I would say 0...she lost because

of three states basically, MI, WI and PA..it was trade...and if we don't pick the right candidate (Biden) it could happen again.

[marylandblue]

57. So you've spoken to everyone in the State of Ohio, and

based on your conversations there, you know that no more than 80,000 people in PA, MI and WI were influenced by Hillary's war vote but those same people.voted based on trade?

Furthermore, you know that the same 80,000 people who didn't vote for Hillary will vote for Biden, even though he took the same positions on trade as Hillary did?

Can you come up with any rational argument for your position that doesn't depend on your personal conversations with your neighbors who aren't even in the right states?

[emmaverybo]

77. I doubt any of us underestimate what the Trump/RW machine will do to any Dem nominee. NT

[Cha]

81. It doesn't matter wtf trump will

babble on about. Our country has had two and 1/2 fucking years of him and will have 4 by 2020.. Democrats across our Country will be voting for the Democratic nominee..no matter what "votes" the gop fascists try to smear him or her with.

I think you need to take that advice you're giving about "concentrating.. etc etc etc".

[sheshe2]

84. +1000

[Cha]

85. Gracias, she!

[hedda_foil]

14. You're right of course. But when the spin gets going, facts don't matter.

Joe will be painted as a war mongering radical socialist.

[emmaverybo]

25. He IS painted as a war-monger, Anita Hill's arch-nemesis, the "architect of mass

incarceration,” as insensitive to sexist and racist issues, and according to some comments online, a pedophile.

MSNBC this morning had a guest holding forth on all these characterizations save for pedophile.

These were accepted as givens and not even debatable.

The only label that might not stick is radical socialist. Though a way to make that case may yet be found.

[hedda_foil]

83. Remember Kerry and the swiftboaters? Never say anything might not stick.

[Demsrule86]

29. Warren will be painted as a socialist as well...the difference is it won't work with Biden.

Only the left goes on an on about the war...everyone else knows that Bush ET AL lied to everyone including Biden and caused the war...they have moved on.

[karynnj]

51. You are right that any nominee will painted negatively, but that includes Joe Biden

I remember back in 2005 when people supporting Hillary Clinton argued REPEATEDLY that only she could fight the right wing smear campaign and win -- because she was already known and she and Bill Clinton had already fought them for years. Here, the same argument is made that Joe Biden is too well known by too many people for the Republicans to successfully smear him.

There is some truth - both in 2005 and now - that with someone less well known, it is easier for the opposition - in the general election or even the primary - to try to create the dominant first image. (Imagine if the Democrats and media had really succeeded in getting out who John Kerry is - including his history, his concern for clean government, his integrity and his sense of purpose rather than the RW getting most of the air arguing about his heroic serve. Even though most people who ever would have voted him learned that the Navy itself backed that he was a hero, but there was a huge opportunity cost of not letting people who knew him even then vouch for his integrity, character, intelligence and vision.)

I am more worried about Biden's response to the controversy over his words on Senator Eastland. Here he did not seem able to listen to what he said -- and to quickly say that his comments were ill spoken. His point had been that you have to work with people you have enormous personal differences with. His comment that Eastland called him "son" not "boy" was tone deaf and irrelevant to his point. As a young white man elected to the Senate, it is not surprising, especially as Biden sought to work with him, that he was called "son", which is diminishing at the same time that it conveyed closeness. It absolutely does not make Eastland any less a racist! As this enters into another week, Biden still refuses to back down.

As to Elizabeth Warren, she - unlike Sanders - has never called herself any kind of socialist. Even Bernie said he was a Democratic socialist. ( He had at least one Burlington area advisor telling him to speak of FDR not Scandinavia. I think that Elizabeth Warren understands that she needs to get out who she is. Her initial video - put out with the DNA results - did just that. She has a life story of growing up poor in Oklahoma, with brothers who served in the media. As she proposes many plans, she has based them on that life story.

Take, college costs. She speaks of how a cheap state college was essential to her dream to be a special education teacher. For many of us in her generation, we had similar experiences. I started Indiana University in September 1968 and the IN STATE tuition for a year was $395 and you could take an unlimited number of credit hours for that. In addition, there was a Hoosier scholarship where good (B or better) students with 1000 or more on the states, got a tuition scholarship based on family income that paid up to the entire tuition at the public colleges (IU, Purdue, Ball state or Indiana state). This meant with a summer job, I graduated debt free.
This was no unique to Indiana, states including California and New York did the same.

The point, this is NOT outside the American norm. We did it in the 1960s and 1970s! In addition to that, there is the vested societal need to insure that the US has an educated population. When college is subsidized even more in most European countries and other countries, if we aren't educating all students who want to go to college and are bright enough to get in, we will lose the future.

Sorry for the tangent there - but the point is that Warren has easy ways to transform any allegation of being a socialist to her overriding argument that we need a fairer society that provides opportunity to all. She can echo FDR who in his time was incorrectly called a socialist.

Remember that one of Trump's 2016 memes was to suggest that he would do more for rust belt voters who saw their standard of living and their opportunities greatly diminished. How does he attack concrete plans that could help exactly those voters as "socialism". What can he offer - given that he did nothing but make things worse with the tax cut - to counter her coherent plans.

If Warren became the nominee and an inaccurate "socialism" attack and the idiotic Pocahontas attack are all they have against Warren, the key will be ALL Democrats doing what they can to get her message out and helping her define who she is. She will of course have to lead on that, but as a former special ed teacher - almost more than a law professor - she is very good speaking on these issues.

[George II]

16. "Biden is the nominee who voted us into a disastrous war....."

Biden wasn't alone in that Aye vote, 77 of 100 Senators voted Aye, including a majority of Democratic Senators. Putting the onus on Biden is ridiculous.

[Eliot Rosewater]

35. Not if your goal is to harm his candidacy

As I have stated, Joe is practically my last choice, but you wont see me BASHING him online.

In another election I cant mention, people did that and it is WHY we are here now.

[BannonsLiver]

18. All else having failed I see the haters are circling back to IWR

FFS get a grip. And maybe a criticism in this decade. What a silly OP.

[mtnsnake]

23. Instead of trying to insult me, you should try being thoughtful like all the others in this thread

For one thing, I am not a hater of any candidate, so I'd appreciate it if you don't accuse me of that lie again, although it's far from the first time you've done that to someone. Secondly, my post is far from silly. There is nothing silly about what Trump did to Hillary over HER vote for the Iraq War and there is nothing silly about wondering if Trump will do the same exact thing to Biden in 2020. Should he win the nomination, it's better that he be prepared to handle that situation when called upon to do so.

If you think your constant insults are gonna scare anyone from posting what they believe, you're dreaming.

[BannonsLiver]

26. Your concern/wishful thinking is duly noted.

[democrank]

38. I don't hate any candidate, including Joe Biden.

The Iraq War vote is something I take very seriously, for my own personal reason. I know many others who feel exactly the same. No, they’re not unicorn riders, no, they’re not Biden haters, no, they are not the so-called “far-left”, in fact many of them are veterans.

[BannonsLiver]

41. So don't vote for him then.

As someone else in the thread wrote, be FOR someone.

[democrank]

58. I will "be for someone" when I make my decision. Not until.

[Demsrule86]

28. That won't work for Biden voters...and Biden has been vetted thus is the best candidate...and there

have been a number of anti-Biden posts.

[mtnsnake]

31. That particular post was only to Bannon

so I don't know what you're trying to prove unless you're replying on Bannon's behalf or something.

[Demsrule86]

36. Just pointing out that Biden voters won't be poached...

[progressoid]

68. Not poached. But they are leaving him.

Not just on DU. His numbers are slipping in the real world too.

And it's not due to some nefarious plot. Biden is doing this to himself.

[redstateblues]

44. There is video out there that shows Trump

Saying the war was a good idea. Like everything else he lied about it.

[mtnsnake]

48. If you're talking about the Iraq War, Trump's MO was to blast Hillary for voting for it. He also

pasted Bush for the Iraq War, so whatever video you're talking about, it doesn't coincide one bit with what he said during the 2016 debates about it.

[redstateblues]

97. Of course it didn't. He lied and Matthews et al didn't call him on it. Like so many other things the

Media gave him a pass on.

[Demsrule86]

27. The other desperate shit is not working...Biden is still winning and will be the nominee in my

opinion.

[BannonsLiver]

30. It couldn't be more obvious

I get the OP can't stand Biden, and hopes anyone else is the nominee, but FFS pick a candidate and advocate for them rather than tearing other Dems down with some silly concern post.

[Demsrule86]

37. I agree...be for something and somebody..

[BannonsLiver]

59. Beyond that, the logic is childlike.

Americans hold W responsible for Iraq. That's shown in the data. The OP, desperate to open a new line of attack on Biden, is reaching way back to something that has been litigated many times over by the vast majority of Americans.

[mtnsnake]

63. All of your attempts to brush aside any legitimate concerns about Biden are a reflection

of just how careless and unprepared your are. Thank goodness you aren't one of Biden's advisers. Biden's advisers, or any other candidates' advisers, for that matter, would never agree with you in a million years about brushing legitimate concerns aside because if everyone thought about it like you do, we'd never win another election again simply because we wouldn't be prepared for it.

[BannonsLiver]

73. K

I'll leave you to 2003.

[BannonsLiver]

46. Try being for someone.

Why not give it a whirl? You might actually enjoy it.

[mtnsnake]

54. There you go again implying I'm not for anyone when that is the farthest thing from the truth

I've stated many times on this forum that we have so much talent among the 2020 candidates that I feel many of them would have a much better chance of beating Trump than Biden would. In previous posts, I have also mentioned by name some of the candidates who I feel would be our best choices. Until I see and hear more of the others, I'm not going to limit myself to one candidate simply because you suggest I should do that.

[BannonsLiver]

55. All I ever see are silly concern posts about Biden like this one.

If that's your jam then fine. I guess.

[Vegas Roller]

75. Prove it

Try posting positive OPs about candidates you like and stop posting negative OPs about the ones you dislike.

[Vegas Roller]

20. To the OP, all roads lead to Biden as the wrong candidate.

"The reason ice cream is cold is the same reason why Biden is the wrong candidate."

or


"The reason fires cause smoke is the same reason why Biden is the wrong candidate."


or


"The reason salt is salty is the same reason why Biden is the wrong candidate."

[Peacetrain]

39. well said.. well said

[Thekaspervote]

66. +1000

[peggysue2]

60. LOL!

Yes, this OP is a stretch by anyone's imaginative take.

As I've said elsewhere: if you don't like Joe Biden and his candidacy, fine. There are plenty of candidates to choose from.

But stop with the ridiculous and endless finger-pointing. Joe Biden's Iraq War vote has a number of layers, as in attempting to delay. But that's only if you care to look, rather than immediately trounce.

And btw, this line of attack will not dissuade Biden supporters. I speak as one of those supporters. Frankly, this sort of thing just pisses me off.

Tell us who you support and why. That's a much better strategy. For all of us.

[IronLionZion]

21. Trump would provoke military action without a war resolution

he wants to use our military to help him win re-election but not have to make a case for war with congress or the voters

[treestar]

40. We are not picking a candidate based on what the Dotard will have to say about them

The Iraq War vote was 16 years ago now. It was in the aftermath of 911, when "the world changed." There is no point in judging someone on that now.

[mtnsnake]

43. I agree we are not basing it on that, but we need to take everything into account

including Biden's Iraq War vote. If Biden becomes the nominee, it would be better him and his handlers to be prepared for what Trump might say about it, rather than to just whisk it away now without any concerns of what could happen down the road during some debate when Trump brings up that subject.

[stonecutter357]

56. desperation !

[BannonsLiver]

64. Agreed.

What's more the Iraq war hasn't been a decisive factor in a general election since 2008, yet the OP thinks it just happened yesterday, for some kooky reason that likely involves a lot of wishful thinking.

[MrsCoffee]

62. It wasn't even a factor, let alone "not the only reason he won".

Mother Fucker 45 did not win. He and the Republican party committed treason and he was installed.

So, the rest of your post is just moot.

[Turin_C3PO]

65. Exactly. People keep forgetting that Clinton (should have) won.

Russian meddling, Republican voter suppression, and the outdated electoral college are why we have Trump.

[MrsCoffee]

67. Boggles the mind.

All of that keeps getting pushed aside in order to fit narratives that are so ridiculous I don't even know how to respond most of the time.

[questionseverything]

79. so which of those 3 things is gonna be dif this time?

[MrsCoffee]

80. Those are the things we should be addressing.

Address those issues and we win no matter who our candidate.

I'm tired of people making up tales that the party is too corporate or establishment (or insert boogieman here) in order to justify attacking our candidates or the party itself.

It's just tiresome.

Our messaging is fine. Our candidates are strong. The country will vote for a woman, minority or gay candidate. The election is basically ours to lose. If we are fighting on even ground.

So yea, we should be securing our elections instead of tearing down our candidates or our party.

[questionseverything]

82. the problem is we are not fighting on even ground and we havent been since electronic vote counting

was introduced....the repubs own all those companies, all that software

we need an extra ordinary candidate (like Obama) to over come their advantage

and btw just because the party is not too corporate for you doesn't mean it isn't too corporate for me

[Martin Eden]

70. Iraq War vote

For that reason alone I will not support Joe Biden in a Democratic primary …

… and did not support John Kerry or Hillary Clinton either.

Total deal breaker for me, though of course I did and will vote for the D nominee in the general election.

[betsuni]

78. LOL

[Cha]

87. ...

What trump will do!

[betsuni]

88. Reminds me of what our pal Susan Sarandon said about the last nominee:

More dangerous than Trump. "I believe she is more dangerous. She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things ... . I think we'll be in Iran in two seconds." They'll probably at least try to do the same to Biden if he's the nominee. Trump is the peacemaker and the Democrat the warmonger. (Of course our pal did not learn anything from 2016 because she is an idiot.)

[Cha]

89. What a freaking moron.. T Fisher King speaks for me..

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

90. When asked about that she just says that Obama did it too but was more sneaky about it.

[Cha]

92. Proving once again

what a stupid gas lighting idiot she is.

Insulting the American People's intelligence, too.





Debra Messing!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

91. Susan Sarandon

Poster child for white privilege.

[Cha]

93. Yes.. Sarandon is the epitome of rich white privelege..

[Turin_C3PO]

86. I don't think the Iraq War Resolution will be a major factor in the 2020 general election.

It *might* hurt Biden in the primaries but I doubt it.

[highplainsdem]

94. Silly argument. HRC's vote for the Iraq War didn't stop her from winning the popular vote in 2016.

And as much as Trump might like to pretend he didn't really lose the popular vote, that somehow millions of illegal votes were cast, I'd bet he does know, in his tiny brain, that she got more votes, more legal votes, than he did.

Trump's terrified of Biden because the polls show Biden doing much better against him than HRC did.

Trump doesn't have any aces up his sleeve where Biden is concerned.

He's hoping that Biden's Democratic rivals or their supporters will take Biden down for him, so he can run against a weaker candidate.

[Cha]

95. Ikr! Thank You!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. If Biden falters it won't be because of his positions.

[marylandblue]

100. maybe, but that undermines the idea that Sanders is too left wing to be electable,

and polls do show that both are beating Trump by about the same amount.

[Mike Nelson]

101. I've wondered about this...

It's hard to say Crooked Donald is for War or against War. He lies constantly… but, the answer is: He will do what's best for himself. If it's looking like he won't win, he will become a military President. I think Hillary's Iraq War vote actually helped her win the General Election vote (she did win the vote); although it hurt her in the primaries, she still won the most votes there, also. I'm not sure Biden's Iraq War vote will hurt him much… but his other "baggage" might be used effectively…