The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on July 23, 2024, 01:35:33 PM
-
Since Biden has dropped out, it seems our election posting is getting spread out needlessly across multiple threads. I'm starting this new thread for every to post their endless opinions about who should be president and why it's Jeb Bush.
-
At this point, I don't know.
Trump has his states. Dems will vote blue regardless. So it's all the independents. I hope that the majority will side against Trump but I just do not know.
-
Here's How Marco Rubio Can Still Win
-
Here's how it's going to go.
(https://i.imgur.com/M4l1Ntq.png)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-Electoral-Interactive-Map
-
In fairness, the last time we had a woman candidate, she had great polls and failed.
Maybe this time she'll have bad polls and win?
-
In fairness, the last time we had a woman candidate, she had great polls and failed.
Maybe this time she'll have bad polls and win?
Hillary almost certainly would have won had Comey not released his report mere days before the election. The polls didn't have time to adjust and the FBI made it sound like Hillary was quite literally about to go to jail, back when that sort of news mattered. Combined with record low dem turnout, it was a perfect storm of surprise-loss.
-
Once again, dumbocrats eschew the entire primary process and say, "Here is your candidate!"
Which party supports free and fair elections?
-
Recent polling shows Kamala Harris closing the gap both nationally and in swing states with Trump still firmly in a narrow lead.
I believe this election is really going to come down to whoever wins Pennsylvania. Both of the post-Kamala-switcharoo polls put Trump at +2, well within the margin of error. If these polls don't change significantly, PA will be a big gray area up until the election. If Kamala manages to poll better in other swing states (such as Georgia or Florida), then PA won't matter as much, but for now, Georgia and Florida are firmly red, so much so that I can hardly call them swing states this year.
https://cdn.amgreatness.com/app/uploads/2024/07/PA-July-Toplines.pdf
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/july-2024-swing-state-polls-harris-trails-trump-in-arizona-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-tied-in-wisconsin/
-
Once again, dumbocrats eschew the entire primary process and say, "Here is your candidate!"
Which party supports free and fair elections?
The primary process is about picking delegates. Those delegates choose the nominee for president. If Biden drops out the delegates have to pick someone else.
So what are you actually talking about? Part of “free and fair” elections is the parties accepting the results after the election. Remind me which party failed to do that after the last one?
-
It seems like the sneaky, underhanded kind of thing the Republicans would do to cheat, but in fact it's always been the rule. This whole process is completely by the book.
-
Once again, dumbocrats eschew the entire primary process and say, "Here is your candidate!"
Which party supports free and fair elections?
The primary process is about picking delegates. Those delegates choose the nominee for president. If Biden drops out the delegates have to pick someone else.
So what are you actually talking about? Part of “free and fair” elections is the parties accepting the results after the election. Remind me which party failed to do that after the last one?
What do you know? Someone outside of the US, with absolutely NO IDEA about elction law, butting in...
Color me surprised.
-
instead of speaking in vague generalities, can you point to the specific laws or regulations that are being violated?
-
What do you know? Someone outside of the US, with absolutely NO IDEA about elction law, butting in...
Color me surprised.
You actually think that only someone in the US can learn about US election law and system? What kind of nonsense is that?
But OK, educate me then. What have I said that was incorrect? What election law have the Republicans broken?
-
The DNC and RNC are corporations. There aren't any laws that require them to be democratic in their selection methods. The DNC and RNC can pick whoever they want, regardless of delegate votes. Their respective boards can always override something they don't personally like, it's just considered poor conduct to do so.
The vast majority of activities in the US election system are done so by force of tradition, not force of law. As an example, there's nothing at all stopping any given representative in the electoral college from voting differently than their state's constituents. Only in some states is that activity illegal, and even in those states, they can't undo the vote, they can only send the representative to prison afterwards.
-
The DNC and RNC are corporations. There aren't any laws that require them to be democratic in their selection methods. The DNC and RNC can pick whoever they want, regardless of delegate votes. Their respective boards can always override something they don't personally like, it's just considered poor conduct to do so.
I hope this means you're willing to admit that you were talking out of your ass when you said this just two weeks ago:
An important point to note in the American political system: stepping aside is not an option.
In order to get on the ballot for the election, a candidate must qualify for all 50 states and that process must be done individually. Yes, there are 50 different sets of laws that control how a person gets onto a ballot. Much of those laws require candidates apply quite early, which is why the American electoral season is so extravagantly long compared to virtually all other nations. If Biden were to "step aside", then the DNC would only be left with the handful of Literally Who candidates that bothered to try to compete with Biden for the nomination. It's just not possible to shoehorn in some other person (like Kamala). You would end up requesting voters write-in the name of the candidate. That would be disastrous.
The DNC is stuck with Biden, which is why they're responding to calls to eject him the way that they are. Biden is going to be the running candidate for the DNC and that's that.
-
The DNC and RNC are corporations. There aren't any laws that require them to be democratic in their selection methods. The DNC and RNC can pick whoever they want, regardless of delegate votes. Their respective boards can always override something they don't personally like, it's just considered poor conduct to do so.
I hope this means you're willing to admit that you were talking out of your ass when you said this just two weeks ago:
An important point to note in the American political system: stepping aside is not an option.
In order to get on the ballot for the election, a candidate must qualify for all 50 states and that process must be done individually. Yes, there are 50 different sets of laws that control how a person gets onto a ballot. Much of those laws require candidates apply quite early, which is why the American electoral season is so extravagantly long compared to virtually all other nations. If Biden were to "step aside", then the DNC would only be left with the handful of Literally Who candidates that bothered to try to compete with Biden for the nomination. It's just not possible to shoehorn in some other person (like Kamala). You would end up requesting voters write-in the name of the candidate. That would be disastrous.
The DNC is stuck with Biden, which is why they're responding to calls to eject him the way that they are. Biden is going to be the running candidate for the DNC and that's that.
Note that I was talking about ballots here, which are beholden to state law. Kamala still has legal battles ahead of her, as states are already threatening to make it difficult for her to get on the ballot. These are all red states, so it doesn't matter, but the legal battle is there. While CNN will gladly state it's settled: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/harris-ballot-legal-obstacles-48-states/index.html They had to sneak in the little "It’s impossible to say for certain whether a particular court in a particular state might rule that the state’s elections authority was wrong." to cover their ass.
Really, honk, is it that hard for you to differentiate between the government and political parties? One is public and one is private. Use your noggin.
-
The DNC and RNC are corporations. There aren't any laws that require them to be democratic in their selection methods. The DNC and RNC can pick whoever they want, regardless of delegate votes. Their respective boards can always override something they don't personally like, it's just considered poor conduct to do so.
The vast majority of activities in the US election system are done so by force of tradition, not force of law. As an example, there's nothing at all stopping any given representative in the electoral college from voting differently than their state's constituents. Only in some states is that activity illegal, and even in those states, they can't undo the vote, they can only send the representative to prison afterwards.
There are, actually. They have their own laws, which they can only change once every 4 years and only x time before the election. I forget the months for the two. I also believe it's an FEC regulation to have the rules set a fixed time before the next election.
-
I wonder: Did Camelface even file in any primaries to be placed on any ballot for president? It would be interesting to see all the required signatures.
Almost 180,000 signatures were needed to be gained (by state statute), prior to the primaries held in each state, to even qualify to run.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
Saddam is typing with his rearbrain again...
-
This video about sums it up.
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1818274592651157850
-
This video about sums it up.
She's managed to get this far in life without being a convicted of a felony, having to pay off a porn star or told to pay damages for rape.
So there's that.
-
Harris' VP choices are looking like a contest between Mark Kelly and Josh Shapiro.
I hereby declare that she will choose Kelly. That is all.
-
This video about sums it up.
She's managed to get this far in life without being a convicted of a felony, having to pay off a porn star or told to pay damages for rape.
So there's that.
In fairness, she's probably been in as many women's dressing rooms as Trump. So they aren't totally different.
-
Trump Status: Nearly Stumped
(https://i.imgur.com/nTv33Uf.png)
-
Harris' VP choices are looking like a contest between Mark Kelly and Josh Shapiro.
I hereby declare that she will choose Kelly. That is all.
Harris completely eliminated Kelly from the VP shortlist, fug.
It's down to Shapiro and Walz, apparently.
-
Harris has selected Tim Walz as VP.
-
So she picked an old white guy.
That should make some happy. XD
-
All of my political predictions keep being wrong. What an absolutely terrible state of affairs.
Anyway, I hereby declare that Harris shall win the presidency. That is all.
-
All of my political predictions keep being wrong. What an absolutely terrible state of affairs.
Anyway, I hereby declare that Harris shall win the presidency. That is all.
Well you're certainly due to get something right even if it's out of sheer dumb luck so here's hoping.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu9LsY_mnP8
If Trump loses, I'm certain he'll publicly blame Vance.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu9LsY_mnP8
If Trump loses, I'm certain he'll publicly blame Vance.
Bold of you to assume he'll admit losing.
-
If Trump loses, I'm certain he'll publicly blame Vance.
Didn't he already blame his son for choosing Vance, since his poll numbers plummeted the moment he announced it?
-
The general population in America won't like Kamala as they learn more about her. It's hard for communist-type politicians to get the popular vote.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1821106660732989827
-
So Elon Musk, with his high cost college eduation, doesn't know what communism is.
Good to know.
-
No mainstream politician in America leans even close to communist, and what she's describing certainly isn't communism.
-
Bernie's economic views couldn't even get a majority of people to like him enough in the party with the most socialists to secure presidential nomination. Only a minority want communism-like distribution of wealth. Most are against it. For that reason, she will lose as her radical views become more known.
-
Bernie's economic views couldn't even get a majority of people to like him enough in the party with the most socialists to secure presidential nomination. Only a minority want communism-like distribution of wealth. Most are against it. For that reason, she will lose as her radical views become more known.
You also said Trump would win. Then, when he didn't, said the election results would be over turned. Your track record does not lend credibitilty to your predition.
-
Bernie's economic views couldn't even get a majority of people to like him enough in the party with the most socialists to secure presidential nomination. Only a minority want communism-like distribution of wealth. Most are against it. For that reason, she will lose as her radical views become more known.
You also said Trump would win. Then, when he didn't, said the election results would be over turned. Your track record does not lend credibitilty to your predition.
Tom's clearly panicking now the Democrats finally got their act together and have a candidate who can actually beat Trump. :D
-
Bernie's economic views couldn't even get a majority of people to like him enough in the party with the most socialists to secure presidential nomination. Only a minority want communism-like distribution of wealth. Most are against it. For that reason, she will lose as her radical views become more known.
You also said Trump would win. Then, when he didn't, said the election results would be over turned. Your track record does not lend credibitilty to your predition.
Tom's clearly panicking now the Democrats finally got their act together and have a candidate who can actually beat Trump. :D
So is Trump. Man is panic insulting both of them, hoping something sticks. Spamming emails about how they're both the worst possible people ever and Walz will unleash HELL ON EARTH.
Which sounds bad until you remember that Obama, Clinton, and Biden were also the worst people ever. It's hard to keep track of who the actual worst is if they keep changing.
-
To correct myself, she's not only going to lose because of the commie thing. A big part of her loss will be because she's extremely naïve, and has a developmental age of about eight, who makes child-like geopolitical statements (https://abc7amarillo.com/news/nation-world/critics-mock-vp-kamala-harris-for-her-child-like-explanation-of-ukraine-invasion-vice-president-america-joe-biden-morning-hustle-russia?fbclid=IwY2xjawEie5FleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWI6ALze4XkLhTD7BXWTbf8nWkgVZyAMqDhh5VWfV3g6FNcXRT_cd1LKRw_aem_AD-W08t2cPm2z8xZXfStCA) and who believes in things like the data in the cloud is literally above us in the clouds (https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1819797240052920758).
Joe Biden has made numerous embarrassing gaffes that we knew were gaffes, but when off the teleprompter Kamala is on another level and truly seems to be the retarded adult child you would see in an SNL skit.
CNN, in fact, is discouraging (https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-mocked-article-accusing-trump-campaign-trying-goad-harris-doing-interview) Kamala Harris from falling for Donald Trump's trickery to get her to participate in a "Major Media Interview."
(https://i.imgur.com/BCzTTxj.jpeg)
-
They asked her to explain it in layman's terms. Something everyone already knows. That's sass right there.
-
To correct myself, she's not only going to lose because of the commie thing. A big part of her loss will be because she's extremely naïve, and has a developmental age of about eight
But it’s all rigged, isn’t it?
How can she lose? :)
-
and who believes in things like the data in the cloud is literally above us in the clouds (https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1819797240052920758).
I wonder what it says about your own developmental age if you think this is something she literally believes. Perhaps you should withhold judgement?
-
Where would the data cloud be if not amongst the other clouds in the sky? We keep it in the clouds because water has memory. A lot of memory.
Anyway, current poll averages:
National: Harris +0.5
Arizona: Trump +2.8
Nevada: Trump +4.0
Wisconsin: Harris +0.5
Michigan: Harris +2.0
Pennsylvania: Trump +1.8
North Carolina: Trump +3.0
Georgia: Trump +0.6
-
I'm feeling pleasantly optimistic about the election, which is incredible when just a month ago I was 99% certain Trump was going to win. I never would have guessed that replacing Biden on the ticket could have been handled so smoothly, nor that Trump's VP pick would be such a disaster. Speaking of which, two days ago Vance flubbed an obvious softball question and made himself look like an asshole with his defensive response:
https://x.com/samueljrob/status/1821203241494839542
-
Kamala and "the old man" are in the honey-moon stages... I wouldn't get too excited.
With respect to flubbing questions, Kamala relies heavily on carefully choreographed scrips; and when not reading from scrips, she is a master-flubber. One data point example is NBC interviewer Lester Holt asking her why she hasn't been to the border yet as Border Czar. Kamala first says "we've been to the border... we've been to the border... we've been to the border". Lester says "But you haven't been to the border". To which she replies "I haven't been to Europe, I mean what's your point." There are other examples as well.
The upcoming debate(s) will be interesting and fun to watch, especially with Kamala not being able to read off of scripted answers.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Kamala didn't really earn the delegates. They were Joe Biden's. Joe Biden gifted Kamala the delegates. In the 2020 race, Kamala was a terrible candidate. Again, we are in the honeymoon phase with her and the old man and so it's too early to tell.
-
ITT
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1822063459590095164
-
ITT
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1822063459590095164
Why should it frighten me to see humans acting like humans? Not like they're saying how Kamala will wipe out her enemies or how if they lose, they'll kill someone.
-
I really wish we could keep shitposts to the shitpost thread.
-
Why should it frighten me to see humans acting like humans? Not like they're saying how Kamala will wipe out her enemies or how if they lose, they'll kill someone.
Tom is panicking, all of the MAGA lot are. So is Trump. They knew they were going to beat Biden. They didn’t even have to do anything, they just had to stand there and let Biden do what he did in the debate and prove himself unelectable. In a 2 party system they’d win by default.
Now they’re suddenly facing someone they have to actually beat and they’re not sure they can. They can’t now use the whataboutism when it comes to Trump’s age.
Hence Trump’s claims that they “stole” the presidency from Biden - what does that even mean, Biden is still president!
The Democrats were sleepwalking in to certain defeat, they switched to Kamela later than they should have in my view but actually maybe the honeymoon period mahogany mentioned will last long enough that it will prove a masterstroke.
-
I don't think the MAGA lot (myself included) are panicking. I think there is anxiety in trying to get Kamala front and center with debates and off-scripted interviews as soon as possible.
I think her campaign knows deep down that Kamala doesn't do well talking off-scripted and so they are sticking to easy bits like rallies where Kamala can talk in platitudes. I think she's signed up for only 1 interview with ABC news in the middle of September with no sit down interviews as of to date and a "we'll see" in terms of any additional debates. Her constant giggling (while kind of cute in my opinion) is a nervous tick when she is asked direct / hard questions.
Trump is pushing for more debate (beyond the ABC one) and I think wants to expose Kamala for the platitude talking head that she is before the November election.
Republicans have been saying (as far back as 3-4 years ago) that Biden's cognitive state is poor. Democrats and the press have been ignoring this up until the recent debate where his cognitive state was finally front and center for everyone to see. And, you saw what happened after that. For Kamala, same thing but slightly different story -- she's not good unscripted and so they will try to keep her away from tripping over herself as much as possible. Republicans know she's vulnerable in this area.
-
Tom is panicking, all of the MAGA lot are. So is Trump.
I just posted polling data. What about the current polls and political climate makes you think that anyone pro-Trump is "panicking"? As it stands right now, if polling data is accurate, Trump still wins. Harris needs to see more significant shifting in current swing state polls if she wants to guarantee victory. Right now, it's neck and neck with Trump slightly ahead. The switch to Harris has made Trumpers nervous, but Trump is still incredibly close to winning the election. Do note that, in 2016, for today, August 10th, Clinton was polling +7.7 nationally, in 2020, Biden was at +6.9. Right now, it's Harris at +0.8. The DNC is hiding it well, but they are well aware of the intense pressure they are under.
While it may be comforting for those online to continue to post "Trump is done now, it's over!" It is not close to over. Trump still has the statistically most likely chance of winning per current polling. A lot can change in the months leading up to the election, but that is the current state of things.
-
Kamala and "the old man" are in the honey-moon stages... I wouldn't get too excited.
With respect to flubbing questions, Kamala relies heavily on carefully choreographed scrips; and when not reading from scrips, she is a master-flubber. One data point example is NBC interviewer Lester Holt asking her why she hasn't been to the border yet as Border Czar. Kamala first says "we've been to the border... we've been to the border... we've been to the border". Lester says "But you haven't been to the border". To which she replies "I haven't been to Europe, I mean what's your point." There are other examples as well.
The upcoming debate(s) will be interesting and fun to watch, especially with Kamala not being able to read off of scripted answers.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Kamala didn't really earn the delegates. They were Joe Biden's. Joe Biden gifted Kamala the delegates. In the 2020 race, Kamala was a terrible candidate. Again, we are in the honeymoon phase with her and the old man and so it's too early to tell.
At this point, I honestly don't take they-need-a-teleprompter criticisms seriously anymore. It's just a stock line that people all too casually throw at almost any high-profile politician, and there's seldom any strong evidence outside of vibes backing it up. Kamala didn't fumble in the Holt interview (which was over three years ago, so it's hardly a timely example) because she didn't have a teleprompter; it's because she didn't have anything she could reasonably say apart from straight-up bullshitting. The state of the border, and Kamala's role in it, is a genuine weakness in her record. Maybe her response could have been a bit more graceful if it had been scripted, but no politician in the world could have turned that question around without blatantly lying. This is a completely different issue to Vance, who genuinely seems to have poor interpersonal skills, as shown by him interpreting what was obviously an easy softball question meant to humanize him as a hostile "gotcha" question and responding to it aggressively. Remember, this is the kind of thing that ruined DeSantis's shot at the presidency, even after so many pundits and Republican big shots were predicting that DeSantis would step in and take control of the party when Trump was in a weak position after the midterms. Vance isn't going to get better at dealing with people within the space of a few months. Choosing a MAGA loyalist instead of a more mainstream, respectable Republican was a power move on Trump's part, a show of bravado meant to demonstrate his confidence in winning the election without needing to court non-MAGA Republicans, and it's backfired horribly.
It's also interesting that you call Walz "the old man" when he's only sixty years old - just a few months older than Kamala. Walz is absolutely playing on his white hair and wrinkles to project a benevolent, grandfatherly image to voters, but he's not "old" in the sense that he's greatly physically and mentally diminished the way Trump and Biden are. That's the main advantage of trading Biden in for Kamala, and even when this polling bump inevitably subsides, the age difference will remain the same. It's no longer the Democrats who are running a very old man who's nowhere near as sharp as he was eight or even four years ago; it's the Republicans. The media chose to ignore Trump's advanced age in favor of focusing on Biden's advanced age while Biden was running, and it's entirely possible they'll once again choose to ignore Trump's advanced age now that Biden isn't running, but people still have eyes and ears, and they can see how slow and diminished Trump is.
-
Tom is panicking, all of the MAGA lot are. So is Trump.
I just posted polling data. What about the current polls and political climate makes you think that anyone pro-Trump is "panicking"?
Panicking is maybe over-stating it. But it has changed the momentum and it's changing the polls. With Joe the Republicans didn't need to do anything. Trump was going to win not because he's a good option, but because he is less obviously demented. He rambles and lies endlessly, but that's not new. He knows what day of the week it is, he wouldn't go round introducing Zelensky as Putin!
Now we have someone who feels like a more credible option, they have a job to do if they're going to win.
It's given me hope that Trump won't win (which, you may be surprised to hear I would regard as a bad thing). With Trump vs Biden I had no hope.
-
Panicking is maybe over-stating it. But it has changed the momentum and it's changing the polls. With Joe the Republicans didn't need to do anything. Trump was going to win not because he's a good option, but because he is less obviously demented. He rambles and lies endlessly, but that's not new. He knows what day of the week it is, he wouldn't go round introducing Zelensky as Putin!
Now we have someone who feels like a more credible option, they have a job to do if they're going to win.
It's given me hope that Trump won't win (which, you may be surprised to hear I would regard as a bad thing). With Trump vs Biden I had no hope.
Momentum changes are expected because of the nominee change itself, Harris' VP pick, and the deflating after-effects of the RNC (where they spent most of the time sucking off Israel for whatever reason). The upcoming DNC will further inflate Harris' numbers. Another 3 or 4 points would put Republicans firmly in "panic" mode, but until then these are manageable shifts in numbers.
-
Current poll averages:
National: Harris +1.6
Arizona: Harris +0.6
Nevada: Trump +2.2
Wisconsin: Harris +1.5
Michigan: Harris +2.4
Pennsylvania: Harris +2.0
North Carolina: Tie
Georgia: Trump +1.7
Current election status: it's Trover
-
Doubtful
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/wedpolling-shows-harris-leading-trump-industry-experts-see-skewed-samples
Prior to becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris suffered from decidedly poor approval ratings and Trump initially held the lead over her in a head-to-head matchup. The average quickly flipped, however, in the wake of several surveys showing Harris ahead. Those surveys, however, have attracted scrutiny from an array of pollsters either due to their lack of transparency about the sampling methodology or from oversampling Democrats.
“So what they're doing is they're polling fewer Republicans. They're polling a disproportionate number of Biden 2020 voters in these states that were dead even,” pollster John McLaughlin said this week on the “Just the News, No Noise” television show.
-
Who knows? The polls are terrible indicators lately.
On the flip side: Trump is an asshole. And with Biden gone, the people repuctant to choose between two old guys can now pick a younger woman with experience. That gives her an advantage. Especially since Trump has resorted to nothing but name calling and complaining about crowd sizes.
-
If you read the article I posted it says that these new polls polled a percentage amout less of self-identified Republicans which coincidentally correlates to about the percentage of "increase" Kamala Harris is seeing.
“Same thing in North Carolina, 5% fewer Republicans,” he went on.
So either the existence of Kamala Harris convinced Republicans to turn their back on Republicanism altogether, or the polling is skewed.
-
Just the News is a garbage website that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories, and this article in particular is light on verifiable statistical analyses of polls and relies heavily on the supposed authoritative weight of pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John McLaughlin insisting that something isn't right. The obvious response is that neither Rasmussen nor McLaughlin are neutral, objective observers giving their sincere professional opinions. They're both Trumpworld stooges whose continued relevance in the conservative mediasphere (mediaplane?) relies on them telling their audiences what they want to hear. Trumpworld does not tolerate bearers of bad news.
I also really like how a big part of this article is devoted to their incredulity that Kamala is more popular as a presidential candidate than a vice president. There are several elements that can explain this discrepancy. Firstly, and most importantly, the vice presidency is a very difficult job for anyone to distinguish themselves in. It's primarily a supportive role where they don't spend much time in front of the camera or publicly "doing" much of anything, and are mostly expected, at least in recent years, to represent some element that the president themselves lacks. Hence why Obama had an older, experienced senator as his VP, why Trump had a very openly religious establishment Republican as his VP, and why Biden had a younger woman of color as his VP. It's more than possible for a vice president who's mostly stagnating in the president's shadow to shine once they start campaigning for themselves as president. There's also the fact that Trump's campaign spent so much time hammering Biden on his age and frailty while he was running, and so switching Biden for Kamala has turned Trump's advantage into his disadvantage. And there's of course the candidates' vice presidential picks - Kamala made a good choice, while Trump made a terrible choice.
Of course, it's always good to have some skepticism of what the polls are saying, and make sure you vote no matter what. It's weird how McLaughlin claimed in the article that this was all an effort to suppress Republicans' votes, when falsely presenting Kamala as doing better than she really is is more likely to hurt her than help her by possibly making her potential voters complaisant.
-
Just the News is a garbage website that spreads misinformation and conspiracy theories, and this article in particular is light on verifiable statistical analyses of polls and relies heavily on the supposed authoritative weight of pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John McLaughlin insisting that something isn't right. The obvious response is that neither Rasmussen nor McLaughlin are neutral, objective observers giving their sincere professional opinions.
Those people are authorities in their field. As far as I can see your source for your information is your own self.
-
Those people are authorities in their field.
I didn’t think you liked listening to authorities?
And your definition of an authority does tend to be whoever tells you what you want to hear or believe.
Biden vs Trump was a foregone concussion.
Harris vs Trump is harder to call. It does feel that the momentum is with Harris - as honk said Trump’s main attack vector is now his weakness. Now he is the rambling old dude.
But there’s a long way to go, a lot can happen.
Obviously if Trump loses bigly again he’ll claim without evidence it was all rigged against him again.
-
Biden had a younger woman of color as his VP.
He had a younger Indian woman as his VP. She only became black recently, remember? ;)
-
Those people are authorities in their field.
I didn’t think you liked listening to authorities?
Someone is saying that Rasmussen Reports is lying to us or skewing the facts, so it had better be someone who knows what they are talking about. Our wiki cites plenty of authorities for its points that another authority is wrong, and I generally expect the same thing in any argument.
If I go to Ramussen Reports their presidential polling from yesterday (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/election_2024_trump_49_harris_46) says that Trump is winning the polls 49/46. A week ago (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/election_2024_trump_49_harris_45) he was winning 49/45. So Kamala's jump since the DNC event may not be that impressive. They point out that their polling has been consistent while liberal pollsters are skewing their polls by polling fewer Republicans. Why should I believe that this long-established polling organization is misinformation?
You gotta have something better than "honk said so".
-
Those people are authorities in their field.
ahahahahhahhhhahahaaahahahahahaha
Those [NYT] surveys, however, have attracted scrutiny from an array of pollsters either due to their lack of transparency about the sampling methodology or from oversampling Democrats.
cool, let's examine these claims.
1) lack of transparency about sampling methodology.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/times-siena-poll-methodology.html
and there's literally a section at the bottom of the poll data itself called "full methodology" that describes...well, i don't wanna give it away. but it has to do with the full methodology of the polling.
2) oversampling democrats.
(https://i.imgur.com/P9iiTPm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3vcAtOV.png)
lol i know numbers are tough for you, but notice how they didn't oversample democrats at all. by self-reporting, they spoke to an equal number. by L2 data, they spoke to more republicans than democrats. your source simply doesn't understand the difference between weighted and unweighted values. probably because he doesn't understand nyt's methodology. lmao this is way too funny.
3) bonus claim: "Exit polls from the 2020 election may provide a benchmark for estimating the partisan affiliations of voters."
ahahahahhahhhhahahaaahahahahahaha yeah demographics never change over time, that's why we just use polling demographics from 1776 or whatever.
fam you really gotta stop taking people at their word simply because you both vote for the same party.
-
I think it's important to remember that candidates typically poll best during and immediately after their convention. I expect Harris' numbers to keep climbing for the next few weeks (polls are lagging indicators!), then around the middle of October we should start seeing numbers closer to a "settled state". Trump also had an assassination attempt pump his numbers, so his will probably settle out far lower than Harris'.
We're still not seeing Harris poll at numbers anywhere close to Biden's 2020 performance or Hillary's 2016 performance. That is still troubling for Democrats as none of the polls are pulling her out of the margin of error.
For reference, Harris is currently +2.0 nationally. These are the historical numbers: August 23, 2020: Biden +7.8 | August 23, 2016: Clinton +5.5
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy5ekxlwzgo
Interesting. RFK was splitting the "mental" vote which will now all be behind Trump. Could have some impact.
-
I'd imagine the majority of Kennedy's voters only do so because it's a "I don't like either of these options >:(" protest vote. I expect Stein's percentage to receive an increase, and maybe Trump will get a small bump from the true "I love Kennedy's policies!" nutters.
-
your source simply doesn't understand the difference between weighted and unweighted values.
Still waiting for an authority to be cited.
RFK Jr.
Dems are currently in confusion and denial on what this means.
Not only has RFK endorsed Trump, he is actively campaigning for him now and appeared with Trump in a rally. Trump has offered him a role in his administration to lead up task forces to fulfill his pet projects on big pharma and JFK disclosure which RFK Jr.'s supporters were voting for him on. If RFK Jr. supports were hooked to Kennedy for those topics, they will obviously now be voting for Trump.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1827131693326860539
-
CNN has a feeling that this might be bad for Kamala.
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1827121488085848444
-
your source simply doesn't understand the difference between weighted and unweighted values.
Still waiting for an authority to be cited.
RFK Jr.
Dems are currently in confusion and denial on what this means.
Not only has RFK endorsed Trump, he is actively campaigning for him now and appeared with Trump in a rally. Trump has offered him a role in his administration to lead up task forces to fulfill his pet projects on big pharma and JFK disclosure which RFK Jr.'s supporters were voting for him on. If RFK Jr. supports were hooked to Kennedy for those topics, they will obviously now be voting for Trump.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1827131693326860539
Huh.
So Trump promised RFK a job, power, authority, and money in exchange for his support.
Tom... what's that called again?
CNN has a feeling that this might be bad for Kamala.
https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1827121488085848444
Would they vote for Trump tho?
-
Would they vote for Trump tho?
Trump has offered him a role in his administration to lead up task forces to fulfill his pet projects on big pharma and JFK disclosure which RFK Jr.'s supporters were voting for him on. If RFK Jr. supports were hooked to Kennedy for those topics, they will obviously now be voting for Trump.
-
Would they vote for Trump tho?
Trump has offered him a role in his administration to lead up task forces to fulfill his pet projects on big pharma and JFK disclosure which RFK Jr.'s supporters were voting for him on. If RFK Jr. supports were hooked to Kennedy for those topics, they will obviously now be voting for Trump.
So what you're saying is that RFK's voter base is only interested in the things Trump is promising that RFK will be allowed to investigate.
How shallow.
Also what would you call the first part of the post?
-
The president doesn't need a task force or a commission to declassify documents. He can simply give the order and it's done. In fact, according to Trump himself, all he has to do is think about declassifying a document for it to be official. There's also the very obvious fact that he could have declassified any of these documents during his first term in office - and as it happens, he had said he would, only to apparently change his mind (https://apnews.com/trump-boasted-hed-open-all-jfk-files-but-now-says-he-cant-2f48d57f9ee045d98eb784d2295288ef). Giving RFK Jr. a meaningless job doesn't change anything. It's entirely up to the president whether these documents are declassified at all, and I think you'd have to be very gullible to think that this time Trump will totally follow through on declassifying the files after he already broke his word on this same subject.
Also, Vance's incredible visit to a donut shop has to be seen to be believed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Ejd8BcueM
-
Actually this RFK-JFK task force announcement about falls in line with what Trump is saying in that 2018 link:
"Trump announced on Thursday that the public must wait another three years or more before seeing material that must remain classified for national security reasons — more than five decades after Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas."
It has been six years since that announcement and now it's time to see the rest of those files. RFK is telling his supporters to vote for Trump if they want to see him head up that effort, and the efforts to end corruptions in the involved organizations. He has recently been stating in public that he will work to end the Deep State with Trump.
RFK Jr.'s supporters really have two options: Vote for Trump and see RFK Jr. head up commissions on Big Pharma and JFK, the two main pet projects RFK Jr. has been campaigning on, or not vote for Trump and risk a Harris win and see nothing. RFK Jr. will not be in a Harris Administration. So, obviously, RFK Jr.'s supporters will be voting Trump.
Again, what RFK Jr. is doing here is more than just endorsing Trump, he is actively campaigning for him. He is telling his supporters that through Trump can they see his platform succeed.
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1827762158341644409
Also what would you call the first part of the post?
It's called winning.
-
your source simply doesn't understand the difference between weighted and unweighted values.
Still waiting for an authority to be cited.
i dunno, i feel like the nyt is a pretty solid authority on "how does the nyt do polling." but that's me.
or do you need an authority to tell you that 207 is equal to 207?
-
Actually this RFK-JFK task force announcement about falls in line with what Trump is saying in that 2018 link:
"Trump announced on Thursday that the public must wait another three years or more before seeing material that must remain classified for national security reasons — more than five decades after Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas."
It was Trump's decision to make everyone wait another three years before declassifying the documents. Nobody made him do it. He had the power to declassify the documents at any point during his presidency, and he said he would do it before breaking his word and saying "nope, actually we need to wait another three years before they can be released." And if Trump is reelected, he will once again have the power to declassify the documents at any point - or refuse to do so and keep them classified, like he did in his first term. He doesn't need a task force to do it, and he doesn't need to give RFK Jr. a made-up position to do it. All he has to do is give the order. It is literally that simple. I don't know why Trump decided not to declassify the documents in his first term (Trump doesn't give a shit about national security), but anyone who seriously cares about declassifying them would be out of their mind to trust Trump on this.
-
Is Kamala promising anything about JFK disclosure or Big Pharma? No? Then she won't be getting RFK's voters.
-
Is Kamala promising anything about JFK disclosure or Big Pharma? No? Then she won't be getting RFK's voters.
Kamala has already taken on big pharma:
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/kamala-harris-pharma-healthcare-president-ira/722286/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/15/statement-from-vice-president-kamala-harris-on-lower-prescription-drug-prices/
As for JKF disclosure... Is that really one of the bigger problems facing voters today?
-
Is Kamala promising anything about JFK disclosure or Big Pharma? No? Then she won't be getting RFK's voters.
Yeah, you're probably right. Anyone dumb enough to support a crank like RFK Jr. for president probably doesn't have the critical thinking skills to realize that the president can very easily declassify any files he want, that RFK Jr. is being offered a meaningless sinecure to court his voters, and the fact that Trump already said he'd declassify the files and broke his word in his first term.
-
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-arlington-cemetery-campaign-event
Just an insane story all around.
-
Trump? Thumbs upping dead people? Not shocked.
Nor is the whole violence it. He's surrounded by rabid, fanatical, stressed supporters. They want him to succeed but he keeps yelling at them for not doing their job so they have to fight twice as hard to make him happy, which is largely impossible.
-
It's not like Trump has a long history of being a dick to military personnel or something...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/
-
It's how you know it's a cult:
They love the military and ignore when Trump insults the military.
-
"Thank you, Alex. I'll take, 'Things that did not happen' for 500!
-
"Thank you, Alex. I'll take, 'Things that did not happen' for 500!
Says who? Cause Trump's own PR team says it did.
-
Was it paid for by the campaign?
Yeah, it was not a campaign event.
The family in question invited him to the cemetery.
Then he took a photo with the family.
-
Was it paid for by the campaign?
Yeah, it was not a campaign event.
The family in question invited him to the cemetery.
Then he took a photo with the family.
Yes, it was paid for by the campaign. Or did his PR guy, driver, and whoever else was involved do it for free? Did they go "Hey Donald, we'll drive you and I'll pay for the gas"?
And was the photos and video posted to his campaign social media? Yes!
Thus, political campaign event. Even if its a small one.
And even if it was paid...
https://www.tiktok.com/@realdonaldtrump/video/7407571442088430878?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=mobile&sender_web_id=7408917264529622561
That. That video? Illegal. He made a video for political campaign reasons and posted it on his campaign social media. Again, illegal. And the lady who tried to tell him that got assaulted and yelled at.
-
I especially love how part of the plan was to pretend this was an official memorial and then criticize Kamala for not attending. And judging by the number of Trump fans on Twitter I've seen responding to this story by asking where she was or why she wasn't there, it may actually be working, at least among their target audience.
-
Trump is very good at making his supporters think a certain way. Less good at getting new supporters.
-
I just see a picture of Trump smiling with some people.
Did he hold a campaign rally there? No. Courts always hold the standard of substantial evidence of intent, not vague interpretation. There are no signs, memorabilia, there were no speeches, or anything indicative of a campaign event. The event he attended is obviously specifically about the 13 dead people and not about the alive Trump, so it's not a Trump campaign event.
Trump posting it to his social media feed also does not retroactively turn something that was not a campaign even into a campaign event. By that logic Trump could post a picture of himself shaking hands with Muhammad Ali in 1985 and we would have to hold that the 1985 handshake was a Trump campaign event, which is nonsense.
-
Yeah, these bots are reaching for straws.
No one in their right mind would connect attending a memorial service to a campaign event.
-
I just see a picture of Trump smiling with some people.
Did he hold a campaign rally there? No. Courts always hold the standard of substantial evidence of intent, not vague interpretation. There are no signs, memorabilia, there were no speeches, or anything indicative of a campaign event. The event he attended is obviously specifically about the 13 dead people and not about the alive Trump, so it's not a Trump campaign event.
Trump posting it to his social media feed also does not retroactively turn something that was not a campaign even into a campaign event. By that logic Trump could post a picture of himself shaking hands with Muhammad Ali in 1985 and we would have to hold that the 1985 handshake was a Trump campaign event, which is nonsense.
A rally is not required, only that the grounds be used for political reasons. Which it was. He did a Political PR stunt. Then made a political video for his campaign. It's pretty cut and dry there.
-
LD: "Getting invited to a wreath-laying ceremony and attending as asked is a political PR stunt!"
Can't make this shit up...
-
LD: "Getting invited to a wreath-laying ceremony and attending as asked is a political PR stunt!"
Can't make this shit up...
Odd that he'd make a whole video for his campaign about it if it wasn't a PR stunt. Especially since he skipped the last two years...
-
Odd that he'd make a whole video for his campaign about it if it wasn't a PR stunt. Especially since he skipped the last two years...
Odd the family asked for photos and video and odd he skipped because he wasn't invited there the last two years?
LMMFAO!
-
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1829625590783361406?t=19rps8pAWGeRB1j55TTtww&s=19
Hmm
-
Trump grinning and flashing a thumbs-up in that picture - beyond being incredibly tacky and inappropriate - is all the proof we need that this was meant as a political stunt and wasn't simply a neutral, respectful visit to the cemetery. Why would he be posing like that if it wasn't meant to be a political photo op? In fact, why would Trump's own photographer (as opposed to the official photographers who work at Arlington) be there and photographing him at all if it wasn't a political photo op? By the way, it's only a matter of time before Trump changes his story to "Yes, this was a political photo op, and it's good that it was." He first denies, then admits what happened every time he gets into trouble, and every time he does, he makes the people who have been denying the story on his behalf look ridiculous.
-
A rally is not required, only that the grounds be used for political reasons.
Then the problem is clearly with this interpretation. According to this interpretation if a reporter writes an article saying that a pro-war politician hypocritically visited the military cemetery, then that reporter used the cemetery grounds for political purposes and should be fined/arrested.
How many politicians have pictures of themselves laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery? Can we just assume that it is many politicians, or do we need a collage of demonstrative photos? It could be argued that any sharing of a picture or video of a politician at Arlington is used for political reasons, as it would imply a moral or patriotic message about that politician.
Even in your own wording we find a concession that the interpretation is wrong. You are saying that the grounds cannot be used for political reasons. The grounds were used for non-political reasons at the time of the event. The photos of a non-political event were then distributed for political reasons. Talking about or looking at photos or video of an event is not a continuation of an event that is done and over, and nor is it use of the grounds, and can therefore be freely politicized.
Use of the grounds has a specific meaning. For example, if you are talking about a picture of a public park it is not use of the grounds.
You can obviously write an article about politicians visiting the cemetery with your own political slant, and you can also obviously share and talk about photos or videos of politicians visiting the cemetery with your political slant. This right extends to the politicians talking about their own visit as well. Arguing that you can talk about it with your political slant but Trump can't would clearly be a terrible argument.
Trump grinning and flashing a thumbs-up in that picture - beyond being incredibly tacky and inappropriate
In one post you are wishing that Trump had been shot in the head and assassinated, and in another post you are a colonial era puritan who says it is inappropriate to smile or display positive gestures at cemeteries. So we can stop reading your larp with any seriousness right there.
-
How many politicians have pictures of themselves laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery? Can we just assume that it is many politicians, or do we need a collage of demonstrative photos? It could be argued that any sharing of a picture or video of a politician at Arlington is used for political reasons, as it would imply a moral or patriotic message about that politician.
Those pictures are taken by official Arlington photographers for official Arlington events. Once the politicians have access to the pictures, they can of course do whatever they want with them, but what they can't do is bring their own photographers onto Arlington to take pictures for their own political gain.
you are a colonial era puritan who says it is inappropriate to smile or display positive gestures at cemeteries
No, I didn't say that. I'm specifically talking about Trump's performative broad grin and thumbs-up. The vast majority of people can intuit a clear difference between an occasional smile and a display of crude, gleeful exuberance, especially when it's coming from a politician who doesn't know any of the deceased.
-
Odd that he'd make a whole video for his campaign about it if it wasn't a PR stunt. Especially since he skipped the last two years...
Odd the family asked for photos and video and odd he skipped because he wasn't invited there the last two years?
LMMFAO!
That IS odd. Maybe you should verify that. From someone not Trump.
A rally is not required, only that the grounds be used for political reasons.
Then the problem is clearly with this interpretation. According to this interpretation if a reporter writes an article saying that a pro-war politician hypocritically visited the military cemetery, then that reporter used the cemetery grounds for political purposes and should be fined/arrested.
How many politicians have pictures of themselves laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery? Can we just assume that it is many politicians, or do we need a collage of demonstrative photos? It could be argued that any sharing of a picture or video of a politician at Arlington is used for political reasons, as it would imply a moral or patriotic message about that politician.
Even in your own wording we find a concession that the interpretation is wrong. You are saying that the grounds cannot be used for political reasons. The grounds were used for non-political reasons at the time of the event. The photos of a non-political event were then distributed for political reasons. Talking about or looking at photos or video of an event is not a continuation of an event that is done and over, and nor is it use of the grounds, and can therefore be freely politicized.
Use of the grounds has a specific meaning. For example, if you are talking about a picture of a public park it is not use of the grounds.
You can obviously write an article about politicians visiting the cemetery with your own political slant, and you can also obviously share and talk about photos or videos of politicians visiting the cemetery with your political slant. This right extends to the politicians talking about their own visit as well. Arguing that you can talk about it with your political slant but Trump can't would clearly be a terrible argument.
Trump grinning and flashing a thumbs-up in that picture - beyond being incredibly tacky and inappropriate
In one post you are wishing that Trump had been shot in the head and assassinated, and in another post you are a colonial era puritan who says it is inappropriate to smile or display positive gestures at cemeteries. So we can stop reading your larp with any seriousness right there.
Filming or photographing will not be permitted if it conveys the impression that cemetery officials or any visitor or family member is endorsing any product, service or organization," an official media policy memo reads.
It continues, "Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes," citing the Hatch Act, which governs how federal employees can weigh in on political activities.
The memo specifically cites 32 CFR 553, which states, among other guidelines, that "Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities."
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/29/trump-arlington-national-cemetery-rules
So Trump brought his own team to make a non- political appearance and take photos...
Yeah no. There's no reason for it.
And when officials of the cemetery try to stop you, your response shouldn't be to shove them out of the way and keep going. But Trump and his team likes to ignore rules they find inconvenient.
Finally:
How out of touch are you?
A thumbs up is generally considered to be positive to the context it was made in. The context is soldiers, family members, died. So Trump is thumbs upping dead soldiers in pictures with said soldier's families.
Allow me to speak in your language.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16959.msg287829#msg287829
-
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-first-interview-ratings-compared-donald-trump-1946932
This must be driving the orange doofus nuts. LOL
-
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1829641049142112624?t=4cq6TMM7e--5HOcpmomUrA&s=19
Whatever filter he might have had in the past he's lost. He's just another sad, pathetic racist at the old folks home at this point. Good luck winning an American election while simultaneously doing everything in your power to alienate black people.
-
"He wasn't talking about black people! He was obviously just talking about congresspeople in general! You're the one who's racist for assuming he was talking about black people! And even if he was talking about black people, there's nothing racist about saying that some black people are smart and some are dumb! That's no different to white people! You're the one who's racist!"
-
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-first-interview-ratings-compared-donald-trump-1946932
This must be driving the orange doofus nuts. LOL
Everyone likes to gawk at various types of accidents, such as interstate pileups and train wrecks. People are willing to sit around for hours at events like these. Sometimes they contact others telling them to come and look.
-
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-first-interview-ratings-compared-donald-trump-1946932
This must be driving the orange doofus nuts. LOL
Everyone likes to gawk at various types of accidents, such as interstate pileups and train wrecks. People are willing to sit around for hours at events like these. Sometimes they contact others telling them to come and look.
Yeah but when ya see an accident enough times, its just boring. Which is why Trump is losing viewers.
-
Actually "train wreck" is an extremely spot-on way to describe Trump's whole campaign this year. ;D
-
In the video Trump introduces him as a rising star Congressman and says that he's one of the smart ones. Trump made no mention of race. The only racists I see are the people looking at this person through the lens of race and postulating that intelligence is a question in black people.
In other words Democrats are and always have been the racists. FFS, you're the party of slavery, the KKK, and the party which opposed civil rights laws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OURy5WFp0zk
At the end of this video the speaker correctly points out that Democrats were always the racists. And today's Democrats are still racists and sexists by treating women and black people as victims who can't make it on their own, which is just another form of contempt.
-
Returning to the previous topics:
> Smiling and giving a thumbs up at cemeteries is bad
According to who, exactly? Many people on their death beds repeatedly tell their families that they don't want them to be sad. The family who took the picture with Trump also did not complain about it and highly praised Trump for his involvement.
> Trump used his own photographer
Photography is not prohibited at Arlington
> Someone pushed someone
Considering that no police were called and this is not going to be investigated by a court of law, it's unclear who was in the wrong. I don't see evidence that Trump's associates were wrong.
> Filming or photographing will not be permitted if it conveys the impression that cemetery officials or any visitor or family member is endorsing any product, service or organization," an official media policy memo reads.
I didn't see any Vote for Trump signs
> It continues, "Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes," citing the Hatch Act, which governs how federal employees can weigh in on political activities.
Trump is not a federal employee, irrelevant from the start.
> The memo specifically cites 32 CFR 553, which states, among other guidelines, that "Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities."
The memorial service did not include partisan political activities. Again, the media confuses what occurred at the memorial service with what Trump posted about it afterwards.
-
Returning to the previous topics:
> Smiling and giving a thumbs up at cemeteries is bad
According to who, exactly? Many people on their death beds repeatedly tell their families that they don't want them to be sad. The family who took the picture with Trump also did not complain about it and highly praised Trump for his involvement.
> Trump used his own photographer
Photography is not prohibited at Arlington
> Someone pushed someone
Considering that no police were called and this is not going to be investigated by a court of law, it's unclear who was in the wrong. I don't see evidence that Trump's associates were wrong.
> Filming or photographing will not be permitted if it conveys the impression that cemetery officials or any visitor or family member is endorsing any product, service or organization," an official media policy memo reads.
I didn't see any Vote for Trump signs
> It continues, "Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes," citing the Hatch Act, which governs how federal employees can weigh in on political activities.
Trump is not a federal employee, irrelevant from the start.
> The memo specifically cites 32 CFR 553, which states, among other guidelines, that "Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities."
The memorial service did not include partisan political activities. Again, the media confuses what occurred at the memorial service with what Trump posted about it afterwards.
In order:
Society.
It is for political ads.
There is a report. Which was filed. Which is how we know.
Trump is a walking 'vote for trump' sign.
He is a political candidate and currently being paid by the federal government as an ex president.
Filming for the purpose of making a political Ad does fall into that category. And if you think he had his own film crew there and didn't plan to make an ad... You'll behave exactly as I've come to expect.
-
I'm part of society. I know that it is no longer the year 1650. Celebrations of Life are a thing now. I can show you memorial pictures of people laughing, joking, celebrating, dancing, showing peace signs and giving each other high fives. Again, who exactly is giving this rule that it is inappropriate to celebrate at cemeteries or memorials?
The closest rule the ANC cites against using photography for political purposes refers to the Hatch Act for how federal employees may conduct themselves - "'Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes,' citing the Hatch Act, which governs how federal employees can weigh in on political activities."
Federal employees may be limited by the Hatch Act in their political speech (with threat of dismissal or civil penalties, not criminal penalties), but not private citizens. Receiving presidential pension benefits doesn't make Trump a federal employee. He also never agreed to follow any rules in relation to that. The only employment contract a President agrees to when taking office is the famous oath of office of the president of the United States. There is no employee contract which says that the President will agree follow x rules upon taking office, for obvious reasons.
Incidentally, this is also why you guys think that Trump was constantly breaking rules during his reign. You just don't understand that the President makes the rules for the Executive Branch and that, outside of what the Constitution says about the presidency, no rules apply to the President. The position is not a regular employee.
-
I'm part of society. I know that it is no longer the year 1650. Celebrations of Life are a thing now. I can show you memorial pictures of people laughing, joking, celebrating, dancing, showing peace signs and giving each other high fives. Again, who exactly is giving this rule that it is inappropriate to celebrate at cemeteries or memorials?
When someone was murdered and their family is there. I'm sure if your mother died and someone gave a thumbs up at their grave while posing with you, you'd find it disrespectful. Or maybe not if you have no love for your mom. But yes, generallys peaking, thumbs up to Dead Soldier graves is considered bad in American society. Especially when given the context of "We want to remember how they were taken from us by terrorists."
The closest rule the ANC cites against using photography for political purposes refers to the Hatch Act for how federal employees may conduct themselves - "'Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or fundraising purposes,' citing the Hatch Act, which governs how federal employees can weigh in on political activities."
Federal employees may be limited by the Hatch Act in their political speech (with threat of dismissal or civil penalties, not criminal penalties), but not private citizens. Receiving presidential pension benefits doesn't make Trump a federal employee. He also never agreed to follow any rules in relation to that. The only employment contract a President agrees to when taking office is the famous oath of office of the president of the United States. There is no employee contract which says that the President will agree follow x rules upon taking office, for obvious reasons.
Incidentally, this is also why you guys think that Trump was constantly breaking rules during his reign. You just don't understand that the President makes the rules for the Executive Branch and that, outside of what the Constitution says about the presidency, no rules apply to the President. The position is not a regular employee.
Memo of regulations passed down by the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY in 2022. (https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Portals/0/ANC-media-policy.pdf)
(8) Filming or photographing will not be permitted if it conveys the impression that
cemetery officials or any visitor or family member is endorsing any product, service or
organization. Additionally, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan, political or
fundraising purposes, in accordance with the Hatch Act, 32 CFR 553 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-V/subchapter-D/part-553), and AR 360-1 (https://www.dami.army.pentagon.mil/g2Docs/ICD119/AR%20360-1.pdf).
32 CFR 553
(c) Memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military Cemeteries will not include partisan political activities.
AR 360-1
(7) Military installations will not be used by any incumbents or new office-seeking candidates, their staff members,
or their campaign representatives for political campaign or election events, to include—public assemblies or town hall
meetings, polling or voting sites, speeches, fund-raisers, press conferences, postelection celebrations, or concession
addresses. This policy does not prohibit members of Congress and other elected officials from visiting military
installations to receive briefings, tours, or other official DOD information. Candidates that visit military installations to
conduct official business are not permitted to engage in any political campaign or election activity during the visit. The
PA personnel must notify their command Congressional affairs contact officer or the Office of the Chief of Legislative
Liaison (OCLL) to provide visibility on all Congressional-affiliated visits of elected officials. Personnel who work in
ARNG armories and other state facilities should review applicable state law for additional guidance and restrictions.
Now how does this apply to the Hatch act?
The cemebary is owned and operated by the Department of the Army and is considered a military installation. While visitation is allowed (with restrictions), the cemetary must also act in accordance with the above laws. The hatch Act doesn't allow partisan political endorsement for federal employees and locations. Which includes... Cemeteries owned by the Army. So in essence, the Cemetary can't allow Trump to do his political thing there as that would be seen as an endorsement of the Republican Candidate. And since the Department of the Army has full control over who is or isn't allowed into the grounds and what they are allowed to do...
Trump basically told the Army that he is above their rules.
-
Big fan of these guys' videos. This one is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBslntC3xg
(Obviously our system is an equally big mess)
-
Donald Trump outlined a suite of economic proposals in a speech here Thursday, including formally introducing a government efficiency commission to be headed by Elon Musk
Nice.
-
Donald Trump outlined a suite of economic proposals in a speech here Thursday, including formally introducing a government efficiency commission to be headed by Elon Musk
Nice.
This would unlock tremendous prosperity for America
-
Musk would likely mandate Twitter use for official communications to cut down on paper usage.
-
I'm part of society. I know that it is no longer the year 1650. Celebrations of Life are a thing now. I can show you memorial pictures of people laughing, joking, celebrating, dancing, showing peace signs and giving each other high fives. Again, who exactly is giving this rule that it is inappropriate to celebrate at cemeteries or memorials?
When someone was murdered and their family is there. I'm sure if your mother died and someone gave a thumbs up at their grave while posing with you, you'd find it disrespectful. Or maybe not if you have no love for your mom. But yes, generallys peaking, thumbs up to Dead Soldier graves is considered bad in American society. Especially when given the context of "We want to remember how they were taken from us by terrorists."
This can be avoided by being able to read the room.
Trump basically told the Army that he is above their rules.
In the area of US free speech, he is. The US Army can't tell me what political commentary I can't make on Twitter, for example. The restrictions of the kinds of activities they allow on their grounds doesn't extend to what I write in my home.
Big fan of these guys' videos. This one is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBslntC3xg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwBslntC3xg)
(Obviously our system is an equally big mess)
Measurement bias isn't unique to the US.
See: https://www.dannydorling.org/wp-content/files/dannydorling_publication_id1322.pdf
-
I'm part of society. I know that it is no longer the year 1650. Celebrations of Life are a thing now. I can show you memorial pictures of people laughing, joking, celebrating, dancing, showing peace signs and giving each other high fives. Again, who exactly is giving this rule that it is inappropriate to celebrate at cemeteries or memorials?
When someone was murdered and their family is there. I'm sure if your mother died and someone gave a thumbs up at their grave while posing with you, you'd find it disrespectful. Or maybe not if you have no love for your mom. But yes, generallys peaking, thumbs up to Dead Soldier graves is considered bad in American society. Especially when given the context of "We want to remember how they were taken from us by terrorists."
This can be avoided by being able to read the room.
Trump doesn't read the room, he makes sure he only goes into rooms he controls.
Trump basically told the Army that he is above their rules.
In the area of US free speech, he is. The US Army can't tell me what political commentary I can't make on Twitter, for example. The restrictions of the kinds of activities they allow on their grounds doesn't extend to what I write in my home.
Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is the filming. Trump can say whatever he wants on Twitter, but he can't film political ads on Army property. Had he no film or photo crew, it wouldn't be an issue. But for some reason, he felt it was important to make his visit public and in an ad... Why do you think that is?
-
But for some reason, he felt it was important to make his visit public...
Here is a guy who cannot take a shit without the media trying to publicize it, and Dave is trying to pretend the wreath-laying ceremony at ANC was made public because of Trump.
Who the fuck you trying to zoom here, Dave? Don't you ever get tired of posting terrible shit?
-
Bringing a photographer to take pictures of you at a cemetery doesn't turn it into a political event, even if you indented to use the photos politically. You turned it political after the non-political event occurred. Keyword: after
It was agreed that if I had gone to the cemetery that the Army could not control what I say about politics or photos on Twitter. If they can't stop me from posting my political commentary on Twitter then they can't stop me planning to make political commentary before visiting the cemetery. They can only control the direct and immediate content of the events at the cemetery, and that control ends after I leave their property.
Again, the Army only has control over the immediate contents of the events at the cemetery. It does not have control over what you say politically afterwards, and it does not have control over whether you plan to say anything politically about it before visiting the cemetery. The Army does not have control over the thoughts in your head. The Army isn't an all-encompassing entity that controls the speech in your life. It can control the content of its events as much as any business can control the content of its events. If there were just photos taken there, then it's not a political event.
-
But for some reason, he felt it was important to make his visit public...
Here is a guy who cannot take a shit without the media trying to publicize it, and Dave is trying to pretend the wreath-laying ceremony at ANC was made public because of Trump.
Who the fuck you trying to zoom here, Dave? Don't you ever get tired of posting terrible shit?
Can you show me a public announcement for it posted prior to the date?
-
Bringing a photographer to take pictures of you at a cemetery doesn't turn it into a political event, even if you indented to use the photos politically. You turned it political after the non-political event occurred. Keyword: after
It was agreed that if I had gone to the cemetery that the Army could not control what I say about politics or photos on Twitter. If they can't stop me from posting my political commentary on Twitter then they can't stop me planning to make political commentary before visiting the cemetery. They can only control the direct and immediate content of the events at the cemetery, and that control ends after I leave their property.
Again, the Army only has control over the immediate contents of the events at the cemetery. It does not have control over what you say politically afterwards, and it does not have control over whether you plan to say anything politically about it before visiting the cemetery. The Army does not have control over the thoughts in your head. The Army isn't an all-encompassing entity that controls the speech in your life. It can control the content of its events as much as any business can control the content of its events. If there were just photos taken there, then it's not a political event.
So you agree they have control over events, like filming, at the cemetery and Trump filming, without permission, is a violation.
-
But for some reason, he felt it was important to make his visit public...
Here is a guy who cannot take a shit without the media trying to publicize it, and Dave is trying to pretend the wreath-laying ceremony at ANC was made public because of Trump.
Who the fuck you trying to zoom here, Dave? Don't you ever get tired of posting terrible shit?
Can you show me a public announcement for it posted prior to the date?
No one knows the anniversary date for the ceremony?
-
But for some reason, he felt it was important to make his visit public...
Here is a guy who cannot take a shit without the media trying to publicize it, and Dave is trying to pretend the wreath-laying ceremony at ANC was made public because of Trump.
Who the fuck you trying to zoom here, Dave? Don't you ever get tired of posting terrible shit?
Can you show me a public announcement for it posted prior to the date?
No one knows the anniversary date for the ceremony?
Was it a public ceremony or a private ceremony? Where was Trump for the first two anniversary ceremonies?
-
Was it a public ceremony or a private ceremony? Where was Trump for the first two anniversary ceremonies?
So, it was an anniversary ceremony. So people did know the anniversary date. So, people knew.
-
I know Action80 is supposed to be super old, but does anyone else imagine a petulant ginger 10 year old (I don't know why ginger, it's just what I picture) sticking his fingers in his ears going "NUH UH!" when reading his posts?
Or is it just me?
-
Was it a public ceremony or a private ceremony? Where was Trump for the first two anniversary ceremonies?
So, it was an anniversary ceremony. So people did know the anniversary date. So, people knew.
Most people know the dates their loved ones died. And, according to Tom, the family invited Trump. Which implies it was private. Especially given the lack of non- invited people.
-
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.4 -- This Day In History: September 8, 2020: Biden +7.1 | September 8, 2016: Clinton +2.8
Arizona: Trump +1.6
Nevada: Harris +0.6
Wisconsin: Harris +1.5
Michigan: Harris +1.2
Pennsylvania: Tie
North Carolina: Trump +0.7
Georgia: Harris +0.1
All of these numbers are well within the margin of error for each individual poll, making them all essentially meaningless. Neither Trump nor Harris have made themselves a clear winner.
-
Was it a public ceremony or a private ceremony? Where was Trump for the first two anniversary ceremonies?
So, it was an anniversary ceremony. So people did know the anniversary date. So, people knew.
Most people know the dates their loved ones died. And, according to Tom, the family invited Trump. Which implies it was private. Especially given the lack of non- invited people.
Of course, the family invited Trump. Of course, the family allowed pictures.
This is why no charges were filed.
-
Of course, the family invited Trump. Of course, the family allowed pictures.
It's not up to the family. Politicians are not allowed to hold political events and take pictures for the purposes of campaigning at Arlington. Nobody can make you admit that this was a political event and Trump was taking (very tacky) pictures for the purposes of campaigning. Nevertheless, any reasonable person would agree that's what happened, and that specifically, Trump's plan was to pretend that this was an official, public ceremony and blast Biden and Harris for not attending.* You can refuse to accept this and keep insisting "Nuh uh" all you want, but that doesn't mean you're making a good case or that you're a good debater. It just means that you're being obstinate.
*To wit, here's Fox News trying to frame the story that way once they received their marching orders:
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1829544169469038814
Interestingly enough, this used to have a community note attached to it correctly pointing out that there was no official event, only a private ceremony, but it's no longer there, presumably because Musk intervened and had it removed.
This is why no charges were filed.
Use your head for a moment. Pretend for a moment that you agree with me that Trump was behaving illegally in this case. Do you really, really, think that any federal prosecutor, a few months before a presidential election in which Trump himself stands a good chance of becoming their boss, would dare risk their career by launching a lengthy, controversial prosecution against a powerful political figure who will undoubtedly take revenge if they're elected, all over a fairly minor offense? That would never happen. I would go so far as to say that Trump could have unzipped his pants and pissed all over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on camera and no prosecutor would have dared touch him.
-
I am not even going to bother reprinting your trash take, honk.
-
The recent debate was a delight to watch. Kamala was strong and focused, while Trump ranted incoherently, got racist, and spouted insane conspiracy theories that the moderators firmly shut down. I won't go as far as some people in the media have by predicting that this has cemented Kamala's victory. That's ridiculous. In fact, this debate might not even matter in the long run. Trump's fans love him for precisely those qualities that the rest of the world sees as glaring negatives, and so this debate isn't likely to cost him much support. Which is entirely messed up when you think about it - the Democratic candidate is at risk of losing support if they do badly in a debate, but they don't really gain support if they do well. Still, not losing support is of course better than losing support, and no bad news is better than bad news, so this is at least a modest political victory for Kamala.
-
in a sensible world, this would be disastrous for trump, but it probably won't matter. I think Kamala's biggest problem is separating herself from biden on issues such as Israel, turning off more left leaning democrats, and she's not really done that.
-
Sounds like Kamala lost to me
(https://i.imgur.com/3badiSJ.png)
-
it actually doesn't look like that. at all. he objectively lost. I don't think it matters in the long run but it was not good for trump.
(https://i.imgur.com/aUqWtW0.jpeg)
I like this assessment better.
-
Kamala was no more a "no-show" for the Fox debate than Trump was a no-show for the debate I held in my living room last night. There was no debate for either Trump or Kamala to attend. The Trump campaign literally made up a fake debate so they could accuse Kamala of skipping it.
-
Does Trump understand how debates are not prize fights? The desire for a rematch is based on the desire to be #1 or to get back the spot they just lost. But the debate winner doesn't become president by winning. But losing hurts. And if you want a rematch in a debate .. it's because you want to hurt your opponent more.
-
it actually doesn't look like that. at all.
To be fair, Tom has quoted a highly reliable source for his claim. The source being the bloke who clearly lost the debate ;D
-
It is quite funny seeing Trump wandering around claiming he won a debate which he clearly lost, claiming the polls show he won when they clearly don't. I'm sure there are polls of MAGA cult members which do say that, but they're too far gone to be taken seriously.
He behaves like a child who just lost a race and goes around saying "I won! I won! I definitely won!". It's a bit sad really, especially considering there's still a decent chance he could be president again.
In his head he probably does believe he won, he lies to himself as much as he does to others. And it's somewhat depressing that it won't have moved the dial one bit for millions of people who will vote for him no matter what.
But maybe for people who are still undecided his rambling display compared with Harris' far more assured one - and her ability to get under that wafer thin skin of his - will have given them some pause for thought.
-
It wasn't a debate. It is a multi-user discussion environment. It doesn't have points or scores. It doesn't have winners or losers.
-
Can't lose if it's not a competition.
Can't win either.
-
I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652
-
I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652
Remembering someone's failures is not the positive one wants the public to remember.
-
Considering that she was a late presidential candidate to the race and was still largely unknown to the general public, this widely viewed debate was her chance to become memorable to the public sphere. Nearly 70 million people watched the debate. It was one of her few chances to make an impact.
Everyone already knew Trump, and he had nothing to introduce or prove for himself. He made sure that she was forgettable, and only Trump himself made the memorable impact. Most people who watched the debate now barely remember what Harris said, and any of her content has been overshadowed by what Trump said by far. Being a forgettable participant is terrible for her campaign effort. In this sense Trump expertly nullified her goal and won the debate.
-
If being remembered as an incoherent, rambling old man is a good thing, then Trump certainly nailed it.
-
I remember very clearly every incident of Harris baiting Trump to make an ass out of himself and how he fell for it like a child EVERY SINGLE TIME.
It takes a tremendous amount of TDS to actually have watched that and come away thinking Trump was the winner. Only MAGA cultists like Tom, who are truly too far gone to EVER come back from their brainwashing, could possibly come away with that opinion. And seeing them scramble to justify it like Tom is doing has just been madly entertaining. :D :D
-
Meanwhile, in reality, far from the comforting fictions of MAGAworld::
The poll of 3,276 adults, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Harris did firm up some of her personal appeal: Thirty-seven percent say the debate made them feel more favorably toward her, vs. 23% less favorably. There was no such benefit for Trump: People by nearly 2-1 say the debate made them see him less favorably.
-
I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652
It's true that putting someone on the defensive and making them deny damaging allegations puts them at a disadvantage. A good example would be Elizabeth Warren, who has spent a lot of time fighting the (false) allegation that she pretended to be Native American to get herself jobs and scholarships. With every denial and plea for people to actually look at her employment history, she's only called more attention to the allegation, and so Trump's racist nickname for her has stuck and most people continue to believe that she pretended to be Native American, presumably because it's such a juicy story. Too good to be false, you could say. But for something similar to have happened to Kamala, she would have had to, like Warren, spend time specifically trying to deny the allegations about her racial identity and the eating of pets. She didn't, and I'm sure that Warren's case was the first thing she thought of when Trump first started making racist attacks on her. Really, what happened here is the opposite of the "pig-fucker" strategy. The goal isn't for the accusation to be remembered; it's for the denial to be remembered. But in this case, with no denial, it's only the accusation that's remembered.
-
Meanwhile JD Vance just admitted that the Haitians eating pets story was always a pie, and rationalized by basically saying you have to tell some racist lies to make sure Americans understand the danger we're in, and James Lankford just admitted that the Republicans intentionally killed the border deal for no other reason than that Trump would have an issue to run on.
Why do they insist on giving Democrats so much ammunition? ???
-
Why do they insist on giving Democrats so much ammunition? ???
Because they know that Democrats are rarely able to properly take advantage of it.
-
Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!
-
Meanwhile JD Vance just admitted that the Haitians eating pets story was always a pie
Ignoring the obvious pie joke, he really didn't:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/politics/vance-immigrants-pets-springfield-ohio-cnntv/index.html
“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” the Ohio senator said.
Bash replied, “You just said that this is a story that you created.”
Vance said, “It comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents. I say that we’re creating a story, meaning we’re creating the American media focusing on it. I didn’t create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield thanks to Kamala Harris’ policies. Her policies did that. But yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about this story and the suffering caused by Kamala Harris’ policies.”
It was poor phrasing, but he clarified what he meant by "create stories." He wasn't admitting that the whole thing was a lie.
-
He wasn't admitting that the whole thing was a lie.
Why wasn't he? He's been told it's a lie. The police in the town have quite loudly stated there are no credible reports of this happening.
Trump was told that in realtime during the debate, he just muttered "Well, I saw it on TV".
Oh well, that's ok then. No further questions.
-
Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!
Did they or was it just someone fucking around? Because he didn't even get grazed this time.
-
Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!
Did they or was it just someone fucking around? Because he didn't even get grazed this time.
I wasn't aware that you need to get grazed by a bullet in order for it to count as an attempted assassination.
-
It's not a very good attempt if you don't even get a shot off.
I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because reasons.
-
Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!
Did they or was it just someone fucking around? Because he didn't even get grazed this time.
I wasn't aware that you need to get grazed by a bullet in order for it to count as an attempted assassination.
It is. If you aren't hit, it could just be someone firing off a gun for fun or hunting bird, or alligators, or clay pigeons. It's America, after all.
But as aatw said, he never even got a shot off so we can't even confirm he tried to shoot trump
Maybe he wanted to protect him from the corrupt secret service?
-
This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.
-
I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because reasons.
It, quite suspiciously, only happens to one political party over and over again. I don't think it's a gun problem so much as it is a communist infiltrator problem.
It is. If you aren't hit, it could just be someone firing off a gun for fun or hunting bird, or alligators, or clay pigeons. It's America, after all.
But as aatw said, he never even got a shot off so we can't even confirm he tried to shoot trump
Maybe he wanted to protect him from the corrupt secret service?
Yes, of course.
This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
-
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns? ???
-
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns? ???
Where did you find this one? It just cracked me up! Thanks for joining us tonight, Roundy. I really really like this joke. Hahah.
-
This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.
It wasn't an assassination attempt. He was just making sure that the Secret Service detail was on the ball after the Butler rally fiasco.
-
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns? ???
Where did you find this one? It just cracked me up! Thanks for joining us tonight, Roundy. I really really like this joke. Hahah.
Find what? Thomas Crooks was a Republican from the day he registered to vote to the day he died. Routh is apparently unaffiliated and voted in this year's Democratic primary but has also voted Republican in the past.
I'm not sure what "side" you're talking about, exactly, but it sure ain't Democrats.
-
Find what? Thomas Crooks was a Republican from the day he registered to vote to the day he died. Routh is apparently unaffiliated and voted in this year's Democratic primary but has also voted Republican in the past.
I'm not sure what "side" you're talking about, exactly, but it sure ain't Democrats.
Ah yes, he was a registered Republican, in a race where Democrats specifically told people to register as Republican to vote against Trump. Telling people "ah he registered Republican!" does not actually mean he's a Republican. It's quite comical to constantly see this line of thought brought up. "Obviously the guy who went to a Republican rally to shoot Republicans was a Republican!" -braindead morons
Remember that time a gunman tried to shoot several Republican Congressmen at a baseball game. Gee wow, it's almost like there's an obvious pattern here.
Democrats constantly call Republicans "gun-toters" and "terrorists" because it's classic projection. It's just like AATW calling out his own country. He doesn't trust his fellow countrymen with guns because he doesn't trust himself with guns and projects it onto others. The fact of the matter is that Dems cheat elections, rig them so that you can't track their cheating, then, when that doesn't work, they try to shoot you dead. Our only saving grace is that they're as incompetent as they are evil.
-
Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election and not allow Republicans to run a lengthy negative campaign against them.
Gonna give credit for the prediction...doubt it will be helpful, but hey, you got the call.
-
Did I really, though? Kamala isn't an unknown political figure, and Republicans have had more than enough time to adjust to running against her and prepare a negative campaign by now. They haven't been prevented from doing that. They just seem to be, well, paralyzed by the nominee change. It really seems like Republicans put all their eggs into the basket of Biden being a weak candidate whose age and diminished mental capacity would give them an easy victory. That's why Trump essentially squandered his VP pick on an untalented, uncharismatic, and repellent MAGA loyalist for the flex rather than try to broaden his appeal by choosing someone respected and established within the party. That's why there's been no real message or proper platform for his campaign. It's been almost entirely "Biden is old and weak (and has a shitty son). Vote for Trump instead." Replacing Biden has cut the heart out of Trump's entire approach.
-
Trump didn't squander it, he chose a VP who wouldn't be like Pence. He wanted a blind loyalist. He learned his lesson.
-
I think JD Vance has enough background to demonstrate he isn't really a Trump loyalist and I think the made-for-TV era has finally lost its last bit of disguise.
-
I think JD Vance has enough background to demonstrate he isn't really a Trump loyalist and I think the made-for-TV era has finally lost its last bit of disguise.
"I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate," Vance said when asked if he'd refuse to certify the election.
His own words seems to say otherwise.
-
You mean he hasn't said anything else?
-
You mean he hasn't said anything else?
He has I just don't know of it.
But please feel free to quote his comments that show he would not be Trump's loyal lapdog.
-
But please feel free to quote his comments that show he would not be Trump's loyal lapdog.
Do you mean like these quotes from before he became Trump's loyal lapdog?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/jd-vance-donald-trump-comments-00168450
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-jewish-voters-will-bear-lot-blame-loses-fighting-antisemiti-rcna171938
Did we already have "scapegoating Jews" on the list of ways Trump is like Hitler or is this a new one?
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-jewish-voters-will-bear-lot-blame-loses-fighting-antisemiti-rcna171938
Did we already have "scapegoating Jews" on the list of ways Trump is like Hitler or is this a new one?
I'm pretty sure at this point he's blamed every group that exists except himself.
-
Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’
Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.
Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.
-
Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’
Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.
Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.
What? But Democrats hate guns! This must be a trick! I bet she doesn't even own a gun! She's a liar!
-Trumptards
-
Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’
Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.
Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.
What? But Democrats hate guns! This must be a trick! I bet she doesn't even own a gun! She's a liar!
-Trumptards
She doesn't have a gun, but her secret service detail does.
-
No, Harris does have a gun, and that was the context of her comment about shooting someone:
https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/
It makes sense for a prosecutor to own a gun. You never know when a criminal you've thrown in jail in the past might show up to say hello.
-
“I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice to say you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the second amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws,” Harris said, prompting Winfrey to ask about her gun ownership.
The problem here is that "assault weapons" is a nebulous term that doesn't mean anything. Politicians usually use it to refer to AR-15 style weapons. AR-15 style weapons are a tiny portion of violent crime, but a large portion of gun owners. It's for this reason that gun owners on the right make such a fuss about it, and I think that reason is plain: the vast majority (read: >99%) of AR-15 owners have done nothing wrong.
A Chicago-style handgun ban would be more effective regarding violent crime yet major candidates never bring it up. Why? It's quite puzzling. It's almost like they're not actually interested in lowering violent crime and it's a Trojan horse to disarm large portions of the population by taking away the most popular gun in America.
In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”
Really activates the ol' almonds.
-
The problem here is that "assault weapons" is a nebulous term that doesn't mean anything. Politicians usually use it to refer to AR-15 style weapons. AR-15 style weapons are a tiny portion of violent crime, but a large portion of gun owners. It's for this reason that gun owners on the right make such a fuss about it, and I think that reason is plain: the vast majority (read: >99%) of AR-15 owners have done nothing wrong.
I think that the reason that the left makes such a fuss about it is that AR style weapons are a significant portion of mass shootings. So yeah, a tiny minority of mass murderers are ruining it for the vast majority of responsible gun owners.
If only someone could figure out a way to keep AR style guns, as well as handguns, out of the hands of people who have no business having them without trampling the rights of law abiding citizens. It's a shame that too many politicians don't even want to discuss it, lest they incur the wrath of the NRA.
-
Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 167 different handguns being used in 117 incidents between 1982 and September 2024. These figures are calculated from a total of 151 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.
I think that the reason that the left makes such a fuss about it is that AR style weapons are a significant portion of mass shootings. So yeah, a tiny minority of mass murderers are ruining it for the vast majority of responsible gun owners.
This depends on what you mean by "significant". Very few mass shootings are done with rifles, the majority of them are done with handguns. Now if you narrow down "mass shooting" to "I saw it on the news" then sure, maybe AR-15's are the most commonly reported on mainstream media. Why is that, I wonder? What is the driving narrative behind it? If mass shootings were such a big deal, shouldn't we see reports about the hundreds of mass shootings conducted with handguns per year? No? Odd.
If only someone could figure out a way to keep AR style guns, as well as handguns, out of the hands of people who have no business having them without trampling the rights of law abiding citizens. It's a shame that too many politicians don't even want to discuss it, lest they incur the wrath of the NRA.
My point is that if you had god-like powers to remove every AR-15 in America, your total impact on gun violence would barely make a dent. It's a huge amount of effort for very little gain. It doesn't have good calculus with "my intention is to save people" and instead aligns more suspiciously with "my intention is to disarm most of you". Even if we say "ah, well, Harris has good intentions, even if they don't affect much gun violence" then we must also accept that rather than being malicious, she's just being incompetent. Should we accept a politician's incompetence needlessly stripping property from Americans who haven't done anything wrong? Seems remarkably unnecessary to me.
Gun violence with AR-15s is so rare that this turns into a more comical analogy of "ban cars to stop drunk drivers". Obviously the primary use case of an AR-15 in America is not murdering people, mass shooting or otherwise. It's the most popular gun in America and yet it's rarely seen in violent crime. There are millions of them.
-
There are alot of reports, but they don't get national attention because they're borderline innocent or just not innocent at all. Local new, however, reports on them. If only briefly.
That being said, its about optics. Banning the guns that make national news makes gun violence seem less (if it does lessen it) and thus, less of an issue to be fixed. Which means it's fixed (to the general population). The rest?
Out of sight, out of mind.
-
Politicians have been campaigning on offering solutions to problems that sound simple and punchy but are ultimately ineffective since the dawn of civilization. It's far more likely that that's what this is rather than any kind of insidious scheme to disarm the American public. In fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.
-
Not without some major shift in the government's behavior, like nuking a city (in America) or something.
-
A Chicago-style handgun ban would be more effective regarding violent crime yet major candidates never bring it up. Why?
Playing devil's advocate: they probably think it's easier to ban the big, scary gun and appear like they're doing something.
That said:
(https://i.imgur.com/DzYKesp.png)
Gun violence with AR-15s is so rare that this turns into a more comical analogy of "ban cars to stop drunk drivers".
Banning cars is also an amazing idea, and if we need to say we're doing it to stop drunk drivers to achieve it, so be it.
-
You can take my car when you prise my cold, dead corpse out of it.
-
There are alot of reports, but they don't get national attention because they're borderline innocent or just not innocent at all. Local new, however, reports on them. If only briefly.
That being said, its about optics. Banning the guns that make national news makes gun violence seem less (if it does lessen it) and thus, less of an issue to be fixed. Which means it's fixed (to the general population). The rest?
Out of sight, out of mind.
Politicians have been campaigning on offering solutions to problems that sound simple and punchy but are ultimately ineffective since the dawn of civilization. It's far more likely that that's what this is rather than any kind of insidious scheme to disarm the American public. Im fact, I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.
Playing devil's advocate: they probably think it's easier to ban the big, scary gun and appear like they're doing something.
So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.
That said:
Why not both?
I believe it should be neither, but I don't want this thread devolving into a gun law meme again. This is specifically about policies in America with respect to the current candidates; I don't want to generalize the thread into being about the 2nd amendment. I already made a thread for that.
Banning cars is also an amazing idea, and if we need to say we're doing it to stop drunk drivers to achieve it, so be it.
This is what urban nightmare dwellers really believe.
I want to further iterate that my problem is with Harris somehow trying to simultaneously hold the position of "I support the second amendment" and "I want to ban assault weapons". It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position and it's not even a good one. Out of the possible options to "improve" gun safety in the US, she seems to have managed to pick all of the least effective yet the most strenuous options. It's sort of like telling people you really want to halt climate change, so you mandate that coal plants should be 3% more efficient instead of building nuclear plants instead. It feels like needless lip service.
-
So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.
Well, yeah. This is a thread about America.
-
It's odd how we never hear anything like this about the Harris family, Biden family, or lifetime politicians in general.
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1837219541178605744
-
Poll update:
National: Harris +2.4 -- This Day In History: September 24, 2020: Biden +6.9 | September 24, 2016: Clinton +3.0
Arizona: Trump +2.2
Nevada: Harris +0.4
Wisconsin: Harris +1.0
Michigan: Harris +1.8
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.6
North Carolina: Trump +0.5
Georgia: Trump +2.1
Neither Trump nor Harris have made themselves a clear winner, as the numbers in each state are still too close.
-
It's odd how we never hear anything like this about the Harris family, Biden family, or lifetime politicians in general.
https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1837219541178605744
Kamala Harris's cousin gave my uncle 500k for cancer treatment. great family!
-
And the criminal charges keep piling up.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.
-
So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.
No, just standard politicking. No more necessarily incompetent than any other politician who does this kind of thing, which is all of them.
And the criminal charges keep piling up.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.
There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.
-
So, we're going with "incompetence" for this one, it seems.
No, just standard politicking. No more necessarily incompetent than any other politician who does this kind of thing, which is all of them.
And the criminal charges keep piling up.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community invoked a private-citizen right to file charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by Springfield, Ohio, since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.
There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.
Even tho it caused bomb threats?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bomb-threats-force-second-consecutive-day-school-closures-springfield-rcna171043
-
There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.
Defamation is not protected speech.
-
There is zero chance of this even making it past a prosecutor's desk, let alone holding up in court. Everything Trump and Vance have said is one hundred percent protected by the First Amendment.
Defamation is not protected speech.
Did you even read the article?
The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor
The local prosecutor told them what Trump did isn't against the law. They're spending their own money and time bringing pointless charges, probably in the hopes that it will bring in donations from morons. They already know they're not going to win and it'll be thrown out of court before going to trial.
-
Did you even read the article?
The Haitian Bridge Alliance made the move after inaction by the local prosecutor
The local prosecutor told them what Trump did isn't against the law.
I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort. Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong.
-
I did read the article and I didn't see where the local prosecutor said anything of the sort. Just because there was no action doesn't mean that Trump and Vance didn't do anything wrong.
Gee, markjo, I didn't realize you're unable to analyze a situation unless someone tells you word-for-word what happened like you're a toddler. I think it can be inferred that the prosecutor told them to get bent and they decided to scam gullible people like yourself into thinking they have a case when they obviously do not. You should not be cheering on attempts to waste justice system resources in the pursuit of personal profit just because you don't like Trump.
-
I think it can be inferred that the prosecutor told them to get bent and they decided to scam gullible people like yourself into thinking they have a case when they obviously do not.
Take another look at the aftermath of them doubling and tripling down on their lies and tell me that they didn’t do anything wrong.
You should not be cheering on attempts to waste justice system resources in the pursuit of personal profit just because you don't like Trump.
What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
-
Even tho it caused bomb threats?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bomb-threats-force-second-consecutive-day-school-closures-springfield-rcna171043
Yes.
Defamation is not protected speech.
Nor is it a crime. In any case, defamation has nothing to do with this particular case, as they're trying to hit Trump and Vance with criminal charges that I'm pretty sure took some creativity to dream up. I'm not going to spend time looking at the relevant statutes, but looking at "making false alarms" as an example - come on, that's meant to be for actual, literal alarms, like pulling a fire alarm as a prank, or causing a disturbance by yelling about a fire or a mass shooter or whatever in a public place. It doesn't mean that someone says something false and someone else hundreds of miles away feels "alarmed" by it. That's just wordplay.
-
According to the article I linked…
Trump and Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, are charged with disrupting public services, making false alarms, telecommunications harassment, aggravated menacing and complicity.
Yes, it’s doubtful that the case will go anywhere, but it’s yet another example of the number of fucks that Trump gives about the truth and the potential consequences of his words and actions.
-
According to the article I linked…
Trump and Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, are charged with disrupting public services, making false alarms, telecommunications harassment, aggravated menacing and complicity.
Yes, it’s doubtful that the case will go anywhere, but it’s yet another example of the number of fucks that Trump gives about the truth and the potential consequences of his words and actions.
It's also an example of the kind of overblown, unnecessary actions taken against Trump that his followers use as ammo to say that he's just being targeted for political reasons, and given that they're correct in this case, it's justification for that attitude. This really isn't helping any.
-
Trump thrives on conflict. If we ignored him, he'd be powerless.
I wish we could ignore him.
-
What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.
-
What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.
As if Trump hasn't been fund raising to pay his legal bills for years. ::)
-
To me it sounds like political theater to show the locals that they are trying to do something, even if its pointless.
Most people want action, not thoughts of action. Even if that action is known to be pointless.
-
What personal profit? It’s a criminal case being filed, not a civil one.
They're baiting donations for a cause they know has no chance of succeeding.
As if Trump hasn't been fund raising to pay his legal bills for years. ::)
Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo.
-
Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo.
"Trump did the wrong thing" is why the nonprofit organization representing the Haitian immigrants who have legal status is filing criminal charges against Trump, even if the local authorities won't.
-
Yes, it’s doubtful that the case will go anywhere, but it’s yet another example of the number of fucks that Trump gives about the truth and the potential consequences of his words and actions.
Right.
This is my big issue with Trump. I disagree with his general worldview. But that's OK, that can be the basis for some discussion.
But the big issue is the way he comes to decisions and conclusions about things.
He sees something on TV about Haitians eating cats in Springfield - from one of the networks he watches which constantly reinforce his worldview.
He regurgitates it in the debate, is immediately told that there are no credible reports of that actually happening and just mutters "well, I saw it on TV..."
I think literally the next day he's announcing mass deportations, clearly having made zero effort to actually check anything
Now, clearly the mass immigration in to Springfield has caused issues. It's reasonable to believe that something should be done. But the something should be based on actual facts and an understanding of the situation, not right leaning media outlets feeding you lies which you don't bother to check and then start basing policy on even after being told that they were lies.
For someone who goes on about "fake news" all the time, he sure does like to lap up all the lies which feed in to his worldview. Which is depressingly common these days of course, but I don't think anyone who does that should be in any position of power. Make policy based on data and facts, not "stuff you saw on TV". Sigh.
-
Trump was promising mass deportations before the Springfield story came out. Your interpretation about what occurred is invalid.
-
This is my big issue with Trump. I disagree with his general worldview. But that's OK, that can be the basis for some discussion.
But the big issue is the way he comes to decisions and conclusions about things.
He sees something on TV about Haitians eating cats in Springfield - from one of the networks he watches which constantly reinforce his worldview.
He regurgitates it in the debate, is immediately told that there are no credible reports of that actually happening and just mutters "well, I saw it on TV..."
I think literally the next day he's announcing mass deportations, clearly having made zero effort to actually check anything
Now, clearly the mass immigration in to Springfield has caused issues. It's reasonable to believe that something should be done. But the something should be based on actual facts and an understanding of the situation, not right leaning media outlets feeding you lies which you don't bother to check and then start basing policy on even after being told that they were lies.
For someone who goes on about "fake news" all the time, he sure does like to lap up all the lies which feed in to his worldview. Which is depressingly common these days of course, but I don't think anyone who does that should be in any position of power. Make policy based on data and facts, not "stuff you saw on TV". Sigh.
Do you really think that Trump sincerely believes that Haitian migrants are running amok and eating pets in Springfield? I certainly don't. This is a strategic move on his part. He's seen success with making racist or racially-charged attacks in the past, and he's trying to replicate that.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
I hereby report that Donald Trump travelled to my neighbourhood and ate all the dogs. With ketchup.
-
Do you really think that Trump sincerely believes that Haitian migrants are running amok and eating pets in Springfield? I certainly don't. This is a strategic move on his part. He's seen success with makiig racist or racially-charged attacks in the past, and he's trying to replicate that.
I dunno. I don’t think he’s that smart.
If he is just playing dumb then he deserves an Oscar. It’s a triumph of method acting.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
It's not.
Also, the report in question was a woman who lost her cat and blamed the neighbors.
The cat was found in her basement.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
I hereby report that Donald Trump travelled to my neighbourhood and ate all the dogs. With ketchup.
Thank you for reporting that.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
It's not.
Also, the report in question was a woman who lost her cat and blamed the neighbors.
The cat was found in her basement.
It is part of voodoo rituals.
-
Okay? "Trump did wrong thing, therefore they can do wrong thing too" is not a very rational thought process, markjo.
"Trump did the wrong thing" is why the nonprofit organization representing the Haitian immigrants who have legal status is filing criminal charges against Trump, even if the local authorities won't.
Wasting justice system time with frivolous charges is not the morally right thing to do. Trump made some morally wrong choices, but they weren't illegal. I know you have a hard time with this, markjo, but the legal system and morality are not 1:1.
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
It's not.
Also, the report in question was a woman who lost her cat and blamed the neighbors.
The cat was found in her basement.
It is part of voodoo rituals.
And you have evidence of this? Or should I just take your non-voodoo ass's word for it?
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
It's not.
Also, the report in question was a woman who lost her cat and blamed the neighbors.
The cat was found in her basement.
It is part of voodoo rituals.
And you have evidence of this? Or should I just take your non-voodoo ass's word for it?
You ever been to Haiti?
-
No "credible" reports. So, some reports were made.
Is it true Haitians eat dogs and/or cats?
Yes. It is part of voodoo.
It's not.
Also, the report in question was a woman who lost her cat and blamed the neighbors.
The cat was found in her basement.
It is part of voodoo rituals.
And you have evidence of this? Or should I just take your non-voodoo ass's word for it?
You ever been to Haiti?
No. Have you?
-
It's a thing. You won't find any evidence of it because the mainstream media won't let anybody talk about it and the Deep State suppresses it but it's all a part of the vudu.
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
A lot of cultures eat dogs. It is normal for them.
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
I'll take "things that never happened" for $1000, Alex! :D
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
I'll take "things that never happened" for $1000, Alex! :D
ITT: we cope by pretending all cultures on earth are Western with different coats of paint on them. They don't do anything Western cultures would think is insane or silly! Nothing ever happens, amirite fellas?
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
A lot of cultures eat dogs. It is normal for them.
You have literally 0 credibility
Especially on a "a friend of mine said..." Kinda evidence.
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
Do you have evidence it never happened?
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
Do you have evidence it never happened?
Ooh, got 'im. ::)
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
A lot of cultures eat dogs. It is normal for them.
Even if that's true, that is not evidence that it occurred in Springfield.
-
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
A lot of cultures eat dogs. It is normal for them.
Even if that's true, that is not evidence that it occurred in Springfield.
Even if it is true Haitian immigrants are eating dogs and cats in Springfield, would you care?
I mean, they can eat all the dogs and cats they want, as far as I am concerned.
-
my girlfriend is a supermodel. you wouldn't know her, though, she goes to another school.
lol this never happened.
oh so nobody has ever had a girlfriend before?? supermodels don't exist??
no i just think he's lying
-
no i just think he's lying
I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far. I will say, in personal experience, it's usually chickens.
-
my girlfriend is a supermodel. you wouldn't know her, though, she goes to another school.
lol this never happened.
oh so nobody has ever had a girlfriend before?? supermodels don't exist??
no i just think he's lying
You think I am lying when my friend told me what he witnessed?
-
my girlfriend is a supermodel. you wouldn't know her, though, she goes to another school.
lol this never happened.
oh so nobody has ever had a girlfriend before?? supermodels don't exist??
no i just think he's lying
You think I am lying when my friend told me what he witnessed?
I think you're lying about having friends.
-
I mean, they can eat all the dogs and cats they want, as far as I am concerned.
Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?
-
Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?
You guys certainly don't seem that concerned, considering that you want to dismiss all claims by claiming that there is not enough evidence to your satisfaction.
-
Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?
You guys certainly don't seem that concerned, considering that you want to dismiss all claims by claiming that there is not enough evidence to your satisfaction.
The linguistic gymnastics in this sentence... Tom, you are a master at using the maximum amount of words to say absolutely nothing.
-
I know you are lying about thinking.
-
Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?
You guys certainly don't seem that concerned, considering that you want to dismiss all claims by claiming that there is not enough evidence to your satisfaction.
Just learning from your fine example.
-
Tampon Tim really blew it last night.
Looked like he ate a cat or dog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3zUqqe_-Pg?t=43
-
I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far.
"my friend 'went to a voodoo ritual'" is already a bridge too far for me to take anything that follows at face value
-
^Basement staircases are probably "a bridge too far" as well.
-
So much passion.
(https://i.imgur.com/VTf31qi.jpeg)
-
I don't think "we know people who do weird voodoo shit with cats" is a bridge too far.
"my friend 'went to a voodoo ritual'" is already a bridge too far for me to take anything that follows at face value
I don't think your lack of friend diversity should reflect upon Action69's story.
-
Poll update:
National: Harris +2.2 -- This Day In History: October 3, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 3, 2016: Clinton +3.2
Arizona: Trump +1.7
Nevada: Harris +1.1
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.7
Pennsylvania: Tie
North Carolina: Trump +0.6
Georgia: Trump +1.5
-
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fox-news-proposes-dates-possible-second-trump-harris-debate-2024-10-09/
Trump turns down fox news invite for debate with Harris. Apparently he doesn't want a rematch even on a safe network like Fox. Weird, right?
-
Where do these polls happen? I've always wanted to be Polled.
-
Where do these polls happen? I've always wanted to be Polled.
You have to be the kind of person that always answers when random phone numbers call you.
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.8 -- This Day In History: October 11, 2020: Biden +10.3 | October 11, 2016: Clinton +6.0
Arizona: Trump +0.5
Nevada: Trump +0.2
Wisconsin: Harris +0.3
Michigan: Trump +0.9
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.4
North Carolina: Trump +0.5
Georgia: Trump +0.5
-
It sounds like the party's over for Kamala.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-kamala-harris-honeymoon-is-coming-to-an-end/
This is the race Democrats feared. Less than a month before the US election, Donald Trump is regaining the slight edge he held before Democrats convened in Chicago to nominate Kamala Harris. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average in battleground states, Trump trailed Harris from late August until late September. Now, though, he’s back on top at 48.4 to 48.1. His lead may be fractional — and Harris is up two points in the popular vote — but the numbers have Kellyanne Conway feeling good.
Alongside a picture of the RCP numbers, the pollster argued this week that Trump is “in his best polling ever era, even as media outlets are likely undercounting his voters — again”. On CNN, Harry Enten crunched the numbers too. “Let’s say we have a polling miss like we had in 2020. What happens then?” he asked on Tuesday. “Well, then Donald Trump wins the election in a blowout with 312 electoral votes.”
In his Wednesday column, Charles Blow of the New York Times lamented that FiveThirtyEight now gives Harris and Trump “close-to-even chances” of winning. “The campaign doesn’t need a post-joy strategy,” he wrote, “but it definitely needs an in-addition-to-joy strategy.” FiveThirtyEight‘s win probability chart mirrors RCP‘s battleground chart in that as Harris’s DNC bump has waned, Trump’s numbers have gone up, closing the gap significantly in just the last few weeks.
-
It sounds like the party's over for Kamala.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-kamala-harris-honeymoon-is-coming-to-an-end/
This is the race Democrats feared. Less than a month before the US election, Donald Trump is regaining the slight edge he held before Democrats convened in Chicago to nominate Kamala Harris. According to the RealClearPolitics polling average in battleground states, Trump trailed Harris from late August until late September. Now, though, he’s back on top at 48.4 to 48.1. His lead may be fractional — and Harris is up two points in the popular vote — but the numbers have Kellyanne Conway feeling good.
Alongside a picture of the RCP numbers, the pollster argued this week that Trump is “in his best polling ever era, even as media outlets are likely undercounting his voters — again”. On CNN, Harry Enten crunched the numbers too. “Let’s say we have a polling miss like we had in 2020. What happens then?” he asked on Tuesday. “Well, then Donald Trump wins the election in a blowout with 312 electoral votes.”
In his Wednesday column, Charles Blow of the New York Times lamented that FiveThirtyEight now gives Harris and Trump “close-to-even chances” of winning. “The campaign doesn’t need a post-joy strategy,” he wrote, “but it definitely needs an in-addition-to-joy strategy.” FiveThirtyEight‘s win probability chart mirrors RCP‘s battleground chart in that as Harris’s DNC bump has waned, Trump’s numbers have gone up, closing the gap significantly in just the last few weeks.
And? Do you have a point?
-
And? Do you have a point?
Yes
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1845452116090835138
-
And? Do you have a point?
Yes
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1845452116090835138
Clinton was up 10 points in 2016 and still lost. Your polls are meaningless.
-
It is correct that the people polled tend to vote differently than the people who vote. However, Trump is beating those prior trends.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/12/polls-trump-vs-harris-biden-clinton/75532448007/
(https://i.imgur.com/Hx75x3n.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Mt6DfKB.png)
-
Clinton was up 10 points in 2016 and still lost. Your polls are meaningless.
Keep in mind that Trump outperformed his polls in both 2016 and 2020. While it's possible that Harris can break the trend and outperform her polls, I don't think it's probable. As it stands right now, a neck-and-neck polling situation for Harris means Trump wins by about three points. Her campaign knows this is the case but her supporters seem to bury their heads in the sand.
-
Clinton was up 10 points in 2016 and still lost. Your polls are meaningless.
Keep in mind that Trump outperformed his polls in both 2016 and 2020. While it's possible that Harris can break the trend and outperform her polls, I don't think it's probable. As it stands right now, a neck-and-neck polling situation for Harris means Trump wins by about three points. Her campaign knows this is the case but her supporters seem to bury their heads in the sand.
But those polls are national polls and that could mean she loses the popular vote but wins the EC. It's not how many vote for you, it's only those who win in battleground states.
-
But those polls are national polls and that could mean she loses the popular vote but wins the EC. It's not how many vote for you, it's only those who win in battleground states.
Harris is currently losing in every swing state polling average except Wisconsin.
-
Of course there's no way to prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that Trump's standing in the polls improving isn't a case of Kamala losing popularity so much as it is Trump gaining popularity - or more precisely, regaining popularity that he's lost. This has happened before - Republicans make noise about abandoning Trump in the wake of a scandal or bad news, he loses support, and eventually the Republicans come crawling back to him. Clearly, Kamala's best chance of winning is to damage Trump close enough to the election that he won't recover his support in time. Less an October surprise than a very early November surprise.
-
genuine question(s) for trump voters -- why do you want to vote for trump? what is the thing about him that you believe will benefit you and/or the nation? or, if you like: why should i vote for trump, too?
these are not meant to be sarcastic questions at all, and i'm not gonna argue with your answers. just curious.
-
Weird, right?
no
-
There is a pretty simple explanation for why Kamala's popularity dropped after her recent media tour.
https://twitter.com/TiffanyFong_/status/1845927364594913744
-
https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-fox-news-interview-41d02466eddf3be38126008470335803
Apparently Trump didn't like that.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/15/trump-fox-news-harris-interview
Trump accuses Fox of being soft on Democrats and giving them more time than him. So apparently Fox is now left.
-
Daytime Fox has always been left-wing. Fox has an equal number of advocates on the left and right, which is what they interpret as being "fair and balanced".
-
genuine question(s) for trump voters -- why do you want to vote for trump? what is the thing about him that you believe will benefit you and/or the nation? or, if you like: why should i vote for trump, too?
these are not meant to be sarcastic questions at all, and i'm not gonna argue with your answers. just curious.
I like Trump because he is going to use his authority to jail his opponents.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4931778-donald-trump-national-guard-military-enemy-from-within/
Former President Trump in a Sunday interview suggested using the National Guard or the military on Election Day to combat what he described as potential chaos from “the enemy from within” — a group Trump said includes “radical left lunatics.”
In the interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” Trump dismissed President Biden’s concerns that Election Day wouldn’t be peaceful and said, when asked, that he thinks “the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroyed our country.”
“I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics.”
“And I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” he added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-democrats-enemies-within-rcna175628
'So evil' and 'dangerous': Trump doubles down on calling Democrats 'enemies from within' ... Trump doubled down on those comments during his Tuesday night town hall, also calling Democrats “evil” and “dangerous.”
“They’re Marxists and communists and fascists, and they’re sick,” Trump added. “We have China, we have Russia, we have all these countries. If you have a smart president, they can all be handled. The more difficult are, you know, the Pelosis, these people, they’re so sick and they’re so evil,” Trump said.
-
Harris has lost the average lead in every swing state. Each individual poll is still within the margin of error, so these numbers must still be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to wonder, though, how is this even possible? What has she been saying on the campaign trail to cause this?
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.6 -- This Day In History: October 18, 2020: Biden +8.9 | October 18, 2016: Clinton +7.1
Arizona: Trump +1.4
Nevada: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Trump +0.1
Michigan: Trump +0.9
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.5
North Carolina: Trump +1.0
Georgia: Trump +0.9
-
I'm sure it really is just Trump clawing back the support he might have lost through Kamala's first surge of popularity and their debate. There's nothing that Kamala has said or done lately that could reasonably be assumed to have cost her any significant support. No prominent gaffes or missteps, no outrageous or especially controversial remarks. It feels ridiculous even talking about whether or not Kamala has made any conventional gaffes when Trump's rhetoric and behavior are becoming increasingly more psychotic, threatening, and senile, but the fact is that she really hasn't made any.
-
could it be that people don't like her policy?
-
Harris has lost the average lead in every swing state. Each individual poll is still within the margin of error, so these numbers must still be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to wonder, though, how is this even possible? What has she been saying on the campaign trail to cause this?
People continue to remember when food and gas were much less expensive.
-
Harris has lost the average lead in every swing state. Each individual poll is still within the margin of error, so these numbers must still be taken with a grain of salt.
I have to wonder, though, how is this even possible? What has she been saying on the campaign trail to cause this?
People continue to remember when food and gas were much less expensive.
Yes, because we live in a communist state where the president controls food and gas prices directly. Not only that but its SOOOOO much cheaper everywhere else.
-
Yes, because we live in a communist state where the president controls food and gas prices directly. Not only that but its SOOOOO much cheaper everywhere else.
Which party was in control of monetary policy when the record inflation occurred?
-
could it be that people don't like her policy?
If that were the case, then I'd question why the Democratic ticket even had a surge in popularity at all when Kamala replaced Biden. Policy doesn't win presidential elections in this country. If it did, then this election wouldn't be as close as it is. Tighter gun control is consistently popular among Americans. So is support for LGBT rights, greater taxation of the wealthy, and abortion rights, all positions that Republicans firmly oppose and have indicated they're going to be pushing even further in the opposite direction once they have the power to do so. The last point, abortion, is especially galling when you remember that Trump is responsible for the extremely unpopular Dobbs decision that overturned Roe in a very direct, straightforward way. Trump put three people on the SC, all of whom joined the majority on Dobbs and made up half of it. It is because Trump was elected and put his nominees on the SC that Roe was overturned. Trump is responsible. That's not my opinion; it's what objectively happened. So Americans don't want what Republicans are offering - and yet they keep voting for them anyway.
-
could it be that people don't like her policy?
If that were the case, then I'd question why the Democratic ticket even had a surge in popularity at all when Kamala replaced Biden. Policy doesn't win presidential elections in this country. If it did, then this election wouldn't be as close as it is. Tighter gun control is consistently popular among Americans. So is support for LGBT rights, greater taxation of the wealthy, and abortion rights, all positions that Republicans firmly oppose and have indicated they're going to be pushing even further in the opposite direction once they have the power to do so. The last point, abortion, is especially galling when you remember that Trump is responsible for the extremely unpopular Dobbs decision that overturned Roe in a very direct, straightforward way. Trump put three people on the SC, all of whom joined the majority on Dobbs and made up half of it. It is because Trump was elected and put his nominees on the SC that Roe was overturned. Trump is responsible. That's not my opinion; it's what objectively happened. So Americans don't want what Republicans are offering - and yet they keep voting for them anyway.
ITT Sadaam continues to write things directly contrary to the actual truth and proudly wears the mask of Goebbels.
-
Yes, because we live in a communist state where the president controls food and gas prices directly. Not only that but its SOOOOO much cheaper everywhere else.
Which party was in control of monetary policy when the record inflation occurred?
Democrats. 1980
-
Tighter gun control is consistently popular among Americans.
Which Americans and what gun control? I find that while "gun control" is often positively polled, the numbers change drastically when you word precisely what is intended by "gun control". Take these gallup polls for example:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Should gun policy be more strict? Most Americans answer yes. Then, when asked if they want to ban assault rifles, assault weapons or handguns, the majority say no. In the case of handguns, a whopping +46% say no. Harris supports an assault weapon ban, which automatically puts her on the wrong side of the gun policy polls. Unsurprisingly, this has cost her support.
So is support for LGBT rights
What sort of rights do Democrats protect? What rights do Republicans plan to remove? As far as I understand it, the only strong difference these days is on the T. The majority of people in this Gallup poll answered that changing one's gender is "wrong".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Now, I'm not going to comment on whether it's wrong. What I am noting here is that the majority of people don't like the T in LGBT. Again, this is costing Harris support.
greater taxation of the wealthy
This is correct in a strict sense of "most people support this". However, Gallup notes the following:
"Negligible numbers of Americans mention income or wealth inequality as the most important problem facing the nation. Pew Research noted in reviewing a 2019 poll that few Americans see reducing economic inequality "as a top priority for the federal government to address." And Gallup research conducted in 2018 found the distribution of income and wealth dead last on a list of priorities for the president and Congress."
So, in effect, while people do agree with Democrats on this particular point, they don't care enough to change their vote over other positions.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/396737/average-american-remains-higher-taxes-rich.aspx
abortion rights
This depends entirely on what you mean by "abortion rights". Do the majority of Americans support some form of abortion? The answer is yes. Do the majority of Americans support the Democrat party's particular flavor of abortion? No.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Over a third of Americans want abortion to be illegal entirely. The vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be possible only under "certain circumstances". More specifically, the vast majority of Americans think abortion past the first trimester should be illegal. Right off the bat, the Democrats have to fight over only 70% of voters who want some form of pro-choice. Only 22% of those voters want abortion to be legal under all circumstances. It could very well be that the "pro-choice" voters interested in mild abortion access end up voting for Republicans because they consider no abortion access to be better than a free-for-all.
all positions that Republicans firmly oppose and have indicated they're going to be pushing even further in the opposite direction once they have the power to do so. The last point, abortion, is especially galling when you remember that Trump is responsible for the extremely unpopular Dobbs decision that overturned Roe in a very direct, straightforward way. Trump put three people on the SC, all of whom joined the majority on Dobbs and made up half of it. It is because Trump was elected and put his nominees on the SC that Roe was overturned. Trump is responsible. That's not my opinion; it's what objectively happened. So Americans don't want what Republicans are offering - and yet they keep voting for them anyway.
I think if you took some time to look at the numbers around these positions, you would see that this meme of "people are voting against their own interests" and "people don't vote on policy" simply isn't true. Harris is choosing unpopular policies and losing support for doing so. It's not rocket science.
-
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5137633/user-clip-employee-ties-trumps-apron-him
Trump works 15 minutes at a McDonalds for a publicity stunt. Doesn't even tie his own apron. Granted the lady asked if she could do it for him but it kinda shows alot how he wasn't willing to do it himself, just let someone else do it.
It does take practice, of course, which Trump has none of.
-
Which was, predictably, staged.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1g88apd/comment/lsy6upc/
Couldn't risk a sudden drive by shooting or someone tell him off at the drive thru. His ego is tok fragile for that.
-
Oh no, a campaign event? Staged? In my country? Say it isn't so! I can't believe anyone would vote for a candidate that stages campaign meetings!
Instead of staging things, candidates should just show up randomly to private businesses, with a whole secret service contingent and camera crew in tow. Cause a real ruckus and ruin their entire business day. That's the American spirit I want in my candidates. Not this staged nonsense.
-
Oh no, a campaign event? Staged? In my country? Say it isn't so! I can't believe anyone would vote for a candidate that stages campaign meetings!
Instead of staging things, candidates should just show up randomly to private businesses, with a whole secret service contingent and camera crew in tow. Cause a real ruckus and ruin their entire business day. That's the American spirit I want in my candidates. Not this staged nonsense.
It's the optics.
"I'm gonna show that I can work a normal, poor class job by acting like I am."
-
It's the optics.
"I'm gonna show that I can work a normal, poor class job by acting like I am."
Now you're telling me a presidential candidate is merely pretending to care about the working class? My god. This is unprecedented stuff. I can't believe how far America has fallen. We need to go back to the good ol' days where presidents were hard-working down-to-earth folks. I'm glad we have a candidate just like that in the race today and... oh no... we don't? Damn.
-
It's the optics.
"I'm gonna show that I can work a normal, poor class job by acting like I am."
Now you're telling me a presidential candidate is merely pretending to care about the working class? My god. This is unprecedented stuff. I can't believe how far America has fallen. We need to go back to the good ol' days where presidents were hard-working down-to-earth folks. I'm glad we have a candidate just like that in the race today and... oh no... we don't? Damn.
It's more the insult, I think.
I worked at McDonalds. I know what it's like. Then this guy comes in, plays pretend, all so he can seem like 'one of the low income guys' while insulting everyone who ever stood over a fryer in a McDonalds. Then, following it up with no policy on helping these low income people you're trying to court. Not even a token 'I'll make the minimum wage higher!"
-
It's more the insult, I think.
I worked at McDonalds. I know what it's like. Then this guy comes in, plays pretend, all so he can seem like 'one of the low income guys' while insulting everyone who ever stood over a fryer in a McDonalds. Then, following it up with no policy on helping these low income people you're trying to court. Not even a token 'I'll make the minimum wage higher!"
You're right. I can't imagine what kind of horrible candidate would keep talking about working at McDonald's and it turns out they really didn't. I'm glad there's only one candidate doing that. Otherwise, if, say, both of them did it, I would expect you to be upset about both candidates doing that. Haha, but that's not the case here, right?
-
It's more the insult, I think.
I worked at McDonalds. I know what it's like. Then this guy comes in, plays pretend, all so he can seem like 'one of the low income guys' while insulting everyone who ever stood over a fryer in a McDonalds. Then, following it up with no policy on helping these low income people you're trying to court. Not even a token 'I'll make the minimum wage higher!"
You're right. I can't imagine what kind of horrible candidate would keep talking about working at McDonald's and it turns out they really didn't. I'm glad there's only one candidate doing that. Otherwise, if, say, both of them did it, I would expect you to be upset about both candidates doing that. Haha, but that's not the case here, right?
I haven't seen any evidence Kamala didn't work at McDonalds. Has someone besides Trump not been able to find evidence?
Note: the corporate office doesn't count as they wouldn't know unless they owned the location, which isn't likely.
But yes, if evidence came out showing or wasn't able to be found despite it being findable, I'd be upset. I would call her an absolute lying bitch who should die in a fryer.
-
I haven't seen any evidence Kamala didn't work at McDonalds. Has someone besides Trump not been able to find evidence?
Note: the corporate office doesn't count as they wouldn't know unless they owned the location, which isn't likely.
But yes, if evidence came out showing or wasn't able to be found despite it being findable, I'd be upset. I would call her an absolute lying bitch who should die in a fryer.
I've been on the moon. Did you know that? Good luck finding evidence I haven't been on the moon. I suggest starting your search near one of the poles and working your way around one step at a time.
Sure, McDonald's says they have no employee records. Her resumes don't mention it. She herself has never mentioned it until a few months ago. She didn't even mention it in her 2020 campaign. But hell, she wouldn't lie, right? You really think someone would do that? Just go on the campaign trail and lie?
-
I haven't seen any evidence Kamala didn't work at McDonalds. Has someone besides Trump not been able to find evidence?
Note: the corporate office doesn't count as they wouldn't know unless they owned the location, which isn't likely.
But yes, if evidence came out showing or wasn't able to be found despite it being findable, I'd be upset. I would call her an absolute lying bitch who should die in a fryer.
I've been on the moon. Did you know that? Good luck finding evidence I haven't been on the moon. I suggest starting your search near one of the poles and working your way around one step at a time.
I mean, it's not hard. I just need to go through the orbital tracking NASA does and find any rockets then see if any of them are manned and if they went to the moon.
Or maybe you're one of the astronauts who went. I don't know.
For Kamala, should be easy.
"Which McDonalds did you work at? And from what years?"
Unless the restaurant has purged their records (possible) or closed (also possible) it should be findable.
Hell, she said it was to help college so check all the McDonalds near where she went to school. See if their HR records have her or go back to the most likely dates.
Proving a negative is easy if you know where the evidence should be.
Or check the IRS archives, which would have her W2 or workplace WD40 on file.
-
I mean, it's not hard. I just need to go through the orbital tracking NASA does and find any rockets then see if any of them are manned and if they went to the moon.
My rocket was stealth coated.
Or maybe you're one of the astronauts who went. I don't know.
I'm the only astronaut.
For Kamala, should be easy.
"Which McDonalds did you work at? And from what years?"
Unless the restaurant has purged their records (possible) or closed (also possible) it should be findable.
Hell, she said it was to help college so check all the McDonalds near where she went to school. See if their HR records have her or go back to the most likely dates.
Proving a negative is easy if you know where the evidence should be.
Gee, it's almost like she can't answer those questions and was being mocked by Trump for it. This is almost as bad as Biden making up stories about being attacked by knife-wielding gangsters at a public pool.
-
Her resumes don't mention it.
Do you typically list shitty summer jobs from decades ago on your resumes?
She herself has never mentioned it until a few months ago.
She has, though. Why would you lie about that?
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1139675952538095619
-
I just thought it was funny that she got in his head so much about working at McDonald's that he staged this in the first place. ;D
-
Do you typically list shitty summer jobs from decades ago on your resumes?
I wouldn't know, I don't perform menial labor jobs.
She has, though. Why would you lie about that?
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1139675952538095619
I see, so the lies go back even further than I thought. Thank you for pointing that out.
-
I wouldn't know, I don't perform menial labor jobs.
Then let me clarify: listing it would be highly unusual, and would make you come across as Weird.
-
I mean, it's not hard. I just need to go through the orbital tracking NASA does and find any rockets then see if any of them are manned and if they went to the moon.
My rocket was stealth coated.
NASA detectors are able to identify orbital dust being pushed aside. Plus propulsion required to get into lunar orbit.
Or maybe you're one of the astronauts who went. I don't know.
I'm the only astronaut.
Was it back in 1970?
For Kamala, should be easy.
"Which McDonalds did you work at? And from what years?"
Unless the restaurant has purged their records (possible) or closed (also possible) it should be findable.
Hell, she said it was to help college so check all the McDonalds near where she went to school. See if their HR records have her or go back to the most likely dates.
Proving a negative is easy if you know where the evidence should be.
Gee, it's almost like she can't answer those questions and was being mocked by Trump for it. This is almost as bad as Biden making up stories about being attacked by knife-wielding gangsters at a public pool.
Has she ever been asked?
Apparently so and the campaign identified the restaurant.
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-work-mcdonalds-donald-trump-election-2024-1950020
Harris has recalled working at a McDonald's that her campaign has identified as the location on Central Avenue in Alameda, California, 41 years ago, in the summer of 1983 when she would have been a rising sophomore at Howard University.
"we and our franchisees don't have records for all positions dating back to the early '80s."
So the place was given and the corporate office has answered that the records aren't kept that long.
And now we have
A friend of Harris, Wanda Kagan, told the New York Times that she recalled Harris having worked at McDonald's around that time. That recollection was based on what Harris' mother, who died in 2009, told her years ago, the Times reported.
Her working at McDonalds is plausible, given how many teens and college students seek fast food as a first job or college job.
So the question then becomes... Why should we not believe her? It's not unusual or odd or improbable. So why is it suddenly an unbelievable story? Do you not believe me if I say I worked at McDonalds?
-
I wouldn't know, I don't perform menial labor jobs.
Then let me clarify: listing it would be highly unusual, and would make you come across as Weird.
Ah yes, of course, listing your summer job on a resume would be Weird. Telling a crowd of people about it at a political rally is not Weird. How egregious of me to confuse the two...
NASA detectors are able to identify orbital dust being pushed aside. Plus propulsion required to get into lunar orbit.
Not even NASA claims that, regardless, anything they do or don't claim is irrelevant, since space travel is fake.
Was it back in 1970?
I've been going to space since 1869.
Her working at McDonalds is plausible, given how many teens and college students seek fast food as a first job or college job.
So the question then becomes... Why should we not believe her? It's not unusual or odd or improbable. So why is it suddenly an unbelievable story? Do you not believe me if I say I worked at McDonalds?
Why is it implausible that Trump worked at McDonald's? You can't answer that question without applying it to Harris.
-
Was it back in 1970?
I've been going to space since 1869.
Her working at McDonalds is plausible, given how many teens and college students seek fast food as a first job or college job.
So the question then becomes... Why should we not believe her? It's not unusual or odd or improbable. So why is it suddenly an unbelievable story? Do you not believe me if I say I worked at McDonalds?
Why is it implausible that Trump worked at McDonald's? You can't answer that question without applying it to Harris.
How so?
Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father was extremely wealthy and he grew up in wealth. So much so that his father could buy Trump a degree. When has anyone born of such wealth worked a minimum wage job?
Might have even been a security risk to do so as his father's wealth would have made him a target for kidnapping and ransom.
To my knowledge, Kamala was not nearly as wealthy growing up. I'll not claim to be an expert, but I do not believe her parents were wealthy enough to buy her a degree. My understanding is that they were upper middle class. Possibly. I don't know what Stanford's salary scale was in the 80s. Nor Berkeley's
-
Ah yes, of course, listing your summer job on a resume would be Weird.
It would be weird to do so 40 years after the fact. How is it relevant to anything she would be applying for now?
I didn't have summer jobs but I don't put school qualifications on my CV as they're not relevant.
Telling a crowd of people about it at a political rally is not Weird.
Correct. It isn't weird when a candidate is trying to connect with "working people"
She hasn't provided any evidence that she did work there - I'm not sure how she would be able to do that now, who keeps records of stuff like that from 40 years ago just in case they ever have to produce them in the context of a public scrutiny that couldn't possibly have been anticipated. McDonalds have said they wouldn't necessarily have records from that long ago either.
She has made a claim without evidencing it, Trump has said it isn't true also without providing evidence. To be fair, proving a negative is difficult but I guess if there were people who knew her back then they might be able to confirm or deny the claim. But it isn't a fantastical claim. Very few people have been to the moon (it's 12 by the way, not 0 - I mean who have actually landed). Lots of kids going through college have summer jobs and McDonalds is quite a common one for that demographic.
But...honestly, who cares? Does this inform anyone's decision about who to vote for? I mean, I guess if she is lying it speaks to her credibility but given how frequently Trump lies that isn't something to differentiate the candidates. Talk about a nothing burger, pun intended.
-
Nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
-
How so?
Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father was extremely wealthy and he grew up in wealth. So much so that his father could buy Trump a degree. When has anyone born of such wealth worked a minimum wage job?
Might have even been a security risk to do so as his father's wealth would have made him a target for kidnapping and ransom.
To my knowledge, Kamala was not nearly as wealthy growing up. I'll not claim to be an expert, but I do not believe her parents were wealthy enough to buy her a degree. My understanding is that they were upper middle class. Possibly. I don't know what Stanford's salary scale was in the 80s. Nor Berkeley's
Ah yes, Stanford and Berkeley. Well known for being universities for the poor and downtrodden. I'm sure the professors there routinely made peanuts in compensation.
It would be weird to do so 40 years after the fact. How is it relevant to anything she would be applying for now?
The resume we're talking about is from the first job she ever applied for. It's a 40 year old resume. I'm not talking about her putting a McDonald's job on her resume for district attorney.
Correct. It isn't weird when a candidate is trying to connect with "working people"
Pretty comical to be doing that while wearing outfits that cost more than the median salary in American, isn't it? One might even say it's Weird.
But...honestly, who cares?
I don't, but Dave does, which is what started the conversation in the first place. It's a forum, my man, it's not that hard to go back and look at the words everyone else wrote before you chimed in.
-
The resume we're talking about is from the first job she ever applied for. It's a 40 year old resume.
Fair enough
Pretty comical to be doing that while wearing outfits that cost more than the median salary in American, isn't it? One might even say it's Weird.
Not that weird in the context of election campaigns - I mean, they're inherently weird anyway.
It's a forum, my man, it's not that hard to go back and look at the words everyone else wrote before you chimed in.
I did do that.
I just don't know why this has become a "thing" - I don't mean on here, it seems to be a news story. I don't know why it matters.
-
Nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
Trump does. So much so he made a whole PR stunt about it. Probably cost alot of money and time.
-
How so?
Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His father was extremely wealthy and he grew up in wealth. So much so that his father could buy Trump a degree. When has anyone born of such wealth worked a minimum wage job?
Might have even been a security risk to do so as his father's wealth would have made him a target for kidnapping and ransom.
To my knowledge, Kamala was not nearly as wealthy growing up. I'll not claim to be an expert, but I do not believe her parents were wealthy enough to buy her a degree. My understanding is that they were upper middle class. Possibly. I don't know what Stanford's salary scale was in the 80s. Nor Berkeley's
Ah yes, Stanford and Berkeley. Well known for being universities for the poor and downtrodden. I'm sure the professors there routinely made peanuts in compensation.
I mean, yeah. Fred Trump made hundreds of Millions. They made 10s of thousands. Probably. But yes, they were well off, but not Trump rich.
-
Nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
Trump does. So much so he made a whole PR stunt about it. Probably cost alot of money and time.
He spent his own money?
Again, nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
-
Nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
Trump does. So much so he made a whole PR stunt about it. Probably cost alot of money and time.
He spent his own money?
Again, noboday gives a fuck about McDonalds.
How did you get that?
Of course he spent campaign money.
-
Nobody gives a fuck about McDonalds.
Trump does. So much so he made a whole PR stunt about it. Probably cost alot of money and time.
He spent his own money?
Probably not if we're being honest. Doubtless it was his zombie supporters who are too dumb to see the logical disconnect between believing their orange leader is a multibillionaire and throwing their social security checks at him who footed the bill for this. And given Trump's record as a hopeless cheat there's plenty of reason to doubt anybody got paid anyway.
But I think Dave's point about the time and effort still stands. He just can't get over the McDonald's thing, CLEARLY it matters to him, and it's absolutely hilarious.
-
Trump's McDonalds visit was a brilliant campaign strategy. To the average person the chronic Trump-complainers sound like idiots for complaining about this.
The event produced iconic Americana-reminiscent imagery which has resonated nationally and internationally as advertisements for Trump, McDonalds and America itself.
-
Trump's McDonalds visit was a brilliant campaign strategy. To the average person the chronic Trump-complainers sound like idiots for complaining about this.
The event produced iconic Americana-reminiscent imagery which has resonated nationally and internationally as advertisements for Trump, McDonalds and America itself.
Excellent job digging your nose deep up Trump's asshole as usual, Tom.
-
Trump's McDonalds visit was a brilliant campaign strategy. To the average person the chronic Trump-complainers sound like idiots for complaining about this.
The event produced iconic Americana-reminiscent imagery which has resonated nationally and internationally as advertisements for Trump, McDonalds and America itself.
Spoken like someone whose never worked in fast food.
Also, why is Trump's Promotion of "poison" and exploited farmers a good thing?
-
The resume we're talking about is from the first job she ever applied for. It's a 40 year old resume. I'm not talking about her putting a McDonald's job on her resume for district attorney.
We're talking about an application for a law clerk position at the district attorney's office. (Or, well, the Trump campaign is - if you're referring to a different resume, please share it.) It would be extremely Weird to list Maccies on there.
-
The event produced iconic Americana-reminiscent imagery which has resonated nationally and internationally as advertisements for Trump, McDonalds and America itself.
Or, to put it another way, it didn't/
-
I just don't know why this has become a "thing" - I don't mean on here, it seems to be a news story. I don't know why it matters.
It matters in the sense that Dave thinks it matters. I couldn't personally care either way.
Trump does. So much so he made a whole PR stunt about it. Probably cost alot of money and time.
Trump thinks it's funny and it is. There are zero people that watched the Trump McDonald's skit and thought to themselves "wow, he's a lower class worker, just like me".
The resume we're talking about is from the first job she ever applied for. It's a 40 year old resume. I'm not talking about her putting a McDonald's job on her resume for district attorney.
We're talking about an application for a law clerk position at the district attorney's office. (Or, well, the Trump campaign is - if you're referring to a different resume, please share it.) It would be extremely Weird to list Maccies on there.
This is all a very interesting way to boil down an argument to "actually I'm just going to take her word for it". Sure, you can do that. You still have no evidence to back it up and we're back to square one. You believe her, that's nice, I don't and you have yet to provide a compelling reason to shift my view.
-
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.6 -- This Day In History: October 18, 2020: Biden +8.9 | October 18, 2016: Clinton +7.1
Arizona: Trump +1.4
Nevada: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Trump +0.1
Michigan: Trump +0.9
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.5
North Carolina: Trump +1.0
Georgia: Trump +0.9
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.1 -- This Day In History: October 23, 2020: Biden +8.0 | October 23, 2016: Clinton +5.9
Arizona: Trump +1.8
Nevada: Trump +0.9
Wisconsin: Trump +0.4
Michigan: Trump +1.2
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.8
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.5
-
I don't
Why not?
-
I don't
Why not?
Why should I?
-
I don't
Why not?
Why should I?
Because it's a plausible enough claim. On what basis would you doubt it?
If she was claiming to have walked on the moon then I'd want to see some pretty good evidence of that.
Claiming she had a job in McDonalds when she was at college - it's such a common thing for students to do I don't know why this is even a talking point.
And I will concede some skill on Trump's part in making it one.
-
Because it's a plausible enough claim.
Nice opinion.
On what basis would you doubt it?
On what basis should I believe it?
If she was claiming to have walked on the moon then I'd want to see some pretty good evidence of that.
Claiming she had a job in McDonalds when she was at college - it's such a common thing for students to do I don't know why this is even a talking point.
And I will concede some skill on Trump's part in making it one.
I'm not the one making this a talking point or dragging the conversation about it out. To put it another way, all I did was state I don't believe her. Why do you have such a problem with that?
-
To put it another way, all I did was state I don't believe her. Why do you have such a problem with that?
I'm just interested in how you arrive at decisions about what to believe or disbelieve.
Do you disbelieve her because you believe there's good evidence she's lying? Or is it that you just think she's a liar and inherently disbelieve anything she says?
For me if pretty much anyone told me they'd worked at McDonalds during college it just wouldn't occur to me they're lying. Why would they? It's just such a stupid and pointless lie.
-
To put it another way, all I did was state I don't believe her. Why do you have such a problem with that?
I'm just interested in how you arrive at decisions about what to believe or disbelieve.
Do you disbelieve her because you believe there's good evidence she's lying? Or is it that you just think she's a liar and inherently disbelieve anything she says?
For me if pretty much anyone told me they'd worked at McDonalds during college it just wouldn't occur to me they're lying. Why would they? It's just such a stupid and pointless lie.
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.
-
despite having never worked there.
Nice opinion.
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.
Um, imagine falling for the propaganda so hard that you reject without reason just the notion that Kamala Harris might have ever worked a minimum wage job in her life?
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Where do you see an assertion in my post?
despite having never worked there.
Nice opinion.
This is the natural result of one side having no evidence other than "dude trust me". There's nothing beyond "dude just take Harris' word for it stop questioning our leaders" and so we're stuck at "nice opinion".
reject without reason
All we expect is some simple evidence. You consistently have this problem, Roundy. You have some nonsensical belief, and then someone says "can you prove it?" and all you can do is summon up some hollow "my faith is all I need" explanation.
-
This is the natural result of one side having no evidence other than "dude trust me".
Neither side has any evidence.
Harris has asserted without evidence she worked there. Trump has asserted without evidence that she didn't.
And before you go all "HoW cAn He PrOve A NeGaTiVe", if someone who knew her at the time was calling bullshit on her claim, or McDonalds themselves were, then that would be evidence she's lying.
I don't know what evidence you'd expect her to have. Who keeps evidence of a temporary job from 40 years ago? Even McDonalds themselves are saying they don't keep records going back that far. Again, the level of evidence required depends on the claim. Someone saying they did a temp job at college - why does it take some massive leap of faith to believe that? A fairly senior colleague was talking about her CV - giving me some advice on mine - and she said she was told to only put relevant things on it. She said to me "that's why I don't include my year working as a florist". I didn't scream at her "PROVE IT!!!". It's not some outlandish claim.
If you think it is a "nonsensical belief" to find it plausible that Harris had a job in colleague then why do you think that?
-
Neither side has any evidence.
Harris has asserted without evidence she worked there. Trump has asserted without evidence that she didn't.
Only Harris is making an assertion. Trump doesn't need to provide evidence that a claim is false. Harris needs to provide evidence that it is true. That you believe otherwise is a fundamental flaw in modern critical thinking skills and says quite a lot about your country's education system.
And before you go all "HoW cAn He PrOve A NeGaTiVe", if someone who knew her at the time was calling bullshit on her claim, or McDonalds themselves were, then that would be evidence she's lying.
Again, we don't need evidence she is lying. What someone says, without evidence, is not true in and of itself. By default, if she cannot support her claim, then she is either lying or honestly mistaken.
I don't know what evidence you'd expect her to have. Who keeps evidence of a temporary job from 40 years ago? Even McDonalds themselves are saying they don't keep records going back that far. Again, the level of evidence required depends on the claim. Someone saying they did a temp job at college - why does it take some massive leap of faith to believe that? A fairly senior colleague was talking about her CV - giving me some advice on mine - and she said she was told to only put relevant things on it. She said to me "that's why I don't include my year working as a florist". I didn't scream at her "PROVE IT!!!". It's not some outlandish claim.
If you think it is a "nonsensical belief" to find it plausible that Harris had a job in colleague then why do you think that?
Why do you think it's true? Just because she said it? I find that comical.
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.
Um, imagine falling for the propaganda so hard that you reject without reason just the notion that Kamala Harris might have ever worked a minimum wage job in her life?
I see what you did here. You said exactly what I said but you stapled an Uno reverse card to it. How did you come up with this novel rhetorical tactic? It’s so simple a child could use it. Like, a very small child.
-
Only Harris is making an assertion.
Incorrect.
Harris is asserting that she had a job in college.
Trump is asserting that Harris is lying.
Trump doesn't need to provide evidence that a claim is false.
He is claiming Harris is lying. I have given a couple of ways he could evidence that. He repeatedly shows he doesn't care about evidencing claims, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for him to do so.
Harris needs to provide evidence that it is true.
That may not be possible. I have explained why. Again, her claim is not an outlandish one in the same way that "I walked on the moon" is.
Many kids get jobs in college, not many people walk on the moon.
What someone says, without evidence, is not true in and of itself.
Correct.
By default, if she cannot support her claim, then she is either lyineg or honestly mistaken.
Incorrect. I went on holiday to Majorca when I was 14. I don't believe I have any photos of that, I'm sure some were taken at the time but imagine they've long since been lost. So I cannot support that claim. That doesn't mean I'm lying or mistaken. I'd suggest that your experience of the world - that people do often go on holidays - and your knowledge of me - that I'm in the UK and therefore Majorca is relatively close to me and a common holiday destination for Brits - should be factors in how credible you find my claim.
Why do you think it's true? Just because she said it? I find that comical.
Well, no. Not just because she said it. As I said, if she said she'd walked on the moon then I'd not believe her until she supplied some good evidence. I believe her because she said it AND because I don't see why she'd lie about it AND because no-one who knows her has called her out on it being a lie AND because it's a plausible claim - again, kids having a menial job while at college is very common. So it's a combination of things.
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.
Um, imagine falling for the propaganda so hard that you reject without reason just the notion that Kamala Harris might have ever worked a minimum wage job in her life?
I see what you did here. You said exactly what I said but you stapled an Uno reverse card to it. How did you come up with this novel rhetorical tactic? It’s so simple a child could use it. Like, a very small child.
I know, I got moves.
-
This is all a very interesting way to boil down an argument to "actually I'm just going to take her word for it".
Not in the slightest. You said it was an issue that she didn't list a shitty summer job on a resume 4 years after she supposedly finished the job. That's a silly take which deserves ridicule, and thus earns you ridicule.
Pointing this out does not in any way imply that I think Kamala worked at McDonald's. I don't know if she did, nor do I feel any desire to form an opinion on the matter. If anything, it's Weird that you do.
-
Harris is asserting that she had a job in college.
Trump is asserting that Harris is lying.
This might be acceptable logic in bongo bongo land, but I live in a first world nation. We have standards of logic that extend beyond faith-based arguments. "This person said it, so it must be true, you can't say otherwise unless you prove them wrong" is not a quality argument here in America. You'll have to do better.
Well, no. Not just because she said it. As I said, if she said she'd walked on the moon then I'd not believe her until she supplied some good evidence. I believe her because she said it AND because I don't see why she'd lie about it AND because no-one who knows her has called her out on it being a lie AND because it's a plausible claim - again, kids having a menial job while at college is very common. So it's a combination of things.
What's the difference between a claim that you've walked on the moon versus worked on McDonald's aside from your personal belief regarding them? This is simply an argument of "I believe her, therefore she's correct".
Not in the slightest. You said it was an issue that she didn't list a shitty summer job on a resume 4 years after she supposedly finished the job. That's a silly take which deserves ridicule, and thus earns you ridicule.
And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day. Curious.
Pointing this out does not in any way imply that I think Kamala worked at McDonald's. I don't know if she did, nor do I feel any desire to form an opinion on the matter. If anything, it's Weird that you do.
Nice opinion.
-
And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day.
Why are you so determined to lie about my takes? I thought your core point here was that lying is bad.
-
And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day. Curious.
Why are you so determined to lie about my takes? I thought your core point here was that lying is bad.
I just got done saying that Harris isn't necessarily lying. Perhaps you need to take a breather and read the thread before posting.
-
Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.
How did you come by this assertion?
Where do you see an assertion in my post?
despite having never worked there.
That part. Its pretty clear you consider her lying. A claim without evidence is not a lie, its simply unproven. Perhaps unprovable.
Of course, according to one of her freinds, she did.
From the article I liked on page 15
A friend of Harris, Wanda Kagan, told the New York Times that she recalled Harris having worked at McDonald's around that time. That recollection was based on what Harris' mother, who died in 2009, told her years ago, the Times reported.
Its not great evidence, but its still evidence. More than Trump has that she didn't.
-
I live in a first world nation. We have standards of logic
You’ll have to tell your president elect that.
He wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him round the chops.
"This person said it, so it must be true, you can't say otherwise unless you prove them wrong" is not a quality argument here in America.
Lucky that’s not the argument I’m making then.
What's the difference between a claim that you've walked on the moon versus worked on McDonald's
I have explained this, but once again for the cheap seats. The main difference is how credible the claim is. Which is obviously subjective. But I think most people would agree that a person claiming they had a summer job at college is a more credible claim than a person claiming they’d been to the moon.
Which doesn’t mean Harris is telling the truth here. I’m inclined to believe her as it seems like a silly lie. I just find it weird if you go through life demanding people prove claims no matter how plausible they are. Assuming you work, if you ask a colleague on a Monday what at the weekend and they say they went to the movies do you demand they prove it? I don’t because I’m not a loony. If they told me they’d gone to the moon for the weekend then I think I’d want to see some evidence.
-
That part. Its pretty clear you consider her lying.
As I just told Pete, I've never claimed she is lying. Whether she worked at McDonald's doesn't necessitate a lie.
Its not great evidence, but its still evidence. More than Trump has that she didn't.
For some definition of "evidence".
You’ll have to tell your president elect that.
He wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him round the chops.
My president elect? He? It seems your long line of assumptions never end.
I have explained this, but once again for the cheap seats. The main difference is how credible the claim is. Which is obviously subjective. But I think most people would agree that a person claiming they had a summer job at college is a more credible claim than a person claiming they’d been to the moon.
How credible the claim is for you?
Which doesn’t mean Harris is telling the truth here. I’m inclined to believe her as it seems like a silly lie. I just find it weird if you go through life demanding people prove claims no matter how plausible they are. Assuming you work, if you ask a colleague on a Monday what at the weekend and they say they went to the movies do you demand they prove it? I don’t because I’m not a loony. If they told me they’d gone to the moon for the weekend then I think I’d want to see some evidence.
I don't see how your interactions with the people around you are directly relevant to a political candidate. Are you routinely having conversations with Harris? No? Then I don't see why you would bring up such a silly analogy.
-
Why should I trust Kamala when I can trust McDonald's?
https://www.offthepress.com/mcdonalds-says-it-has-no-record-of-kamala-working-there/
(https://i.imgur.com/EDbZTh1.png)
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4942757-donald-trump-mcdonalds-pennsylvania/
(https://i.imgur.com/xmwEp2D.png)
-
Do you really expect a fast food franchise with a high employee turnover rate to keep employee records from 40 years ago?
-
The manager has been working there for forty years? I seriously doubt that, and even if it were true, how could they be reasonably expected to remember one of the undoubtedly hundreds of employees they've had over the years?
-
Do you really expect a fast food franchise with a high employee turnover rate to keep employee records from 40 years ago?
The IRS will have records assuming Kamala paid taxes. But, I’ll bet you a shiny nickel that the current administration won’t have the IRS verify these claims. Spoilers: it’s because they don’t exist.
-
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
-
I just got done saying that Harris isn't necessarily lying.
That has nothing to do with you lying about my takes, specifically. How sad!
I'll throw you a bone: it sounds like you didn't read the thread very thoroughly and started mixing me up with AATW. There, now you have an easy way out!
Why should I trust Kamala when I can trust McDonald's?
Because that would require you to distrust Trump, which would clash with your established character.
After all, McDonald's made no statement along the lines Trump is claiming (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/09/09/mcdonalds-statement-harris-job-fact-check/75105207007/), and they released an internal memo which tacitly accepts Harris's claims (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/21/trump-harris-worked-at-mcdonalds/).
So, that's why you can't trust McDonald's. They didn't say the right things, and they did say the wrong things.
-
My president elect? He? It seems your long line of assumptions never end.
It's a prediction more than an assumption. I briefly had hope that Harris would beat Trump but that is fading somewhat, I now believe Trump will win. I could be wrong and hope I am. Not that I think Harris is a great candidate but as with politics over here it's usually about choosing the least bad option.
How credible the claim is for you?
Do you know what subjective means? But I would suggest that pretty much everyone would regard someone's claim that they had a summer job at college more credible than a claim that they'd walked on the moon.
I don't see how your interactions with the people around you are directly relevant to a political candidate. Are you routinely having conversations with Harris? No? Then I don't see why you would bring up such a silly analogy.
OK. So your scepticism arises from the fact she's a political candidate and your belief that they routinely lie for political gain.
In which case fair enough I guess.
But I don't think her inability to evidence it or McDonald's inability to confirm it or her failure to mention it on her CV when applying for a job which was nothing to do with it are evidence either way. So we are both working on gut feeling and our personal level of credulity.
-
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.
“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”
It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.
-
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.
“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”
It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.
Why did you mash two sides of the argument?
-
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
Of course, honk. We're now on a tangent of "there's no evidence, and even if there were, we shouldn't waste time asking for it". What's next up on the slippery slope to "I believe it because I just do, okay?"
That has nothing to do with you lying about my takes, specifically. How sad!
I'll throw you a bone: it sounds like you didn't read the thread very thoroughly and started mixing me up with AATW. There, now you have an easy way out!
Giving up on your attempt this easily, eh? I'm glad you at least read the thread and veered off into a different point, but you could at least come up with something more interesting to discuss. I expect better from you.
It's a prediction more than an assumption. I briefly had hope that Harris would beat Trump but that is fading somewhat, I now believe Trump will win. I could be wrong and hope I am. Not that I think Harris is a great candidate but as with politics over here it's usually about choosing the least bad option.
Harris will win unless the Democrats forgot to set the voter machines to "Harris_Votes = Trump_Votes + 1000" this time
Do you know what subjective means? But I would suggest that pretty much everyone would regard someone's claim that they had a summer job at college more credible than a claim that they'd walked on the moon.
I think the chances of people walking on the moon and Harris working at McDonald's are about the same. Now, I don't know who these other people are, but I would prefer you stop trying to drag them into the thread. They obviously aren't posting here.
OK. So your scepticism arises from the fact she's a political candidate and your belief that they routinely lie for political gain.
In which case fair enough I guess.
But I don't think her inability to evidence it or McDonald's inability to confirm it or her failure to mention it on her CV when applying for a job which was nothing to do with it are evidence either way. So we are both working on gut feeling and our personal level of credulity.
As I said before, her lying is not required.
-
Why did you mash two sides of the argument?
You know, I thought about this before I hit post but I thought to myself, “nah, surely they won’t misconstrue what I’m saying and see it for what it is; a critique of the argument.”
The fault is mine, I expected too much. My bee.
-
Since everyone is interested in evidence, I think it'd be quite easy for Harris to provide some. I'd prefer a video of Harris walking me through each step of operating the kitchen tools at McDonald's. Preferably, this would be every machine, but I think just the fryer and grill would be enough.
It's also optional, but encouraged, that Harris herself provide me with a quarter-pounder w/ cheese meal (supersized) for my consumption. That way, not only does she prove that she worked there, but she can also prove to me what her skill level was while doing so. If the meal pleases me, I would consider voting for Harris.
-
Since everyone is interested in evidence...
I mean, I'm not interested in evidence that Harris worked a menial job 40 years ago, and like Action80 said I doubt many people are, because who cares? It doesn't seem to matter to anyone except Trump and his brainwashed followers, who of course care because they let Trump do their thinking for them. Other than that, and maybe the occasional pedantic internet troll here and there, truly, nobody gives a shit.
-
I mean, I'm not interested in evidence that Harris worked a menial job 40 years ago, and like Action80 said I doubt many people are, because who cares? It doesn't seem to matter to anyone except Trump and his brainwashed followers, who of course care because they let Trump do their thinking for them. Other than that, and maybe the occasional pedantic internet troll here and there, truly, nobody gives a shit.
Of course, Roundy, we've already established that you don't need evidence to believe things. I think that's the running theme in any topic you discuss. It would be more acceptable in a religious context, but here in the land of facts it's not quite as desirable. And, while there seems to be an awful lot of "who cares lol" posts, in actuality quite a few of you care. If you did not care, then my "Harris obviously didn't work at McDonald's" posts would go just as unanswered as my "Harris' policies are unpopular" post did. I think it's quite clear which issues you care about and which ones you don't, but that's not as clear to you as it is to me.
The fact of the matter is that all of you seem to care far too much about whether Harris worked at McDonald's (she didn't). The mere suggestion that she didn't added several pages to this thread. Now, you can accept that she didn't, because she didn't, -OR- we can continue this circus, where I ask for evidence that she worked there and you get upset by the cognitive dissonance of you believing she did despite not having any proof of it.
-
No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
-
No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
If everyone chimed in to talk about how much they didn't care about a topic in every thread, then all threads would constantly be filled with nonsensical posts of people informing everyone how very much they do not care. I think you can see why this would get out of hand rapidly.
As I already pointed out, this thread is filled with posts that no one cared about and did not respond to (because they do not care!) However, they immensely care about Harris' work history. Lots of regulars came to the thread, only to insist that they do not care in the slightest... while making long posts about how the evidence could exist but doesn't matter. It really makes me think.
-
It's a tiny, insignificant speck of an issue, because nobody had any reason to make it an issue in the first place. Republicans are arguing that nobody cares about January 6 anymore because issues, meanwhile we have McDonaldsgate, gtfo with this bullshit ::)
-
It's a tiny, insignificant speck of an issue, because nobody had any reason to make it an issue in the first place. Republicans are arguing that nobody cares about January 6 anymore because issues, meanwhile we have McDonaldsgate, gtfo with this bullshit ::)
No is forcing you to talk about Harris and her lack of McDonald's work experience. All I did was cast doubt on the subject, as Trump himself and many others in his campaign have. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. Making incessant posts to the tune of "I Do Not Care About This Ha Ha Ha" does not add anything to the thread. You can talk about whatever election-related topic you like. You can ignore the McDonald's posts. You're an adult. Stop whining.
-
Since everyone is interested in evidence...
I mean, I'm not interested in evidence that Harris worked a menial job 40 years ago…
I like to know as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. If someone makes a claim, I — and people who care about truth — would like them to be able to back their assertions up with evidence.
For example, if someone said in a job interview that they had certain skills or went to school, I think it’s reasonable to be able to back that up with facts. Harris is interviewing for a job right now and some of us would like to know if what she is saying is true.
If you don’t care if what she says is true, or if knowingly knowing false things is not a problem for you then I have no beef with that. You do you my man. But don’t come around here asserting that your Roundy-tinted life view should apply to anyone else.
We care about facts and truth. Sometimes that means verifying a person’s claims.
-
If someone makes a claim, I — and people who care about truth — would like them to be able to back their assertions up with evidence.
I agree with the principle of that, I just don't know how you'd expect that to be possible in this instance.
Kamela Harris is 60. I wouldn't really expect her to have kept any records from a temporary job she claims to have had 40 years ago. The organisation she claims to have worked for have said they don't keep any records going back that far.
So all we're left with is how credible you believe her to be and how credible you believe that claim to be.
Unless someone who knew her from that time comes forward to confirm or deny her claim - in which case if it's the former the people determined to disbelieve her will say they're lying anyway.
-
Unless someone who knew her from that time comes forward to confirm or deny her claim - in which case if it's the former the people determined to disbelieve her will say they're lying anyway.
They did. But its been largely ignored.
-
It's a tiny, insignificant speck of an issue, because nobody had any reason to make it an issue in the first place. Republicans are arguing that nobody cares about January 6 anymore because issues, meanwhile we have McDonaldsgate, gtfo with this bullshit ::)
No is forcing you to talk about Harris and her lack of McDonald's work experience. All I did was cast doubt on the subject, as Trump himself and many others in his campaign have. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. Making incessant posts to the tune of "I Do Not Care About This Ha Ha Ha" does not add anything to the thread. You can talk about whatever election-related topic you like. You can ignore the McDonald's posts. You're an adult. Stop whining.
Excuse me? That this is a ludicrously silly thing to argue about is an opinion, and I have the right to express it. The only one whining here is you because I expressed an opinion you don't seem to like. So sorry.
-
Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.
Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.
“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”
It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.
What are you even talking about? I explained that there were several reasons that the IRS can't "verify" whether or not Kamala worked at McDonald's, and also correctly pointed out that even if they could offer any evidence, Trump supporters would immediately label it fake. The main idea behind the narcissist's prayer is that the various excuses offered are contradictory, and therefore indicate the speaker's insincerity. In this case, however, the "excuses," as you call them, are all true and all apply at the same time.
No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
If everyone chimed in to talk about how much they didn't care about a topic in every thread, then all threads would constantly be filled with nonsensical posts of people informing everyone how very much they do not care. I think you can see why this would get out of hand rapidly.
As I already pointed out, this thread is filled with posts that no one cared about and did not respond to (because they do not care!) However, they immensely care about Harris' work history. Lots of regulars came to the thread, only to insist that they do not care in the slightest... while making long posts about how the evidence could exist but doesn't matter. It really makes me think.
But that's not what anyone is saying. It's not caring about whether or not Kamala worked at McDonald's, it's caring about the fact that people are trying to turn this into a big controversy and demanding that Kamala somehow "prove" what any normal person would accept at face value. You say that you don't believe anything without first seeing evidence of it, but that's simply not true. Every single person who lives in a society accepts without question plausible things they're told on a daily basis without demanding evidence of it first. If someone told you they went to Vegas last week on vacation, you'd believe them. If someone told you that they were having a bad day, you'd believe them. And when Kamala says that as a college student, she worked at McDonald's, normal people believe her, because it's entirely plausible and not the kind of thing that anyone could reasonably be expected to make up. Again, what if Trump wears pink underwear? You can care deeply about the fact that people are trying to make a big deal about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear without caring about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
Thank you for reminding me about responding to you about the popularity of Democratic and Republican positions. I was distracted by this nonsensical controversy.
-
Giving up on your attempt this easily, eh?
Not at all - you're welcome to address my points whenever you're ready. Just, y'know, things I actually said and not things I didn't. If you need a recap, just shout.
So far, 3 out of your 3 reasons to distrust Harris have turned out to either be incongruent with reality, or to require Harris to be Weird. You seem to really want to make that mean that we should trust Harris instead, but that's not what I've ever suggested. It just means you said some silly things. It is possible for you to be wrong and dumb, and for Harris to not be telling the truth at the same time.
-
If anything, I am more pissed about Harris flat-out lying to everyone about the economy.
She is one messed-up lying, cunt of a woman.
If that is what she identifies as today, that is...
-
If anything, I am more pissed about Harris flat-out lying to everyone about the economy.
The US economy is pretty strong. That isn't an opinion, it's just numbers:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/us-economic-forecast/united-states-outlook-analysis.html
Also. You understand that things outside the US's control affect things?
-
Excuse me? That this is a ludicrously silly thing to argue about is an opinion, and I have the right to express it. The only one whining here is you because I expressed an opinion you don't seem to like. So sorry.
You came here to engage in the discussion while also insisting you don't care about it. You do it quite a lot, to a point where it's becoming the only thing you do. If it bothers you that I'm pointing it out then I suggest you stop doing it.
So far, 3 out of your 3 reasons to distrust Harris have turned out to either be incongruent with reality, or to require Harris to be Weird. You seem to really want to make that mean that we should trust Harris instead, but that's not what I've ever suggested. It just means you said some silly things. It is possible for you to be wrong and dumb, and for Harris to not be telling the truth at the same time.
So far, all you've stated is your opinion that a lack of evidence isn't a big deal because you can imagine ways my evidence doesn't matter. While it's a fascinating methodology of argument, it's not a particularly stimulating one.
How about this, maybe dredge up something that says statistically what sort of jobs people put on what sort of applications. I'm sure they covered how to support arguments in your education at some point. I don't think I need to go over that process with you, do I?
But that's not what anyone is saying. It's not caring about whether or not Kamala worked at McDonald's, it's caring about the fact that people are trying to turn this into a big controversy and demanding that Kamala somehow "prove" what any normal person would accept at face value. You say that you don't believe anything without first seeing evidence of it, but that's simply not true. Every single person who lives in a society accepts without question plausible things they're told on a daily basis without demanding evidence of it first. If someone told you they went to Vegas last week on vacation, you'd believe them. If someone told you that they were having a bad day, you'd believe them. And when Kamala says that as a college student, she worked at McDonald's, normal people believe her, because it's entirely plausible and not the kind of thing that anyone could reasonably be expected to make up. Again, what if Trump wears pink underwear? You can care deeply about the fact that people are trying to make a big deal about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear without caring about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.
Thank you for reminding me about responding to you about the popularity of Democratic and Republican positions. I was distracted by this nonsensical controversy.
I think I asked for reasonable evidence for whether Kamala worked at McDonald's. Your silly dodging of the issue with vague hypotheticals is not relevant to the discussion.
Thank you for reminding me about responding to you about the popularity of Democratic and Republican positions. I was distracted by this nonsensical controversy.
Yeah you better.
-
I think I asked for reasonable evidence for whether Kamala worked at McDonald's.
Which we all know you're immediately going to call fake or lies.
-
I think I asked for reasonable evidence for whether Kamala worked at McDonald's.
Which we all know you're immediately going to call fake or lies.
“If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago.”
-Oma Desala
-
If anything, I am more pissed about Harris flat-out lying to everyone about the economy.
The US economy is pretty strong. That isn't an opinion, it's just numbers:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/us-economic-forecast/united-states-outlook-analysis.html
Also. You understand that things outside the US's control affect things?
Once again, it seems you do not understand how Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public define the word "economy."
Their definition has absolutely jack shit to do with the bullshit source you provided.
I call it a bullshit source strictly because of how the average American views the economy.
And no doubt there are outside forces. Again, nobody in the US gives a fuck about that and those outside forces have nothing to do with the lying cunt.
-
If anything, I am more pissed about Harris flat-out lying to everyone about the economy.
The US economy is pretty strong. That isn't an opinion, it's just numbers:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/us-economic-forecast/united-states-outlook-analysis.html
Also. You understand that things outside the US's control affect things?
Once again, it seems you do not understand how Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public define the word "economy."
Their definition has absolutely jack shit to do with the bullshit source you provided.
I call it a bullshit source strictly because of how the average American views the economy.
And no doubt there are outside forces. Again, nobody in the US gives a fuck about that and those outside forces have nothing to do with the lying cunt.
You wanna go by the price of bread or the wages paid by private companies?
-
All of this is just attempting to distract from the Kamala Meltdown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZYdaJm4Ugw
-
You wanna go by the price of bread or the wages paid by private companies?
I think I already spelled it out.
The average American cares about the price of eggs, gas, and rent.
A vast majority of average Americans do not like the direction things are going.
-
You wanna go by the price of bread or the wages paid by private companies?
I think I already spelled it out.
The average American cares about the price of eggs, gas, and rent.
A vast majority of average Americans do not like the direction things are going.
So they're angry at...
Farmers.
Oil speculators.
And landlords.
And at which point does the government become communist and tell the private sector how much these things should cost?
-
You wanna go by the price of bread or the wages paid by private companies?
I think I already spelled it out.
The average American cares about the price of eggs, gas, and rent.
A vast majority of average Americans do not like the direction things are going.
So they're angry at...
Farmers.
Oil speculators.
And landlords.
And at which point does the government become communist and tell the private sector how much these things should cost?
LMMFAO!!! Nobody is as savvy about the real causes (or what you mistakenly think are the real causes of the problems) as you.
And nobody is going to read any fucking articles or posts written by some AI bot telling them to look "down the street" or "at this hand" for the cause of the problem.
The "buck stops here," remember.
I mean, I don't know what your fucking problem is...either way, the US is fucking dead and you can celebrate.
-
A69’s argument seems to be that the US* population are, by and large, pretty stupid. This is true but it doesn’t make them right - it actually means they’re fairly likely to be wrong.
Clearly events like Covid and the Ukraine situation have effects on the worldwide economy which are outside the control of any government.
*Not a problem unique to the US of course. As the saying goes, think about how dumb the average person is and then remember that half of the population is dumber than that.
-
A69’s argument seems to be that the US* population are, by and large, pretty stupid. This is true but it doesn’t make them right - it actually means they’re fairly likely to be wrong.
Clearly events like Covid and the Ukraine situation have effects on the worldwide economy which are outside the control of any government.
*Not a problem unique to the US of course. As the saying goes, think about how dumb the average person is and then remember that half of the population is dumber than that.
Is it the average Joe who is stupid or are the ones who created both of the problems you mention stupid?
-
Is it the average Joe who is stupid
Yes
-
I think I asked for reasonable evidence for whether Kamala worked at McDonald's.
Which we all know you're immediately going to call fake or lies.
I see we're at a point of "if I provide the evidence you asked for, you'll just call it fake, so therefore I don't need to provide evidence". Once we reach hypothetical candy-land, what's next? Maybe I can cook up a scenario too, such as you claiming a piece of bread in the shape of Harris' head proves her divinity. What a fun way to post!
-
Is it the average Joe who is stupid
Yes...or
FTFY, if you care to address the pile of shit you left...
-
Poll update:
National: Harris +1.1 -- This Day In History: October 23, 2020: Biden +8.0 | October 23, 2016: Clinton +5.9
Arizona: Trump +1.8
Nevada: Trump +0.9
Wisconsin: Trump +0.4
Michigan: Trump +1.2
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.8
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.5
Poll update:
National: Trump +0.1 -- This Day In History: October 26, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 26, 2016: Clinton +5.4
Arizona: Trump +1.0
Nevada: Trump +0.7
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.6
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.2
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.1
Trump gains the lead nationally but loses it in three swing states.
Not that any of this matters. Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.
-
So far, all you've stated is your opinion that a lack of evidence isn't a big deal
Could you perhaps show where I've stated that? You continue to mistake other people for me, and it makes you sound like Sleepy Joe. At this rate, you'll accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. 🙈
-
So far, all you've stated is your opinion that a lack of evidence isn't a big deal
Could you perhaps show where I've stated that? You continue to mistake other people for me, and it makes you sound like Sleepy Joe. At this rate, you'll accidentally vote for the wrong candidate. 🙈
I don't see a link anywhere in this post because, unsurprisingly, you found no supporting evidence for any of the points you have made.
-
I see we're at a point of "if I provide the evidence you asked for, you'll just call it fake, so therefore I don't need to provide evidence".
Well you made up the part in bold, I didn't say that. But you have shown in other threads that the level of evidence you require or will accept depends entirely on whether something fits your agenda or not. In the nuclear weapons thread you have asserted that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were "just firebombing" - no evidence of that presented of course. And in this thread literally a couple of posts down from the one I'm quoting you've said:
Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.
Surprisingly you haven't felt any need to evidence that either. And the evidence you've said you would accept is someone who is claiming to have had a summer job 40 years ago being able to talk you through it all in detail now. An obviously ridiculous demand. What has been offered (other than the obvious plausibility of a college kid having a summer job, with McDonalds being a very common place where people do that - they claim to have employed 1 in 8 Americans) is some corroboration:
The New York Times interviewed a friend who had known Ms. Harris as a teenager and remained in touch with the family for years afterward. Wanda Kagan, a close friend of Ms. Harris’s when they attended high school together in Montreal, said she recalled Ms. Harris having worked at McDonald’s around that time. Answering questions by email, Ms. Kagan said that Ms. Harris’s mother, who died in 2009, had told Ms. Kagan about the summer job years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/kamala-harris-mcdonalds-work-trump.html
But obviously that won't satisfy you because while you pretend to care about evidence the reality is there's no obvious pattern to what you choose to believe and not. You bend any evidence to fit around what you've already decided to believe anyway. How you arrive at those beliefs remain a mystery.
-
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168404/oregon-washington-arizona-ballots-drop-boxes-fires
I wonder who hates mail-in ballots....
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY," not ELECTION DAYS or MONTH.
If anything, incidents like you describe are the exact reason why shit ways of voting should be eliminated.
You cast your ballot IN PERSON, presenting a valid photo ID.
One person, one vote.
If it turns out you can't vote for "reasons," too bad, too sad.
-
Well you made up the part in bold, I didn't say that. But you have shown in other threads that the level of evidence you require or will accept depends entirely on whether something fits your agenda or not. In the nuclear weapons thread you have asserted that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were "just firebombing" - no evidence of that presented of course. And in this thread literally a couple of posts down from the one I'm quoting you've said:
My level of evidence in the nuclear bomb thread is virtually the same as my level of evidence here. It's called consistency, a trait that you seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around.
Surprisingly you haven't felt any need to evidence that either. And the evidence you've said you would accept is someone who is claiming to have had a summer job 40 years ago being able to talk you through it all in detail now. An obviously ridiculous demand. What has been offered (other than the obvious plausibility of a college kid having a summer job, with McDonalds being a very common place where people do that - they claim to have employed 1 in 8 Americans) is some corroboration:
Just google '2020 presidential election'. The evidence is self-evident.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/kamala-harris-mcdonalds-work-trump.html
But obviously that won't satisfy you because while you pretend to care about evidence the reality is there's no obvious pattern to what you choose to believe and not. You bend any evidence to fit around what you've already decided to believe anyway. How you arrive at those beliefs remain a mystery.
Well, yes, obviously. Asking her mother or friends if she is correct is quite blatantly nonsense. You knew that the moment you posted it, but chose to post it anyway.
Surely we can expect our presidential candidates to have some form of evidence beyond "ask my mommy"?
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168404/oregon-washington-arizona-ballots-drop-boxes-fires
I wonder who hates mail-in ballots....
It's Harris voters false-flagging in order to request more ballots.
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY,"
You cast your ballot IN PERSON
Well this is going to blow your mind...
https://www.usa.gov/early-voting
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY,"
You cast your ballot IN PERSON
Well this is going to blow your mind...
https://www.usa.gov/early-voting
My mind is blown that we got to the point of allowing this kind of whatinthefuckistan type of bullshit in the first place.
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Again. the words "ELECTION DAY," ring pretty loud.
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY,"
You cast your ballot IN PERSON
Well this is going to blow your mind...
https://www.usa.gov/early-voting
My mind is blown that we got to the point of allowing this kind of whatinthefuckistan type of bullshit in the first place.
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Again. the words "ELECTION DAY," ring pretty loud.
Yeah, fuck military folk! They should never be allowed to vote. Or people who work alot.
Or the disabled.
We should probably ban non-property owners too.
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY,"
You cast your ballot IN PERSON
Well this is going to blow your mind...
https://www.usa.gov/early-voting
My mind is blown that we got to the point of allowing this kind of whatinthefuckistan type of bullshit in the first place.
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Again. the words "ELECTION DAY," ring pretty loud.
Yeah, fuck military folk! They should never be allowed to vote. Or people who work alot.
Or the disabled.
We should probably ban non-property owners too.
Nobody said "fuck military folk."
Nobody said people who "work alot."
Nobody said anything about banning "non-property owners."
Except you, of course...easily the most prominent citizen of Whatinthefuckistan to post in this forum.
-
My level of evidence in the nuclear bomb thread is virtually the same as my level of evidence here.
Correct. In neither thread have you presented any evidence for your assertions.
It's called consistency
You are consistent in that you dismiss or call fake any evidence which doesn't confirm what you've already decided to believe while providing no evidence for your own assertions.
How you arrive at your decisions about what to believe remains a mystery for the ages.
Just google '2020 presidential election'. The evidence is self-evident.
Do you even know how Google works? If I Google something I'm not going to get the same results you do. Google tailors its results to the individual depending on past searches, interests etc. If there's some super-compelling evidence you want me to look at you're going to have to post it.
Well, yes, obviously. Asking her mother or friends if she is correct is quite blatantly nonsense.
Yeah. Asking people who actually know her to corroborate makes no sense at all. Better to ask random people who have never met her.
You knew that the moment you posted it, but chose to post it anyway.
Obviously I knew you'd dismiss it out of hand, that's how you roll.
And I actually chose NOT to post it. You asked for reasonable evidence and I said there's no point as you'd just dismiss it if it didn't say what you wanted.
I posted it to demonstrate that which you now have.
Surely we can expect our presidential candidates to have some form of evidence beyond "ask my mommy"?
Well that depends on what you're asking for evidence of. If it's of having a job at college 40 years ago it's pretty obvious that's going to be hard to evidence.
Asking people who knew her at that time is probably the best you're going to get.
Your opinion about this is based on gut feeling and your general distrust of Harris. Which is fairly reasonable in this case, it's a hard claim to either prove or falsify.
Just stop pretending you care about evidence when you clearly don't.
-
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Why is this unfair? You don't get to vote before the day AND on the day. You just vote at a different time - just like you do with a postal vote.
Why does that actually matter? Are you going to change your mind about who to vote for before election day? If not then why does it matter exactly when you vote?
You can keep putting ELECTION DAY in all caps if you like, but other than spluttering with rage for some unspecified reason you haven't actually explained what your issue with it is.
-
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Why is this unfair? You don't get to vote before the day AND on the day. You just vote at a different time - just like you do with a postal vote.
Why does that actually matter? Are you going to change your mind about who to vote for before election day? If not then why does it matter exactly when you vote?
You can keep putting ELECTION DAY in all caps if you like, but other than spluttering with rage for some unspecified reason you haven't actually explained what your issue with it is.
^The other resident citizen of whatinthefuckistan chimes in, declaring every day is ELECTION DAY.
GTFO with your bs.
-
I don't see a link anywhere in this post because, unsurprisingly, you found no supporting evidence for any of the points you have made.
Actually, I have provided links for the points I've made, and you even thanked me once for steering your straight. It's the points I haven't made that you're struggling with. :)
Such a shame that you weren't able to even highlight what you think you're responding to. I guess I have no choice but to accept that you were wrong on every point I've contested, since you're not counter-arguing, and therefore tacitly conceding.
Since your memory seems to be playing tricks on you, don't forget: in a week's time, it's Jizz for Jill!
-
It is called "ELECTION DAY,"
You cast your ballot IN PERSON
Well this is going to blow your mind...
https://www.usa.gov/early-voting
My mind is blown that we got to the point of allowing this kind of whatinthefuckistan type of bullshit in the first place.
People who want this kind of approach in terms of "fair elections," are, in fact, the ones who are practicing unfair shit.
Again. the words "ELECTION DAY," ring pretty loud.
Yeah, fuck military folk! They should never be allowed to vote. Or people who work alot.
Or the disabled.
We should probably ban non-property owners too.
Nobody said "fuck military folk."
Nobody said people who "work alot."
Nobody said anything about banning "non-property owners."
Except you, of course...easily the most prominent citizen of Whatinthefuckistan to post in this forum.
You did.
How, exactly, is a solider deployed outside of their voting district, going to go to their voting district on election day and vote?
-
Kindly point to the post where I wrote, "fuck military people."
-
Kindly point to the post where I wrote, "fuck military people."
You didn't, specifically. But that was your general concept. Anyone not able to physically go to their voting area should not be allowed to vote.
I merely condensed it into something you'd read.
-
Kindly point to the post where I wrote, "fuck military people."
You didn't, specifically. But that was your general concept. Anyone not able to physically go to their voting area should not be allowed to vote.
I merely condensed it into something you'd read.
You are correct. I didn't specifically write that.
Because none of what I wrote indicates "military people," or any other group would be deprived of their right to vote.
None of the current bullshit way of early voting is designed to ensure the right of "military persons," to vote.
That is just some more "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" shit you threw against the wall.
-
Kindly point to the post where I wrote, "fuck military people."
You didn't, specifically. But that was your general concept. Anyone not able to physically go to their voting area should not be allowed to vote.
I merely condensed it into something you'd read.
You are correct. I didn't specifically write that.
Because none of what I wrote indicates "military people," or any other group would be deprived of their right to vote.
None of the current bullshit way of early voting is designed to ensure the right of "military persons," to vote.
That is just some more "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" shit you threw against the wall.
Ok. So...
You cast your ballot IN PERSON, presenting a valid photo ID.
One person, one vote.
If it turns out you can't vote for "reasons," too bad, too sad.
Perhaps you should clarify what isn't "reasons". Or what you define as IN PERSON because if you can't go to your voting district, how does one vote in person? Or do you mean any location is fine to vote from?
-
Timeline:
You post some article about ballot boxes being blown up...where?...here in the US...
I post a response stating these stupid incidents occurring in the US are actually a great argument for ELECTION DAY being just that. ELECTION DAY...one person, one ID, one vote...Nothing about anyone being deprived of their right to vote.
You post the typical "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" claptrap response.
None of what you originally posted has anything to do with "in-person voting."
I didn't write anything about doing away with the rights of eligible persons living outside of the US to cast a vote in the manner in which they have done so in past elections.
I simply wrote the truth...it is the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!", cult (of which you are a card-carrying member) that enacted this bullshit approach to "free and fair elections," that result in stories like you referenced in the first place.
Spare yourself further embarrassment and take a break from the forums.
-
Correct. In neither thread have you presented any evidence for your assertions.
That you still think I need to provide evidence of simply stating "x didn't happen/x didn't exist" continues to be your problem, not mine.
Do you even know how Google works? If I Google something I'm not going to get the same results you do. Google tailors its results to the individual depending on past searches, interests etc. If there's some super-compelling evidence you want me to look at you're going to have to post it.
"No, I don't want to do that, it's too hard :(" Always an excuse, isn't there?
Yeah. Asking people who actually know her to corroborate makes no sense at all. Better to ask random people who have never met her.
Yes, when it comes to saying things that aren't egregiously biased in her favor, that is the correct thing to do.
Well that depends on what you're asking for evidence of. If it's of having a job at college 40 years ago it's pretty obvious that's going to be hard to evidence.
Asking people who knew her at that time is probably the best you're going to get.
Your opinion about this is based on gut feeling and your general distrust of Harris. Which is fairly reasonable in this case, it's a hard claim to either prove or falsify.
Just stop pretending you care about evidence when you clearly don't.
How can we establish how much I care about evidence if you insist on never posting any?
Actually, I have provided links for the points I've made, and you even thanked me once for steering your straight. It's the points I haven't made that you're struggling with. :)
Such a shame that you weren't able to even highlight what you think you're responding to. I guess I have no choice but to accept that you were wrong on every point I've contested, since you're not counter-arguing, and therefore tacitly conceding.
Since your memory seems to be playing tricks on you, don't forget: in a week's time, it's Jizz for Jill!
Oddly, there's no links in this post, either. It's almost like evidence of what you've been saying doesn't exist! Sad!
-
Timeline:
You post some article about ballot boxes being blown up...where?...here in the US...
I post a response stating these stupid incidents occurring in the US are actually a great argument for ELECTION DAY being just that. ELECTION DAY...one person, one ID, one vote...Nothing about anyone being deprived of their right to vote.
You post the typical "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" claptrap response.
None of what you originally posted has anything to do with "in-person voting."
I didn't write anything about doing away with the rights of eligible persons living outside of the US to cast a vote in the manner in which they have done so in past elections.
I simply wrote the truth...it is the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!", cult (of which you are a card-carrying member) that enacted this bullshit approach to "free and fair elections," that result in stories like you referenced in the first place.
Spare yourself further embarrassment and take a break from the forums.
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
So you don't know. Gotcha.
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
So you don't know. Gotcha.Look, I realize I posted an article about ballot boxes and mail-in ballots getting blown up and destroyed and I wanted to include that I feel this is unjust and unfair for these ballots to not be counted, even though there is no real way for anyone to possibly know the ones that were destroyed were filed legitimately by eligible voters, according to US law.
Fixed your post for you. Simply adding 100 percent reality to a situation where I fully understand you would be unable to do so.
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
So you don't know. Gotcha.Look, I realize I posted an article about ballot boxes and mail-in ballots getting blown up and destroyed and I wanted to include that I feel this is unjust and unfair for these ballots to not be counted, even though there is no real way for anyone to possibly know the ones that were destroyed were filed legitimately by eligible voters, according to US law.
Fixed your post for you. Simply adding 100 percent reality to a situation where I fully understand you would be unable to do so.
You mean to tell me that its impossible to know if a ballot was real or not after it's been destroyed beyond reading? Wow! Your powers of deduction are fucking amazing.
Good thing they're asking those people who might be impacted to vote again.
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
So you don't know. Gotcha.Look, I realize I posted an article about ballot boxes and mail-in ballots getting blown up and destroyed and I wanted to include that I feel this is unjust and unfair for these ballots to not be counted, even though there is no real way for anyone to possibly know the ones that were destroyed were filed legitimately by eligible voters, according to US law.
Fixed your post for you. Simply adding 100 percent reality to a situation where I fully understand you would be unable to do so.
You mean to tell me that its impossible to know if a ballot was real or not after it's been destroyed beyond reading? Wow! Your powers of deduction are fucking amazing.
Good thing they're asking those people who might be impacted to vote again.
"Might be impacted..." the meaning of words are lost on you and so is the necessity of evidence in ensuring "free and fair elections."
If you were in that area and claimed you had placed a ballot in a box that was blown up, I wouldn't fucking believe it all.
-
Ok so if mail in voting for people outside the US is ok, why isn't it ok for people INSIDE the US?
LMMFAO!!!
Look at the example you provided for why it isn't ok.
So you don't know. Gotcha.Look, I realize I posted an article about ballot boxes and mail-in ballots getting blown up and destroyed and I wanted to include that I feel this is unjust and unfair for these ballots to not be counted, even though there is no real way for anyone to possibly know the ones that were destroyed were filed legitimately by eligible voters, according to US law.
Fixed your post for you. Simply adding 100 percent reality to a situation where I fully understand you would be unable to do so.
You mean to tell me that its impossible to know if a ballot was real or not after it's been destroyed beyond reading? Wow! Your powers of deduction are fucking amazing.
Good thing they're asking those people who might be impacted to vote again.
"Might be impacted..." the meaning of words are lost on you and so is the necessity of evidence in ensuring "free and fair elections."
If you were in that area and claimed you had placed a ballot in a box that was blown up, I wouldn't fucking believe it all.
Might be impacted is fairly easy to understand.
Not everyone who voted early, voted in that box. Nor at the time their ballot would be there. So "might be impacted" was correct. And by impacted ai mean their constitutional right to vote being impacted.
-
^ITT, LD champions the cause of "vote early, vote often!"
Truly the rallying cry of democracy!
GTFO with your bullshit.
-
^ITT, LD champions the cause of "vote early, vote often!"
Truly the rallying cry of democracy!
GTFO with your bullshit.
How does one vote often without going to multiple polling places in person? Ballots all have an ID number for each voter. So one ballot will be counted no matter how many copies you have.
But in person? No checking up on that system. Just an ID (fake is easy to get) and a signature that some old folks must check.
Yeah, how is in person more secure again?
-
^ITT LD claims ID's are easier to fake than a piece of paper.
-
^ITT LD claims ID's are easier to fake than a piece of paper.
Oh faking the ballot paper is easy.
Putting in the right ID number, not so much. How would you do that? How would you know it?
-
^ITT LD claims ID's are easier to fake than a piece of paper.
Oh faking the ballot paper is easy.
Putting in the right ID number, not so much. How would you do that? How would you know it?
How would you know what number to use on an ID?
Do we really need to have this discussion?
Everyone here already knows your take.
You want everyone and anyone to be able to vote by mail, simply because of "reasons."
It is a bullshit position to take because of increased risk to the election process, as evidenced by the example you provided.
-
^ITT LD claims ID's are easier to fake than a piece of paper.
Oh faking the ballot paper is easy.
Putting in the right ID number, not so much. How would you do that? How would you know it?
How would you know what number to use on an ID?
Do we really need to have this discussion?
Everyone here already knows your take.
You want everyone and anyone to be able to vote by mail, simply because of "reasons."
It is a bullshit position to take because of increased risk to the election process, as evidenced by the example you provided.
The ID number on your ID card can be anything number. The election workers have no way to verify it.
-
The ID number on your ID card can be anything number. The election workers have no way to verify it.
Actually, it cannot just be any number and the ID (at least in my neck of the woods, PODUNK) is now placed on a scanner, verifying who I am, along with a timestamp, of when I am voting, buying liquor, cigarettes, or whatever.
REAL ID is already rolled out in the majority of states.
I suggest you do some goddamn research prior to using your ass to post some more bullshit.
Election workers already know the series of ballot numbers available for use in precincts.
-
https://abcnews.go.com/US/ballot-box-set-fire-west-coast-portland-oregon/story?id=115221030
I wonder how quickly the burning ballot box stories will disappear when they figure out who was setting them on fire.
-
Poll update:
National: Trump +0.1 -- This Day In History: October 26, 2020: Biden +7.8 | October 26, 2016: Clinton +5.4
Arizona: Trump +1.0
Nevada: Trump +0.7
Wisconsin: Harris +0.8
Michigan: Harris +0.6
Pennsylvania: Harris +0.2
North Carolina: Trump +0.4
Georgia: Trump +2.1
Poll update:
National: Trump +0.4 -- This Day In History: 2020: Biden +7.4 | 2016: Clinton +1.3
Arizona: Trump +2.5
Nevada: Trump +0.5
Wisconsin: Harris +0.2
Michigan: Harris +0.5
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.8
North Carolina: Trump +1
Georgia: Trump +2.4
This election would be ridiculously close had Harris and her goons not already programmed the voting machines. It's going to be a blowout for Comrade Harris.
-
Even in red Districts?
-
That you still think I need to provide evidence of simply stating "x didn't happen/x didn't exist" continues to be your problem, not mine.
Rushy: Claims need to be evidenced.
Also Rushy: I didn't mean claims I make.
And before you go all "you can't evidence a negative", you made positive claims about the bombing in Hiroshima - about it being "firebombing" which you have offered no evidence of.
"No, I don't want to do that, it's too hard :(" Always an excuse, isn't there?
Or you could deal with what I actually said in which I explained why your ask is nonsensical.
If you think you have evidence of something then produce it.
Just saying "Google this and you'll see what I mean" is vague and unhelpful.
But, just for the lolz, I did Google the phrase you asked me to. The first link was to the Wiki page about it. Then there were a bunch of articles about how Biden won. If there was any "self evident" evidence then I must have missed it. So can you elaborate?
How can we establish how much I care about evidence if you insist on never posting any?
We have already established that.
You care about evidence of other people's claims - or you say you do, when any evidence of them is produced you dismiss it, if the claim is one you have arbitrarily decided you don't believe. The fact you say I "never post any" is QED.
And you don't care about evidencing your own claims.
-
Finally getting back to the points raised some time ago:
Which Americans and what gun control? I find that while "gun control" is often positively polled, the numbers change drastically when you word precisely what is intended by "gun control". Take these gallup polls for example:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Should gun policy be more strict? Most Americans answer yes. Then, when asked if they want to ban assault rifles, assault weapons or handguns, the majority say no. In the case of handguns, a whopping +46% say no. Harris supports an assault weapon ban, which automatically puts her on the wrong side of the gun policy polls. Unsurprisingly, this has cost her support.
According to the most recent polls listed on that website, the majority of respondents do support bans on assault rifles, although in the past the majority opposed them. This fits with other recent survey information I've found here (https://www.statista.com/statistics/811842/support-distribution-for-banning-assault-style-weapons-in-the-united-states/) and here (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/07/25/poll-majority--support-universal-background-checks-gun-licensing-assault-weapons-ban).
What sort of rights do Democrats protect? What rights do Republicans plan to remove? As far as I understand it, the only strong difference these days is on the T. The majority of people in this Gallup poll answered that changing one's gender is "wrong".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Now, I'm not going to comment on whether it's wrong. What I am noting here is that the majority of people don't like the T in LGBT. Again, this is costing Harris support.
It's very misleading of you to point to the one section where the opposition won by a slim majority and ignore the section directly after where the opposition lost and by a bigger margin. I will say, though, that most polls I've looked up about public support for trans rights are all over the place, and it's hard to tell whether there are more results that suggest more people do support trans rights or the other way around. Nevertheless, whatever personal opinions Americans might hold about trans people's behavior, they're reasonably consistent in rejecting politicians who obsess over them. Ron DeSantis seems to be the only major politician who's found success lately in engaging closely with the culture war. Why this subject is apparently such a winner with him, I don't know, but then again, I also don't know why anyone would elect (and re-elect) an unpleasant, scowling little man with zero charisma or warmth who angrily snaps at his audience every time he gives a speech, so maybe Floridians are built different. There's a stark difference between personally disapproving of someone else changing their gender and voting for politicians who regularly rant about trans people and seemingly focus on them at the expense of issues that people actually care about, like the economy.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/anti-trans-platforms-lose-elections/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trans-laws-not-politically-214632748.html
None of these are unbiased sources, admittedly, but their information seems legit, particularly with the election results. I can't think of any other major politician than DeSantis who's seen repeated success while building their identity almost entirely around reactionary culture wars. And of course gay rights are part of this subject. Imagine thinking that the GOP only has an issue with trans people and is totally cool with gay people all of a sudden. Laws restricting teachers mentioning homosexuality or banning books about gay relationships (while completely ignoring books or discussions about heterosexuality, because that's totally different), the rise in anti-drag bills, the "groomer" moral panic. In fact, that last one is the product of the current intellectual godfather of the conservative movement, Christopher Rufo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Rufo). He's never been elected to any office, but I can't think of anyone outside of Trump himself who holds more sway over Republican policy positions and conservative language than him. As I mentioned, the "grooming" moral panic was his idea. Remember when every conservative was ranting about "CRT"? That was also Rufo's idea. And remember when some months ago every conservative abruptly stopped talking about "CRT" and began talking about "DEI" instead? Once again, Rufo decided on a change of terminology, gave the order, and every conservative from Republican politicians to gamers ranting about diversity in video games on the Internet obediently began ranting about "DEI" instead, a term that 99% of them had undoubtedly never heard before. This stuff isn't spontaneous. The conservative movement in this country is more or less controlled by a relatively small handful of hyper-religious nuts like Rufo. They hate gay people as much as they hate trans people, and it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell and a coordinated attempt at striking down every gay marriage law across the country and ban it federally immediately goes into effect, just like it did with Dobbs. And speaking of abortion:
This depends entirely on what you mean by "abortion rights". Do the majority of Americans support some form of abortion? The answer is yes. Do the majority of Americans support the Democrat party's particular flavor of abortion? No.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Over a third of Americans want abortion to be illegal entirely. The vast majority of Americans believe abortion should be possible only under "certain circumstances". More specifically, the vast majority of Americans think abortion past the first trimester should be illegal. Right off the bat, the Democrats have to fight over only 70% of voters who want some form of pro-choice. Only 22% of those voters want abortion to be legal under all circumstances. It could very well be that the "pro-choice" voters interested in mild abortion access end up voting for Republicans because they consider no abortion access to be better than a free-for-all.
This is a blatant strawman. No mainstream politician thinks that all abortions should be allowed with zero rules or regulations that take into account things like the progression of the pregnancy. It's Republicans who pursue an absolutist stance on abortion with their end goal of not allowing any abortions at all, not Democrats. By saying that some abortions should be allowed, people are agreeing with Democrats, not Republicans.
-
No mainstream politician thinks that all abortions should be allowed with zero rules or regulations that take into account things like the progression of the pregnancy.
Okay, how about your main favorite right now. What limits on abortion does Kamala Harris want? This was a specific question asked to her at the Trump-Kamala debate.
Kamala has clearly shown herself to be an abortion extrimist (https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/22/abortion-kamala-harris-is-extremist/).
-
According to the most recent polls listed on that website, the majority of respondents do support bans on assault rifles, although in the past the majority opposed them.
Assault rifles are already banned and have been for decades. The gallup polls do not mention assault weapons, so I will search for polls that do in addition to the ones you have found.
This fits with other recent survey information I've found here (https://www.statista.com/statistics/811842/support-distribution-for-banning-assault-style-weapons-in-the-united-states/) and here (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/07/25/poll-majority--support-universal-background-checks-gun-licensing-assault-weapons-ban).
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
It appears that assault weapon bans do have the edge in support.
It's very misleading of you to point to the one section where the opposition won by a slim majority and ignore the section directly after where the opposition lost and by a bigger margin. I will say, though, that most polls I've looked up about public support for trans rights are all over the place, and it's hard to tell whether there are more results that suggest more people do support trans rights or the other way around. Nevertheless, whatever personal opinions Americans might hold about trans people's behavior, they're reasonably consistent in rejecting politicians who obsess over them. Ron DeSantis seems to be the only major politician who's found success lately in engaging closely with the culture war. Why this subject is apparently such a winner with him, I don't know, but then again, I also don't know why anyone would elect (and re-elect) an unpleasant, scowling little man with zero charisma or warmth who angrily snaps at his audience every time he gives a speech, so maybe Floridians are built different. There's a stark difference between personally disapproving of someone else changing their gender and voting for politicians who regularly rant about trans people and seemingly focus on them at the expense of issues that people actually care about, like the economy.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-reject-anti-trans-bills-but-support-for-this-restriction-is-rising
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/anti-trans-platforms-lose-elections/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-trans-laws-not-politically-214632748.html
I don't think trans issues have been highlighted for long enough in modern politics to go as far as to say "this policy causes you to lose an election". My point was only that it doesn't have very wide support and I think that's clearly the case. Whether or not it costs Harris many votes is yet to be determined.
By saying that some abortions should be allowed, people are agreeing with Democrats, not Republicans.
This isn't necessarily true. Depending on how someone views abortion, simply being pro-choice might not be enough to have them avoid voting for pro-life candidates. Many pro-choice voters believe in emergency-only abortions and more lenient policies advertised by Democrats may disturb them.
-
No mainstream politician thinks that all abortions should be allowed with zero rules or regulations that take into account things like the progression of the pregnancy.
Okay, how about your main favorite right now. What limits on abortion does Kamala Harris want? This was a specific question asked to her at the Trump-Kamala debate.
Kamala has clearly shown herself to be an abortion extrimist (https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/22/abortion-kamala-harris-is-extremist/).
This is largely irrelevant as SCOTUS has already ruled and until a NEW SCOTUS rules differently, it's in the hands of states. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment would change it.
-
No mainstream politician thinks that all abortions should be allowed with zero rules or regulations that take into account things like the progression of the pregnancy.
Okay, how about your main favorite right now. What limits on abortion does Kamala Harris want? This was a specific question asked to her at the Trump-Kamala debate.
Kamala has clearly shown herself to be an abortion extrimist (https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/22/abortion-kamala-harris-is-extremist/).
If a baby is born alive, doctors already have a legal duty to do everything they can to help it survive. That's the way it's always been. A bill like the one described in that article is a manipulative attempt to sell a false narrative to the public, and to vote for it is to concede and allow that false narrative to take hold. You can't just say "Well, if this doesn't happen to begin with, then there's no harm in voting in favor of this bill." That's not how politics works. It would be like voting on a bill that makes it illegal for black people to assault white people. Of course no politician would vote for that, and that wouldn't mean that you could logically respond to them by saying "Oho, so it should be legal for black people to assault white people?" The creation of a bill essentially says "There is a problem or something that we need to do better, and this bill is meant to address that," and voting for the bill says "Yes, I agree with you that there's a problem or something we need to do better." Harris was right to oppose this bill.
-
I asked you what limits Kamala wants for abortion and you provide a singular defense of the post-birth abortion bill she supported. The article notes that she consistently refuses to deny her support for unlimited late term abortion. She was asked about it specifically in the debate and has been asked about it elsewhere.
In this 2023 interview the interviewer accuses Kamala of wanting unlimited abortion to-birth and asks the question about abortion limits multiple times, and she refuses to answer:
https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/23/no-matter-how-hard-she-tries-kamala-harris-cant-hide-her-history-of-abortion-extremism/
In a September 2023 sitdown with CBS’ Margaret Brennan, Harris refused to say which abortion limits she supports, instead claiming she merely wants to “restore the protections of Roe [v.] Wade.”
Brennan noted that “[Roe] was about viability, which could be anywhere between 20 to 24 weeks” and pressed Harris to be “specific” about “which week of pregnancy” should serve as the cutoff. Harris, however, continued to obfuscate by using the same cop-outs the White House uses to cover up its desire to codify abortion through all nine months of pregnancy via legislation like the ill-named “Women’s Health Protection Act.”
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1700885173988950108
"As a senator, Harris sponsored, introduced, and voted for multiple bills that stripped protections for unborn babies and pro-lifers. In addition to co-sponsoring the original version of the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” Harris voted against protections for babies born alive after botched abortions."
-
My view:
If a baby is malformed and will suffer and die horribly shortly after being born, week 24 abortions should be allowed. I would not to bring in a child just so they can suffer and die.
-
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/
Harris leading by 3 in Iowa? this is bad news for trump.
betting markets are on the move trending towards kamala.
(https://i.imgur.com/t24Z9X6.jpeg)
-
I like Trump because he is going to use his authority to jail his opponents.
which opponents in particular? are you wanting him to arrest certain specific democrats? all current democratic lawmakers? all democrats in general? the quotes you provided were somewhat general.
-
I like Trump because he is going to use his authority to jail his opponents.
which opponents in particular? are you wanting him to arrest certain specific democrats? all current democratic lawmakers? all democrats in general? the quotes you provided were somewhat general.
I do not know who Trump has in mind, but I don't think he is going to jail anyone, unless he absolutely needs to.
I would like to see him jail George Bush and the Cheneys, but this too will not come true.
Once Cumaloverme was substituted for Brandon, the process of free and open elections in the US was eliminated.
Come January 2025, the US will be under some form of marshal law.
-
So Trump declared victory in what... June? And has said, repeatedly, that he won't accept a loss.
Any bets on how it goes today?
He WILL cry and whine no matter what but will it matter? Or will he lose and everyone else will accept it?
-
He'll either win or pretend he has.
It's really hard to call. I think Harris will win the popular vote but that doesn't mean she'll win the election.
-
We might not know who wins for days, like last time, although Trump will almost certainly declare victory anyway.
-
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1303148165213720668/1303426639438413834/IMG_2247.png?ex=672bb627&is=672a64a7&hm=25339d360537881cb9bacbb382b182e2f28b07ac17bf9142d49379b9ea0b59bd&)
-
Trump is winning by a landslide. :(
-
Trump is winning by a landslide. :(
The Senate will be his too.
MAGA, it seems, will control America.
I hope they all choke on the tarrifs.
-
Honestly. You guys…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=og5mNf3IqLQ
-
This election would be ridiculously close had Harris and her goons not already programmed the voting machines. It's going to be a blowout for Comrade Harris.
This has aged very well
-
Trump has won.
He has 266 electoral votes. There is a 0% change he'll lose now.
Guess it was rigged.
-
I am still very fearful of martial law.
-
I am still very fearful of martial law.
Why? Trump won. If he declares martial law, it'll be against his enemies, not you.
-
he is DOING IT!!!!
Why? Trump won. If he declares martial law, it'll be against his enemies, not you.
A80 is presumably suggesting that it could happen before the transition of power. I strongly doubt that it will.
-
I am fearful of it regardless of when it occurs.
I am not forgetting who was president when the ridiculous lockdowns occurred.
A lifelong Democrat, in case you forgot.
There is no doubt shit like that will happen again and when it does, it will be much more severe and detrimental to everyone.
-
Oh, yeah, wild shit is about to go down one way or another. I dunno if it'll be martial law, but we mostly agree
-
Oh, yeah, wild shit is about to go down one way or another. I dunno if it'll be martial law, but we mostly agree
Will it, though?
I mean, I'm weary of Trump's endless bullshit and pretty much hate everything he stands for.
But he was president before and the world didn't explode.
The difference this time is the Republicans have pretty much swept the board and Trump is more ready for power - I don't think he seriously expected to win in 2016. So...I dunno, my gut feeling is things won't be as bad as I fear they could be. Nothing we can do about it though so strap yourselves in. Scream if you want to go fas....actually, just scream.
-
Oh, yeah, wild shit is about to go down one way or another. I dunno if it'll be martial law, but we mostly agree
Will it, though?
I expect support for Ukraine will be cut significantly, possibly completely, and I doubt Europe can really pick up the slack there. Putin's forces unimpeded in eastern Europe would most definitely be 'wild shit'.
-
Trump said he could stop Putin in an instant.
What he doesn't say is 'by letting them take all of Ukraine's.
-
Putin's forces unimpeded in eastern Europe would most definitely be 'wild shit'.
Mmm. That could be...interesting.
I'm going to file this under "nothing I can do about it so I guess we'll just see how it all pans out"
-
I expect those in power would not want to lose their grip on the human trafficking routes and will do everything possible to negotiate a solution to the shit going on in Ukraine. A removal of Zelensky and all the rest of the NAZIS would be a good first step.
-
I expect those in power would not want to lose their grip on the human trafficking routes and will do everything possible to negotiate a solution to the shit going on in Ukraine. A removal of Zelensky and all the rest of the NAZIS would be a good first step.
Don't worry. I'm certain Trump will ensure that Russia will take over Ukraine, kill Zelenaky, and purge anyone who disagrees.
-
Kamala was not able to outperform Sleepy Joe in a single county. It seems that your side made a huge mistake and then proceeded to live in a delusion of your own making. What an unprecedented turn of events for the liberals.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1854064784351678941
-
Kamala was not able to outperform Sleepy Joe in a single county. It seems that your side made a huge mistake and then you lived in a delusion of your own making. What an unprecedented turn of events for liberals.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1854064784351678941
Don't act like Trump didn't want Joe back. We gambled and lost. Trump won. Now Trump will be the dictator he always wanted to be. Enjoy your tariffs.
-
^LD doesn't understand tariffs.
-
^LD doesn't understand tariffs.
Adding a "tax" to goods and services in order to have them imported with the goal of making prices for domestic products and services more competitive.
So a 20% tarrif for rice from China means any cost of the item will increase by about 20% for the end consumer.
You do understand that, yes?
-
^LD doesn't understand tariffs.
Adding a "tax" to goods and services in order to have them imported with the goal of making prices for domestic products and services more competitive.
So a 20% tarrif for rice from China means any cost of the item will increase by about 20% for the end consumer.
You do understand that, yes?
^LD doesn't understand tariffs are levied in terms of competitive restrictions, relating directly to where things are manufactured, not produced.
Tariffs are not necessarily levied against every single thing another country wants to export.
-
Kamala was not able to outperform Sleepy Joe in a single county. It seems that your side made a huge mistake
What was the mistake, replacing Biden?
I don't think so, if that's what you mean. You're comparing Biden in 2020 with Harris in 2024. What we can't know is how would Biden in 2024 have done compared with Biden in 2020. And my gut feeling, given Biden's mental state, is he would have fared even worse than Harris has. Obviously impossible to know for sure. The Democrats did the only thing they could reasonably do after that car crash debate.
Trump won in the US for the same reason Starmer did over here - people are pissed off with how things are going and want change.
Trump isn't going to fix their problems of course, he just had to say he would and that was enough.
-
If anything, the replacement of Biden with Harris (and the willingness of the US populace to allow such a thing to even occur) was the death knell for free and fair elections in the US. The entire process is stripped, naked, and shown to be a farce.
-
Kamala was not able to outperform Sleepy Joe in a single county. It seems that your side made a huge mistake
What was the mistake, replacing Biden?
Democrats are their own mistake. Through this entire Harris saga they have been producing and relying on polls where Harris was leading or almost even with Trump.
-
If anything, the replacement of Biden with Harris (and the willingness of the US populace to allow such a thing to even occur) was the death knell for free and fair elections in the US. The entire process is stripped, naked, and shown to be a farce.
How so?
I mean, I'd vaguely agree with the farce part - your system of democracy is pretty poor, as is ours in the UK. But you had a free and fair choice yesterday and you made your choice. You got it wrong of course, because people are idiots, but that's a separate discussion.
-
How so?
Please provide the number of primary votes received by the Democratic nominee for US President in 2024.
Thank you.
ETA: I realize the process of presidential primaries is not specified within or required by any part of the US Constitution.
PS: In the future, I believe it would be best for you and the rest to stop pretending. You are getting exactly what you want in terms of destabilization of the US constitutional republic.
-
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
-
Please provide the number of primary votes received by the Democratic nominee for US President in 2024.
I don't understand the US system but the Democratic nominee for US President in 2024 stood aside. I am presuming the Democrats then followed whatever process exists to select a new one. You may think that's an undemocratic process - I would probably agree, as I said there are similar ones here where people can vote for, say, Tony Blair as Prime Minister and then get Gordon Brown. The argument goes you don't vote for a PM so the party with the most MPs can change leader at any point. Which is all true, but there's no doubt that the leader of each party at the time of an election is a big factor in how people vote here.
But anyway, people still had a free choice between Harris and Trump - which is actually better than what I described in the UK where the leader of the ruling party can be replaced after an election and you then have a PM which no-one voted for.
What's your actual issue here? You weren't going to vote for Biden, you didn't vote for Harris.
PS: In the future, I believe it would be best for you and the rest to stop pretending. You are getting exactly what you want in terms of destabilization of the US constitutional republic.
I don't even know what any of that is supposed to mean.
-
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
-
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
The other option was not hiding Biden's cognitive decline in the first place. Being "forced" to choose an extremely unpopular VP to run was a result of that bad decision. Had the DNC ran an actual primary instead of a farce, they might not be staring down the barrel of the reddest government the US has seen in decades.
-
^LD doesn't understand tariffs.
Adding a "tax" to goods and services in order to have them imported with the goal of making prices for domestic products and services more competitive.
So a 20% tarrif for rice from China means any cost of the item will increase by about 20% for the end consumer.
You do understand that, yes?
^LD doesn't understand tariffs are levied in terms of competitive restrictions, relating directly to where things are manufactured, not produced.
Tariffs are not necessarily levied against every single thing another country wants to export.
... Did I say they were levied against every item from a country? Tarrifs are by item from country, not a blanket all items from a country. Unless you do that anyway.
And yes, rice from China had a tarriff.
Trump has promised a blanket tarriff on ALL china made goods. 60% or more. So.... Maybe go talk to him about what a tarriff is.
https://www.marketplace.org/2024/11/04/tariffs-trade-war-trump-election-taxes-import-duties-economy-taxes-china-mexico/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-candidate-trump-china-tariffs-we-have-do-it-2024-02-04/
-
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
The other option was not hiding Biden's cognitive decline in the first place. Being "forced" to choose an extremely unpopular VP to run was a result of that bad decision. Had the DNC ran an actual primary instead of a farce, they might not be staring down the barrel of the reddest government the US has seen in decades.
I agree. The Democratic leadership monumentally dropped the ball, and there need to be consequences for this.
-
Perhaps in retrospect the Democrats can admit running a candidate who couldn't make it a few months in their primary was a bad idea.
What was the other option though when Biden was so clearly unfit for office?
The other option was not hiding Biden's cognitive decline in the first place. Being "forced" to choose an extremely unpopular VP to run was a result of that bad decision. Had the DNC ran an actual primary instead of a farce, they might not be staring down the barrel of the reddest government the US has seen in decades.
I agree. The Democratic leadership monumentally dropped the ball, and there need to be consequences for this.
The consequences being: MAGA style politics is now socially acceptable and encouraged because it works and will for a decade or two.
-
Now that the election has been decided, the market is through the roof. My portfolio is printing very many dollar signs right now.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-fed-meeting-dow-nasdaq-sp500-live-11-06-2024
Free infinite money is back on the menu, boys.
-
Well that's solidly depressing.
"Everything Trump wanted to be cheaper is now cheaper. Everything he was against is now more expensive. You're welcome."
-
There is no need for you guys to baww about this when the Democrats have set up perfectly sound backup Plan B and Plan C for this
Many on Reddit are beginning to say it doesn't matter and that you should stop crying:
(https://media.scored.co/post/ATnaGMovZ8kZ.png)
-
There is no need for you guys to baww about this when the Democrats have set up perfectly sound backup Plan B and Plan C for this
Many on Reddit are beginning to say it doesn't matter and that you should stop crying:
(https://media.scored.co/post/ATnaGMovZ8kZ.png)
Look, taking a page from Trump's book sounds good until you realize you'd just be Liberal Trumpm
-
There will soon be something more besides the presidency for liberals to be sad about
(https://media.greatawakening.win/post/M99c4ujbUG2Z.jpeg)
-
Many on Reddit are beginning to say it doesn't matter and that you should stop crying
That Reddit quote is the sort of hilarious cope you were posting 4 years ago. The difference is Harris is an actual grown up who will make a concession speech, not a man sized toddler who will keep stamping their feet and shouting NOT FAIR! when they lose
-
What's your actual issue here? You weren't going to vote for Biden, you didn't vote for Harris.
The issue is none of the current process is in step with the founding principles of the nation.
Domestic political factions are a danger to any free nation and can only result in mob rule.
PS: In the future, I believe it would be best for you and the rest to stop pretending. You are getting exactly what you want in terms of destabilization of the US constitutional republic.
I don't even know what any of that is supposed to mean.
See above and the rest of your commentary throughout these threads.
-
The consequences being: MAGA style politics is now socially acceptable and encouraged because it works and will for a decade or two.
Does it work, though? Has it ever worked?
He has won 2 elections but both times it has been more about the alternative being even worse, or perceived as such. Starmer won over here because he wasn’t the Tories. Almost no one was enthused about him, but people just wanted change.
In 2016 it was more of an “anyone but Hillary” vote. In 2020 he lost of course, no matter how hard he pretends he didn’t. This time the economy was the big issue. Which is actually doing quite well but people don’t feel that because of the cost of living stuff. Which is mostly caused by bigger events like the pandemic hangover and Ukraine. But it’s easy for Trump to say “things were a lot cheaper when I was in charge”. Which is true of course.
I think Trump is a bit of a one off, I don’t think anyone could imitate his style even if they wanted to.
-
^ITT LD fails to understand tariffs on imported goods lead to increased production of the same goods within the country, along with livable wages for those new hires that will be producing those goods. LD advocates continued sweatshop wages in China and status-quo.
-
In 2020 he lost of course
That's a funny way of saying "in 2020 it was easier to print fake ballots and drop them off".
-
As shocking as this may be, "SlavaRapTarantino" on reddit was talking nonsense:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democrats-jamie-raskin-election-results/
Harris will not refuse to certify the election results, Biden will not desperately try to cling to power, and Harris voters will not storm the Capitol to try to stop the certification. The two sides are not the same.
-
In 2020 he lost of course
That's a funny way of saying "in 2020 it was easier to print fake ballots and drop them off".
Your opinion is definitely to be taken seriously.
Not that any of this matters. Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.
-
Your opinion is definitely to be taken seriously.
Not that any of this matters. Harris owns all the voting machines. The steal is already in, folks. It's over for Trump.
That's the sad part. Harris did rig the election, but it still wasn't enough. In reality, maybe a few million people only in a third world region, like California, actually voted for Harris. The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.
Harris would have done a lot better had she not mistakenly told everyone she worked at McDonald's when she obviously has not.
-
The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.
Ah yes, but this is one of your claims and those don't require evidence. I'm catching on now. ;D
-
The rest are bot votes fed via the machines.
Ah yes, but this is one of your claims and those don't require evidence. I'm catching on now. ;D
I'm sure it's merely coincidence that all the manufacturers of voting machines donate to the DNC.
-
Trump won so hard that he's turning feminists into trad wives within the first 24 hours of his victory
(https://i.imgur.com/B57hcDD.png)
-
^ITT LD fails to understand tariffs on imported goods lead to increased production of the same goods within the country, along with livable wages for those new hires that will be producing those goods. LD advocates continued sweatshop wages in China and status-quo.
*Sigh* yes, eventually. If the tariffs are maintained in 5-10 years domestic production will be up. BUT costs will stay up as the cost of making it domestically will be the same or about the same as importing it. So more expensive than now, regardless.
I'm all for pain now, but since Trump won on "shit is too expensive!" I'm not sure making it MORE expensive is gonna help.
-
Trump won so hard that he's turning feminists into trad wives within the first 24 hours of his victory
(https://i.imgur.com/RYs9te8.png)
They didn't vote for that. Not the single men, Anyway.
-
Alright, this is for my fellow far-right nazis: when are we going to set up the concentration camps? Have we set up the handmaid's tale outfits for women, yet? I feel like there's a lot on the agenda we need to get properly scheduled.
-
RIP America
-
The consequences being: MAGA style politics is now socially acceptable and encouraged because it works and will for a decade or two.
I meant consequences for the Democratic Party. The GOP has changed tremendously over the last ten years, while the Democrats seemingly haven't changed at all over the last thirty or so. They need a major shakeup of pretty much everything - their priorities, their leadership, their structure, their strategies, and so on, or else they'll lose again to Trump's handpicked successor in four years' time, and again after that, and again after that. Losing to Trump once is bad enough, and a second time is inexcusable. The center-right neolibs at the top with their "let's appeal to conservatives!" strategies need to step aside.
Alright, this is for my fellow far-right nazis: when are we going to set up the concentration camps? Have we set up the handmaid's tale outfits for women, yet? I feel like there's a lot on the agenda we need to get properly scheduled.
Oh, you'll be in the concentration camps yourself. There won't be any "but I voted for Trump!" exceptions.
-
...while the Democrats seemingly haven't changed at all over the last thirty or so.
It is patently obvious Democrats have changed for the worse.
-
^ITT LD fails to understand tariffs on imported goods lead to increased production of the same goods within the country, along with livable wages for those new hires that will be producing those goods. LD advocates continued sweatshop wages in China and status-quo.
*Sigh* yes, eventually. If the tariffs are maintained in 5-10 years domestic production will be up. BUT costs will stay up as the cost of making it domestically will be the same or about the same as importing it. So more expensive than now, regardless.
I'm all for pain now, but since Trump won on "shit is too expensive!" I'm not sure making it MORE expensive is gonna help.
Well, since Biden decided to keep the tariffs in place on China, I believe you can go ahead and openly bitch about that now too...
Even though you won't be paying any of those increased costs.
amirite, uh?
-
^ITT LD fails to understand tariffs on imported goods lead to increased production of the same goods within the country, along with livable wages for those new hires that will be producing those goods. LD advocates continued sweatshop wages in China and status-quo.
*Sigh* yes, eventually. If the tariffs are maintained in 5-10 years domestic production will be up. BUT costs will stay up as the cost of making it domestically will be the same or about the same as importing it. So more expensive than now, regardless.
I'm all for pain now, but since Trump won on "shit is too expensive!" I'm not sure making it MORE expensive is gonna help.
Well, since Biden decided to keep the tariffs in place on China, I believe you can go ahead and openly bitch about that now too...
Even though you won't be paying any of those increased costs.
amirite, uh?
I already openly bitched about it, yeah.
And no, I will not.
-
So, not really bitchin'...gotcha.
-
So, not really bitchin'...gotcha.
You will be in 2 years.
-
It won't be due to higher prices because of tariffs.
It will be due to more of a police state.
It is quite possible there will be no inauguration on January 20th, 2025.
Brandon is likely to either die or retire and the cunt will be in power. Once that happens, game over.
-
It won't be due to higher prices because of tariffs.
It will be due to more of a police state.
It is quite possible there will be no inauguration on January 20th, 2025.
Brandon is likely to either die or retire and the cunt will be in power. Once that happens, game over.
And if it doesn't?
-
I am simply offering some thoughts on things that could possibly happen.
Given the current state of thinking within the US and past precedent.
From the time when the shit really started to hit the fan.
The US, as a Constitutional Republic, is over...big time.
-
And when was it over last time?
-
And when was it over last time?
Do you even understand what I wrote?
-
And when was it over last time?
Do you even understand what I wrote?
You said from precedent, which implies that this has happened before and the country came to end or very nearly did.
-
And when was it over last time?
Do you even understand what I wrote?
You said from precedent, which implies that this has happened before and the country came to end or very nearly did.
Okay.
You clearly do not understand.
Past precedent refers to prior events, setting the stage for future situations.
So, instead of you writing, "...from precedent, which implies that this has happened before..."
You would write, '...from precedent, which implies that things have happened before..."
-
I thought this was interesting. A good explanation in why all the mud slinging from the Democrats was ineffective.
Obviously Trump was doing that too, but the bottom line is people aren't happy with how things are going, they blame the Democrats and will elect anyone who says they'll make things better. I'm not convinced he will, but all he had to do was say he would and all the other stuff he does just doesn't matter to people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyIAJCWVxA
-
And when was it over last time?
Do you even understand what I wrote?
You said from precedent, which implies that this has happened before and the country came to end or very nearly did.
Okay.
You clearly do not understand.
Past precedent refers to prior events, setting the stage for future situations.
So, instead of you writing, "...from precedent, which implies that this has happened before..."
You would write, '...from precedent, which implies that things have happened before..."
Precedent typically involves the thing you're talking about. Saying "from past precedent of how you walk your dog, I conclude that the country is going to crash" isn't precedent.
-
And when was it over last time?
Do you even understand what I wrote?
You said from precedent, which implies that this has happened before and the country came to end or very nearly did.
Okay.
You clearly do not understand.
Past precedent refers to prior events, setting the stage for future situations.
So, instead of you writing, "...from precedent, which implies that this has happened before..."
You would write, '...from precedent, which implies that things have happened before..."
Precedent typically involves the thing you're talking about. Saying "from past precedent of how you walk your dog, I conclude that the country is going to crash" isn't precedent.
Forgive everyone who reads this for not taking your lack of comprehension seriously.
Precedent includes prior events that could lay the work for a future decision or outcome.
Your interpretation and understanding are clearly lacking substance.
-
all he had to do was say he would and all the other stuff he does just doesn't matter to people.
Wow, that's all you have to do to get voted into presidency?
Kamala also said she would fix things. However, she was clearly not qualified, and doesn't have any good track record. With Trump we can look back and see that the country was in a better state.
Joe Biden pointed out in September that Kamala handled "everything from foreign policy to domestic policy" (https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-says-harris-handled-everything-from-foreign-policy-domestic-policy-under-his-administration) under his administration. This and his other comments in the effort to help Kamala really worked against her. Basically this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yh4xsmfE00c
-
all he had to do was say he would and all the other stuff he does just doesn't matter to people.
Wow, that's all you have to do to get voted into presidency?
In the scenario when people think things are going to shit and blame the current government for that it goes a long way.
Kamala also said she would fix things
Yes, but she is part of the current administration which people believe have caused their problems.
With Trump we can look back and see that the country was in a better state.
Well that’s debatable.
I don’t think he handled Covid well - repeatedly denying the seriousness of it and saying it was all under control. I disagree with a lot of his positions on climate change and immigration. But sure, “gas” was cheaper, groceries were cheaper. Those are things which affect people day to day.
My take is the inflation has been caused in part by the hangover from the pandemic and the situation in Ukraine, I don’t think its all been because of the Democrats and I’m not convinced Trump will fix it. But I’d be the first to admit I’m no expert on economics so I guess we’ll see.
I hope he does a good job, no one wins out of it being a complete shit show.
-
Just to chime in.
Democrats didn't cause inflation since it's a global issue. Unless you wanna make the claim that US policy caused inflation world wide.
That being said, Trump can (and probably will) lower gas prices quickly by removing the sanctions on Russia and withdrawing support for Ukraine. This will cause Russian oil to flow into America, increasing supply and decreasing price.
Trump will then sell weapons to Russia and help them destroy the evil Nazis in Ukraine. Prices will stabilize in about 3 years as Ukraine becomes a vessel of Russia. Again.
Let's see how well this holds up.
-
Just to chime in.
Democrats didn't cause inflation since it's a global issue. Unless you wanna make the claim that US policy caused inflation world wide.
That being said, Trump can (and probably will) lower gas prices quickly by removing the sanctions on Russia and withdrawing support for Ukraine. This will cause Russian oil to flow into America, increasing supply and decreasing price.
Trump will then sell weapons to Russia and help them destroy the evil Nazis in Ukraine. Prices will stabilize in about 3 years as Ukraine becomes a vessel of Russia. Again.
Let's see how well this holds up.
And then despots around the world will learn that all you have to do is threaten America with nuclear weapons and they'll cave to just about anything. "Make America the Weakest It's Been Since the American Revolution" would have been a better tagline for Trump's campaign.
-
Just to chime in.
Democrats didn't cause inflation since it's a global issue. Unless you wanna make the claim that US policy caused inflation world wide.
That being said, Trump can (and probably will) lower gas prices quickly by removing the sanctions on Russia and withdrawing support for Ukraine. This will cause Russian oil to flow into America, increasing supply and decreasing price.
Trump will then sell weapons to Russia and help them destroy the evil Nazis in Ukraine. Prices will stabilize in about 3 years as Ukraine becomes a vessel of Russia. Again.
Let's see how well this holds up.
And then despots around the world will learn that all you have to do is threaten America with nuclear weapons and they'll cave to just about anything. "Make America the Weakest It's Been Since the American Revolution" would have been a better tagline for Trump's campaign.
No no, no threats.
Just say "Mr. president, you are an amazing leader and the best leader America has seen. Can I have a nuke?"
-
Yes, but she is part of the current administration which people believe have caused their problems.
Then it should be no surprise that she lost.
With Trump we can look back and see that the country was in a better state.
Well that’s debatable.
I don’t think he handled Covid well - repeatedly denying the seriousness
Hold on there, you believe it was serious. People in general do not. People do not believe that Covid is serious. Most people stopped masking and stopped taking the boosters a long time ago, even when Covid was still allegedly running amok (and still is running amock depending on who you talk to). After doing this they saw that people were not dying in the streets and the world didn't end. Therefore people believe that Trump was in the right in denying its seriousness and do not count the questionable deaths with multiple comorbidities you claim under his watch.
Maybe you should look in the mirror and question yourself for being afraid of a disease with a 99.95% survival rate (https://ciudadanospormexico.org/covid-19-has-a-99-95-survival-rate-for-people-under-70-stanford-professor-of-medicine/) that is hardly different than the flu. Once you realize that you were pretty dumb for following the herd and media hype, you will have all you need to know for why the liberal fav Kamala Harris lost the election by tremendous amount in contradiction to the leftist predictions, and which ultimately leads to why you guys are so prone to these types of delusions and falsities.
The real reason for your leftist error, of course, is that you value feelings over rational thought.
-
When I think of valuing rational thought and cold, hard facts over vibes, emotion, and intuition, I think of Donald Trump and his supporters.
-
Then it should be no surprise that she lost.
I'm not surprised she lost. I am a bit surprised at how badly she lost
Hold on there, you believe it was serious. People in general do not.
You may be right, but it doesn't matter what you believe. The data shows it was a serious situation which required a response.
(https://i.ibb.co/HVjkgPB/usexcessdeaths.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
The data above is all deaths so even if you think deaths were being misattributed to Covid, something was causing a lot of extra deaths - and we saw that in the UK too.
I wonder if the issue is that when people think of a pandemic they think of films like 28 Days Later. I agree it wasn't a "holy shit we're all going to die" thing. For most young healthy people it wasn't that big a deal. The issue is in the West we have a lot of old and/or unhealthy people. There don't have to be piles of bodies in the street for it to be a situation which requires a response. My view is that Trump made a hash of it, as did our government.
The real reason for your leftist error, of course, is that you value feelings over rational thought.
I'm not a leftist. I'm fairly centrist. And it's ironic you say I value feelings over rational thought when my opinion is based on data and yours is based on a vague feeling of "well, most people didn't die so what was the fuss about?"
-
"...something was causing a lot of extra deaths - and we saw that in the UK too."
This was addressed in many of the cofeve threads.
The supposed "excess deaths," were coming anyway. During the years 1945 - 1962, more people were born than at any prior time in recorded history.
The most people ready to die at the natural end of life are going to die at their natural end of life.
The issue is in the West we have a lot of old and/or unhealthy people.
Not once during the entirety of the plandemic were you ever offering any sort of alternative, rational approach instead of what was done. Granted, you were found stating things such as, "it isn't a holy shit thing, we are all going to die," but mostly you were just here spreading more fucking bullshit, such as:
It’s genuinely baffling the man doesn’t have a Nobel prize in science for his proof of a flat earth and one in science for his pioneering work curing cancer and the Covid-19 pandemic.
This was in response to Tom pointing out that hydroxychloriquine was approved to treat coronaviruses by Fauci 15 years prior to the plandemic.
In truth, you posted just heaps and heaps of fucking bullshit during the whole period.
It is just you.
-
More evidence of cognitive dissonance in action and typing feeble-minded thoughts:
Without the lockdown so many more people would have died, and will die if we ease up before we are ready.
The last sentence - probably right.
I know...I know...
You are going to write back, "Hey I posted a bunch of words after that!"
Thing is, they are already neutralized by your opening salvo; thereby rendered truly meaningless.
-
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them. Demonrats sacrificed their own people in their sick quest for "climate correction" through depopulation. It's also why they want abortion so badly. Demonrats hate human beings and want them dead.
-
This was addressed in many of the cofeve threads.
The supposed "excess deaths," were coming anyway. During the years 1945 - 1962, more people were born than at any prior time in recorded history.
Oh right, so over 16 years there was a rise in births and that led to a one off spike in 2020 did it?
There's a clear rising trend of deaths - as you'd expect in an ageing population. But a clear spike in 2020 when Covid hit.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195920/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
But if you think your "brilliant" hypothesis has any merit then feel free to point me at some actual experts who agree with you.
Tumbleweeds.
Not once during the entirety of the plandemic were you ever offering any sort of alternative, rational approach instead of what was done.
They should have locked down earlier and harder. By the time they did lock down it was too late - because of Trump repeatedly insisting it was under control and would all go away. And they should have done more to protect the vulnerable while giving more freedom to people who were at less risk. There.
Now, stop derailing the thread. The point is Trump was a bloody awful president.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/20/presidents-ranking-trump-biden-list
But gas and groceries were cheaper under him so you voted him back in. Silly you!
-
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them.
Which is impressive given that's more than the total number of people who have died in the US since the vaccine was available.
-
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them.
Which is impressive given that's more than the total number of people who have died in the US since the vaccine was available.
Oh no, you mean to tell me the government that gave millions of people a deadly injection would also lie about the numbers of deaths that have occurred?
-
Those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them.
Which is impressive given that's more than the total number of people who have died in the US since the vaccine was available.
Oh no, you mean to tell me the government that gave millions of people a deadly injection would also lie about the numbers of deaths that have occurred?
Rushy in "providing no evidence for his claims and dismissing all evidence which shows him to be wrong" shock exclusive!
-
Rushy in "providing no evidence for his claims and dismissing all evidence which shows him to be wrong" shock exclusive!
Me: the government is lying
You: here is the government saying they are not lying
Me: they obviously would not tell you they are lying
You: haha no evidence!
???
-
Well, how would you know how many people died without official records? Go poll every morgue or funeral home in every state?
-
Rushy in "providing no evidence for his claims and dismissing all evidence which shows him to be wrong" shock exclusive!
Me: the government is lying
You: here is the government saying they are not lying
Me: they obviously would not tell you they are lying
You: haha no evidence!
???
You're saying the government is lying in a way which:
a) Would be very noticeable in the country and
b) Makes no sense
You said "those missing 15 million Democrat votes aren't people that decided to stay home, they're dead. They took the vaccine and it killed them".
15 million people is close to 5% of the US population. It's close to 1 in 20 people in the country. Are these additional deaths? Presumably people are still dying from other causes. A jump in the number of people dying - that's significantly more people than died in the pandemic - would be obvious and easy to evidence.
Secondly, you understand it wasn't just Democrats who got vaccinated - 58% of Republicans were vaccinated too.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-covid-19-vaccinations-party-affiliation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/
Did none of them die?
Again I call in to question how you arrive at beliefs. It seems to be whatever pops in to your head.
-
You're saying the government is lying in a way which:
a) Would be very noticeable in the country and
Yes, it is very noticeable. Here I am, noticing it.
b) Makes no sense
It makes no sense to a reasonable human being. It makes perfect sense to murder millions of people "for the greater good" when you are a demonrat.
-
This was addressed in many of the cofeve threads.
The supposed "excess deaths," were coming anyway. During the years 1945 - 1962, more people were born than at any prior time in recorded history.
Oh right, so over 16 years there was a rise in births and that led to a one off spike in 2020 did it?
There's a clear rising trend of deaths - as you'd expect in an ageing population. But a clear spike in 2020 when Covid hit.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195920/number-of-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
But if you think your "brilliant" hypothesis has any merit then feel free to point me at some actual experts who agree with you.
Tumbleweeds.
Spikes in deaths are not uncommon at all, especially in an aging population.
You really need to get a fucking grip. You're reasoning here is clearly lacking.
Not once during the entirety of the plandemic were you ever offering any sort of alternative, rational approach instead of what was done.
They should have locked down earlier and harder. By the time they did lock down it was too late - because of Trump repeatedly insisting it was under control and would all go away. And they should have done more to protect the vulnerable while giving more freedom to people who were at less risk. There.
Now, stop derailing the thread. The point is Trump was a bloody awful president.
You're the one who brought up cofeve.
You stop with your fucking bullshit and I will stop calling you out on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/20/presidents-ranking-trump-biden-list
But gas and groceries were cheaper under him so you voted him back in. Silly you!
Nobody gives a fuck about what the goddamn shitrag has printed on it in terms of denialism.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.
The exit door is right over there, clearly marked.
-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-blames-harris-loss-bidens-late-exit-open/story?id=115652125
Poor Pelosi. If only she hadn't helped hide Biden's cognitive decline for years. Why would Biden do this to her?
-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-blames-harris-loss-bidens-late-exit-open/story?id=115652125
Poor Pelosi. If only she hadn't helped hide Biden's cognitive decline for years. Why would Biden do this to her?
"And as I say, Kamala may have, I think she would have done well in that and been stronger going forward. But we don't know that." - Pelosi quote from the article.
LMMFAO! She didn't even survive the 2019 year after announcing her candidacy for 2020.
The Democrats are totally off the rails.
Liberals are totally off the rails.
-
Donald Trump continues to make the world a better place
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/whoopi-goldberg-joins-anti-trump-sex-strike-my-vagina-is-now-closed/
(https://i.imgur.com/LYBhgon.png)
-
I meant consequences for the Democratic Party. The GOP has changed tremendously over the last ten years, while the Democrats seemingly haven't changed at all over the last thirty or so. They need a major shakeup of pretty much everything - their priorities, their leadership, their structure, their strategies, and so on, or else they'll lose again to Trump's handpicked successor in four years' time, and again after that, and again after that. Losing to Trump once is bad enough, and a second time is inexcusable. The center-right neolibs at the top with their "let's appeal to conservatives!" strategies need to step aside.
https://sfstandard.com/2024/11/14/nancy-pelosi-congress-election-donald-trump-2026/
Or, you know, the ancient fossils who bungled the election can refuse to step aside and keep clinging to power. That's cool too!