Something Completely Different

EDIT: Post mortem election thread link below:
https://scd.community/index.php?topic=1154

Welp, Trump crushed Nikki Haley in her own state, sweeping the first four states.

Trump wins South Carolina, easily beating Haley in her home state and closing in on GOP nomination (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee)

Beyond Trump's legal problems taking him out, and beyond a health complication or some switcheroo at the convention, it's almost certainly going to be a rematch of the 2020 Presidential Election with Trump v. Biden in 2024.

I figured the general could use its own thread separate from the 2024 Republican Primary, so here we are.

Trump seems to have a pretty clear advantage in many of the swing states right now, but a lot can change in a year's time (which is an eternity in politics).

https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/election

So let us pontificate on the presidential race and bitch and complain about our choices.

It's election season, after all.

(https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/authoring/authoring-images/2023/10/10/USAT/71134524007-trump-biden.jpg?crop=3196,2398,x3,y1)

I don't like Biden at all. I'm not saying Donald is great but I really don't like Biden and I'd love to see him lose. It's probably best for him anyway.

Unreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 25, 2024, 04:23 AMI don't like Biden at all. I'm not saying Donald is great but I really don't like Biden and I'd love to see him lose. It's probably best for him anyway.

Unreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Reminds me of this ad Trump shared about Biden.

I implore anyone who thinks Biden winning will be worse than Trump to please look into Project 2025. This is bigger than both of them.

Only one party is openly stating their desire to remove women's rights, enact legal violence against trans and queer people, and enshrine all of it into law.

That doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Yes, absolutely. I wanted to hone in on some of the more specific issues in my post, but yes, it is very much wider than those.

If Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 05:40 PMYes, absolutely. I wanted to hone in on some of the more specific issues in my post, but yes, it is very much wider than those.

If Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

A little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMA little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

I'm not going to try to have a political debate with you or predict anything. I am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 10:19 PMI'm not going to try to have a political debate with you or predict anything. I am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

Okay, where does the 'ending elections' thing come from?

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

Putin literally said he'd prefer Biden to win 2024 though.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 05:40 PMIf Trump wins and the republicans get their way, there most likely will not be any more elections.

Highly doubtful.  He said he was going to throw Hillary in jail over and over again and never did it.  And that was something he was actually passionate about.  Dude can't even get a crowd to follow his instructions and you think he can somehow get rid of the other two branches of government with a magic wand.  If it was that easy to get your way in government, Biden would be all over it.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2024, 10:19 PMI am going off what Trump, the people behind the Project 2025 document, and other Republicans have said they plan to do. Do I think they will pass all of it with absolute certainty? No, maybe not. But they're spelling it out pretty openly that they are going to try.

People who get power politically try to get their way as opposed to letting the other party walk all over them? Shocking.

As long as we are polite to each other, which, to everyone's credit, we have been so far, it's kind of fun that we have our very own partisan divide on SCD, with the opposing sides apparently getting their news from different sources.
Surely there is a reputable balanced news source we can trust? Just out of ingrained habit, I trust the BBC to be pretty impartial, though a friend of mine denounces it for having a leftist agenda. I also watch NBC Nightly News progs, which actually seem to avoid political comment as much as they can, also PBS.
(I mainly watch CNN of course, and can see that several of their progs are overly-biased in the anti-Trump direction, but nothing as bad as Fox News, which I dip into for about five mins a week if a want a shock dose of "How can they say that with a straight face?")

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMRepublicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections.

^ With all due respect, SGR, this seems to be a rather down-the-rabbit-hole appraisal. That right there in bold is the reason why they have a recent policy of cheating the electorate if they can get away with it. Examples: the fake electors scheme, the discredited accusations against Ruby Moss and Dominion and that Jan 6 call to hang Mike Pence. The Republicans are surely demonstrating a perfect willingness NOT to play by the book, it's just that many times they don't get away with it. 

QuoteDemocrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

By "advantageous changes" I suppose you are referring to policies that made voting easier/less of a health risk during a lethal pandemic (that has killed about 1.1 million Americans to date.) The "advantageous" bit, I suppose is (i) less people dying and (ii) more people participating in democracy, which long term will favour the popular vote = people prefer the Dems. 

QuoteThe Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections

^ If you watch Kleper and others interviewing the nut-jobs he finds at Trump rallies, I don't think you'd be so confident about this. Those guys blithely talk about civil war if Biden wins, or about Trump being sent by God. Even in the saner GOP, there is a high percentage of people who deny that Biden is President, and who have shown that they place loyalty to Trump over any ethical considerations that have been raised thus far. Also, don't forget a Trump-heavy Supreme Court that are acting like a loose cannon, with Judge C Thomas sitting in on every decision which he should have recused himself from.
I don't think the GOP would ever announce: "There'll be no more elections" but I believe them capable of so many sly tricks of voter repression and electoral-college manipulation that, if Trump were in office again, elections would hold all the suspense of elections in Russia (i.e. none)*

* Or as a British comedian once remarked on a kind of SNL equivalent: " Thieves broke into the Kremlin last night and stole next year's election results"

The BBC have a leftist agenda on some things. If you go on their home page right now there'll be several articles and videos pushing identity politics. They are really into that sort of thing. Not just reporting but also programming.

But then they do things like that Corbyn incident where they tried to make him look Russian in the run up to the election in 2017.

They're also very dismissive of anything Midland, to the point I would say they are almost anti-Birmingham (I realise that describes most of the country but the national broadcaster shouldn't be doing it). I've already posted about the occasion I noticed them photoshopping a derogatory article (which they then admitted and apologised for before deleting the picture), they just would not have written a similar piece about other places. One of our MPs got involved. They also take the most money in license fees from the region and invest the smallest amount back in.

So basically I don't really like them.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AM^ With all due respect, SGR, this seems to be a rather down-the-rabbit-hole appraisal. That right there in bold is the reason why they have a recent policy of cheating the electorate if they can get away with it. Examples: the fake electors scheme, the discredited accusations against Ruby Moss and Dominion and that Jan 6 call to hang Mike Pence. The Republicans are surely demonstrating a perfect willingness NOT to play by the book, it's just that many times they don't get away with it. 

I disagree - as we saw, the Republican party was completely divided over all of what you mentioned. You refer to it like it was some sort of party-wide plan, but that's far from the reality. Trump's second in command, Pence, blew up the entire plan. At best, this 'plan' encompassed Trump and his lawyers, not the Republican party.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AMBy "advantageous changes" I suppose you are referring to policies that made voting easier/less of a health risk during a lethal pandemic (that has killed about 1.1 million Americans to date.) The "advantageous" bit, I suppose is (i) less people dying and (ii) more people participating in democracy, which long term will favour the popular vote = people prefer the Dems. 

That's certainly one narrative/way to frame it. Here's another:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in-2020-post-5583575

Paste that URL into this site if the paywall blocks you:

https://12ft.io/

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 01:09 AM^ If you watch Kleper and others interviewing the nut-jobs he finds at Trump rallies, I don't think you'd be so confident about this. Those guys blithely talk about civil war if Biden wins, or about Trump being sent by God. Even in the saner GOP, there is a high percentage of people who deny that Biden is President, and who have shown that they place loyalty to Trump over any ethical considerations that have been raised thus far. Also, don't forget a Trump-heavy Supreme Court that are acting like a loose cannon, with Judge C Thomas sitting in on every decision which he should have recused himself from.
I don't think the GOP would ever announce: "There'll be no more elections" but I believe them capable of so many sly tricks of voter repression and electoral-college manipulation that, if Trump were in office again, elections would hold all the suspense of elections in Russia (i.e. none)*

* Or as a British comedian once remarked on a kind of SNL equivalent: " Thieves broke into the Kremlin last night and stole next year's election results"

This election, regardless of how it turns out, is going to be ugly. No voter base is going to be satisfied or convinced, regardless of the outcome. If Trump wins, do you think, for example, the Democrats will accept it as a fairly won election? Or do you think there will be more accusations of Russian election interference? And more baseless or crocked up investigations into what foreign actors may or may not have helped Trump get elected with their dastardly memes?

If the Republicans were motivated to end all elections and pull all these tricks to keep Trump and/or his allies in power, why wouldn't they have done it the first time? You know, when he was still eligible for another term (unlike next time, assuming he serves another term)? These fears of Trump and/or the Supreme Court ending fair elections if Trump gets elected again are just a Democrat fever-dream just like 2016 when they said the same ridiculous things before the election. And honestly, I think much of the fears the Democrats voice about what they think Trump will do if re-elected are just a projection - of what they would do if they were in his position and got re-elected.

Again, this is not projection on my part. They've literally said the stuff about trans people and women's rights out loud repeatedly.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 26, 2024, 02:30 AMAgain, this is not projection on my part. They've literally said the stuff about trans people and women's rights out loud repeatedly.

To be clear, when I talked about 'projection' I wasn't referring to that, I was more referring to the Democrats fear of Trump enacting 'revenge' on them through lawfare.

Imo Trump should've been rejected by the republican party after the Jan 6th and his numerous criminal activities. He should not be allowed to run and propping up Trump again seems rotten to me.

And Biden should be in a care home. His main draw is being a lesser evil.

So I agree with this:

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 25, 2024, 04:23 AMUnreal that you have to choose between a potential convicted criminal and someone who should be in a care home.

Sad!

Sad - and sad how the crazy political situation in the US can affect the rest of the world as well.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 02:00 AMThe BBC have a leftist agenda on some things. If you go on their home page right now there'll be several articles and videos pushing identity politics. They are really into that sort of thing. Not just reporting but also programming.

But then they do things like that Corbyn incident where they tried to make him look Russian in the run up to the election in 2017.

They're also very dismissive of anything Midland, to the point I would say they are almost anti-Birmingham (I realise that describes most of the country but the national broadcaster shouldn't be doing it). I've already posted about the occasion I noticed them photoshopping a derogatory article (which they then admitted and apologised for before deleting the picture), they just would not have written a similar piece about other places. One of our MPs got involved. They also take the most money in license fees from the region and invest the smallest amount back in.

So basically I don't really like them.

I'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 25, 2024, 11:10 PMPutin literally said he'd prefer Biden to win 2024 though.

Are you really taking a remark that Putin made at face value, Nimbly? With that attitude you could probably get a job on Tucker Carlson's team of investigative journalists. ;)

Putin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 25, 2024, 09:49 PMA little hyperbolic, no? Feels similar to the claim that "Trump will start World War 3!" back in 2016, but even that prediction felt more likely.

Republicans aren't gonna end elections - their modus operandi in recent times has always been by the books, by the constitution, etc. It's why they so frequently lose elections. Democrats, on the other hand, are more willing to bend the rules a bit within the constraints of what's legal and what's not - which is why they win so frequently (recent example being all the advantageous changes they were able to enact in 2020 because of Covid).

The Republicans' own constituency would not stand for Trump and the GOP ending elections - if Trump wins, he'll likely (at least attempt to) push through some controversial policies - and after 4 years, he'll be heading off into the sunset and the Democrats will likely win in 2028, as there's no clear successor to Trump (who has galvanized the Republican party, getting more votes than any sitting president in 2020). And they'll, like they did after Biden won in 2020, reverse most policies of Trump they didn't like.

I still can't believe the Dems seem to be planning to ride into the 2024 election with Biden - especially given his approval rating and the poll results from the swing states. It seems like, even if they had some other stock establishment Dem like Newsom or maybe even Elizabeth Warren, there wouldn't be much chance for Trump, one of the most, if not the most, divisive candidates in history to win.

i agree it's hyperbolic to say there "most likely won't be anymore elections" if Trump wins, but I'm kind of puzzled about the next paragraph.

1) what do you mean by republicans so frequently lose elections because they are too "by the books" when compared to the democrats?

2) what rules did the democrats bend with regard to Covid and the 2020 elections?

Republicans are favored electorally in our system by the sheer way that it is set up. From the way the senate is structured to the electoral college, republicans are benefited by all of that. They so frequently lose elections because despite being propped up institutionally, they are pushing essentially an ideology that is on  its last legs. Trump and his complete capture of the right in a few short years is a perfect symptom of that.

I don't necessarily know what will happen if he gets re elected but I know I don't trust him. And I know that just relying on the institutions to stop him from doing anything extra feels like a needless gamble. I completely get looking at Biden and thinking he's not fit to run. But if you really trust Trump more after watching the last decade or so, I don't understand that. The guy is a clear liability.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:27 AMPutin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

Putin is a slightly different story though.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

He also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

For the record I also do not think Trump will win the election and immediately declare himself god emperor for life. But I think he and project 2025 can very easily set us on a path toward erosion of democracy, and I don't trust people like the MAGA party to have any reservations about trying to achieve that goal.

First of all, thanks for that wonderful tool that cleans your link of its paywall restriction, SGR. That's perfect for my approach to the internet, which is "Never give a site any information or money".

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 02:27 AMI disagree - as we saw, the Republican party was completely divided over all of what you mentioned. You refer to it like it was some sort of party-wide plan, but that's far from the reality. Trump's second in command, Pence, blew up the entire plan. At best, this 'plan' encompassed Trump and his lawyers, not the Republican party.

^ Maybe I gave that impression, but it doesn't have to be a party-wide plan; it just has to be a plan that enough influential people can push through, while any dissenting senators, etc keep their mouths shout out of fear of the MAGA base. Plenty of examples of these silent enablers: they were all over the votes that impeached Trump, but refused to do the next logical thing, which was to convict him. Also, you hear their silence every time M Taylor Green describes the jailed Jan 6 rioters as "political prisoners".

QuoteThat's certainly one narrative/way to frame it. Here's another:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in-2020-post-5583575

Paste that URL into this site if the paywall blocks you:

https://12ft.io/

One quick way to check what is true or not is to bear in mind this piece of advice: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". So while your article was interesting, I noticed that it came to the opposite conclusion of countless court decisions and recounts that found no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud. The article, though, is only backed up by one report. I also found these paragraphs suspicious:-

"The December survey, which President Trump called "the biggest story of the year," suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they're no longer permanent residents.
In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is "under most circumstances, illegal" and so potentially amounts to voter fraud."

^ Their original 20% figure has somehow been massaged upwards to 28.2%, but is also covered with caveats of "under most circumstances" and "potentially"

"Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead."

^ Maybe they have an argument for why every "fraudulent" vote was a vote for Biden, but I didn't notice it.

Mainly though, I'm relying on that maxim about "extraordinary claims" and assume that if this one (Heartland) report stands up to scrutiny from other experts, it'll turn up in more mainstream news outlets.

QuoteIf the Republicans were motivated to end all elections and pull all these tricks to keep Trump and/or his allies in power, why wouldn't they have done it the first time? You know, when he was still eligible for another term (unlike next time, assuming he serves another term)? These fears of Trump and/or the Supreme Court ending fair elections if Trump gets elected again are just a Democrat fever-dream just like 2016 when they said the same ridiculous things before the election. And honestly, I think much of the fears the Democrats voice about what they think Trump will do if re-elected are just a projection - of what they would do if they were in his position and got re-elected.

^ The lack of success first time round is because (i) the Trump White House was full of old Republican "guard rail" politicians like John Bolton and (ii) the fake elector scheme was a new, just invented ploy. If Trump wins again, his "revenge tour cabinet" will look very different: Trump loyalists   with a working model of how to subvert an election.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:27 AMPutin said Tucker should have asked harder questions too, now that you mention it.  So what do you mean by "face value" in that context? All we ever have to go on with heads of state (for the most part) is what they say. It is precisely that reason that I don't really take a lot of what Trump says seriously regardless of the topic.  I also assume Biden lies every time he opens his mouth too.

 - I meant what the phrase "at face value" always means: accepting a statement superficially, without any question or doubt about its truth.
 - In adition to what heads of state say, we can also go on what policies they entact.
 - Did you see a graphic I pulled up some time ago about truth and lies? Biden was about 50/50, Trump was more lies than truth. Obama was right up there with Mother Teresa ;)

QuotePutin is a slightly different story though - he's not a gaffe machine like Biden or a loosey goosey ad libber like Trump.  He said years ago that he preferred Trump to Hillary.  Pretty sure he meant that.  Now he's saying he prefers Biden to Trump.  Going by his past comments, all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case.

^ His comment about Hillary was just confirmation of what the world already knew. If asked, Putin would prob say, "Yes, my name is Putin" but that doesn't mean "all you can do is assume he means what he says in this case." I didn't believe him in Helsinki, even though Trump did, I didn't believe him when he said that he wasn't going to invade Ukraine either.

Quote from: Nimbly9 on Feb 26, 2024, 03:42 AMHe also said he'd build the wall and ultimately sidelined it in favor of other things.  NATO doesn't really work if countries, for whatever reason, all decided to just stop paying one day. If things ever actually got the point where Germany or someone else went "delinquent" (in Trump's words) then you are already done.

yeah, I know. Nothing he says matters cause Trump just be saying shit.

But Putin we should definitely take at face value, when telling us who he would prefer our president to be. Not like there's any reason to doubt his motives for doing so.

Yeah no @Nimbly9 I'm not taking Putin's statements about whom he prefers as president seriously lol. I have very little faith in Biden but we know for sure that Trump would do fuck all to help stop Putin

It's a no brainer who Putin would prefer. Let's use our brains for half a second. Even if you oppose the aid the Ukraine, there's no doubt that it goes against Russia's interest for us to arm the country they are trying to invade.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2024, 03:09 AMI'm sorry that has been your experience with the BBC, jimmy jazz. I've never noticed actual anti-Birmingham stuff, but I can 100% believe that they are focused on Westminster, London and the Home Counties. My apologies because as a Londoner I'm probably guilty of the same.

I've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 01:38 PMI've got you down as one of the good guys mate don't worry.

Thank you, my friend! Right back at you.  :love:

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 25, 2024, 10:55 AMThat doesn't even capture the full scope of the danger though. Trump getting re-elected would be a threat to democracy in general, for everyone not just in the us but also in all of Europe, with the political trends here and Putin's warmongering. I loathe Biden but the alternative is much worse

A strong word coming from you. What accounts for this intensity?

So much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

I don't even think this race is gonna as close as it was last time. Trump is going to easily slide in for the win. Hell I'm even thinking about voting for Trump because it never matters in NY. It will automatically go to Biden.

Biden's hard stance to support Israel killed his re-election chances. There is no way that Genocide Joe is going to win. The current Democrats are so splintered. People are either going to stay home or throw away their vote on some smuck third party person.

Biden doesn't have enough votes to win by just not being Trump like he did last time. He has a record for people to call into question and people are disappointed by certain aspects of it. Democrats really screwed up throwing all their eggs into one basket behind Biden. Best case scenario he passes away but Kamala is even weaker of an opponent and Trump will roll her too.

The claim that Republicans are more stickler for the rules isn't correct either with the districts they gerrymandered last time around in attempts to win and still lost because of the overturned Roe v Wade stuff. Democrats' turn to change up districts is happening this year and will benefit them a bit more. I'm more worried about the house and any Senate races that are occurring than Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 05:14 PMSo much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

Trump is old but he's otherwise fit and healthy and pretty sharp.

Biden is decrepit, can barely walk and is visibly not right. You cannot see his gaffes and think anything else surely. There is absolutely no way Biden should be in office even if his policies and leadership were amazing.

Quote from: Jwb on Feb 26, 2024, 03:28 AMi agree it's hyperbolic to say there "most likely won't be anymore elections" if Trump wins, but I'm kind of puzzled about the next paragraph.

1) what do you mean by republicans so frequently lose elections because they are too "by the books" when compared to the democrats?

2) what rules did the democrats bend with regard to Covid and the 2020 elections?

Republicans are favored electorally in our system by the sheer way that it is set up. From the way the senate is structured to the electoral college, republicans are benefited by all of that. They so frequently lose elections because despite being propped up institutionally, they are pushing essentially an ideology that is on  its last legs. Trump and his complete capture of the right in a few short years is a perfect symptom of that.

I was referring mostly to universal mail-in ballots and the easing of mail-in restrictions. Before 2020, a voter would have to request an absentee ballot and get a witness to verify their identify in order to vote by mail. In 2020, nine states + DC mailed out ballots to everyone on their voter rolls, while others suspended the requirement for a witness. With the easing of mail-in restirctions, progressive Dems in many states sued to ease security measures for mail-in ballots, such as the aforementioned witness requirement and signature requirement - and in some cases, allowing ballots to arrive days after the election. None of this was illegal by the way, I'm just saying Democrats, at least in recent times, are more effective about using the existing rules to maneuever changes to benefit them electorally - while Republicans can hardly mount an effective ballot harvesting operation in comparison. The link below details more about the changes the Democrats were able to enact in 2020 - and as this article suggests, the Republicans, like the Democrats, will need to learn how to best exploit these rules if they want to have any chance of winning:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3811483-to-win-republicans-must-embrace-the-new-election-rules/


Republicans being what I'll call 'graceful losers' in comparison to Democrats and too 'by the books': if we look at 2016 for example, Clinton's campaign paid a foreign national (Christopher Steele) to produce a bunk dossier about Trump and his 'collusion with Russia' that the Democrats used as pretext to conduct about 2 years of investigation into Trump and his campaign, which also served to effectively undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. The Democrats then, after all that fizzled out after the release of the Mueller report, impeached him twice. Republicans in contrast, tend to write strongly worded letters and are 'looking into' impeaching Biden. And this doesn't even get into all the shenanigans with the intelligence agencies and their coordination with social media companies during the 2020 election that benefitted Biden and the Democrats. Republicans, at least before Trump, seemed to be fine with letting the Democrats dominate and control the narrative, and play defense. One of the first examples that popped in my head was Mitt Romney's '47% comments':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign#47%_comment

Whereas Trump would often double-down on whatever the media outrage was about his comments, Romney relented and went on a mini-apology tour for what he said (in politics, apology tours rarely work and often serve as a death knell, because regardless of the apology, what was said will continue to be used in political attacks by your opponent). Hell, in that election, Obama and the Democrats effectively used all technology and social media at their disposal to campaign. Romney and his campaign did none of that. Republicans tend to need to play catch-up and defense with Democrats, and maybe that's foundationally attributable to the difference in ideology - Republicans look to the past and want to 'conserve' what we have while Democrats often look to the future and want to make changes and improvements. As a culture and society, we need elements of both to be successful (and ideally, additional parties that serve as legitimate alternatives - but we all know that won't happen).

You're right that the electoral college does benefit Republicans, at least today. I didn't know this, but found it interesting - there's only been 5 US Presidential elections in which the candidate who wins the popular vote didn't ultimately win the presidency (because of the electoral college and in some cases, involvement of the Supreme Court) - Trump in 2016 being the most recent example - Bush in 2000 being the example before that, and prior to that, it hadn't happened since 1888:

List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote#:~:text=popular%20vote%20%2D%20Wikipedia-,List%20of%20United%20States%20presidential%20elections%20in,winner%20lost%20the%20popular%20vote&text=Comparison%20of%20the%20presidential%20elections,winner)%20lost%20the%20popular%20vote.)

To your point about the GOP being 'an ideology on its last legs' and that being a primary reason they lose, I don't necessarily disagree. I think if the Republicans just gave up on the abortion issue, they'd take away one of the biggest advantages Democrats have. But they don't seem to want to do that. Trump, at least now, has appeared to capture the Republican party - and we've discussed this before, but it will be interesting to see how different the party is after Trump is out of the picture - will they go back to their old ways and talking points, or will Trump's differing vision of the GOP become a seemingly permanent fixture?

Sorry for the novel, I'll try to respond to you @Lisnaholic later - but I think some of what I wrote above will be part of my response.

Quote from: jadis on Feb 26, 2024, 03:52 PMA strong word coming from you. What accounts for this intensity?

really? I feel like I often phrase things pretty strongly. I just loathe him because he's a corrupt liberal creep, I guess in the same way that I hate all politicians of that type, except that he has an extra ick-factor to me that's completely irrational and based on vibes. I feel exactly the same way about him as about Dutch (former-ish) prime minister Mark Rutte, another icky corrupt liberal creep

If RFKJ doesn't win I'm setting myself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy (https://i.postimg.cc/fy999YkX/YiDVdfR.png)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 26, 2024, 05:18 PMTrump is old but he's otherwise fit and healthy and pretty sharp.

Biden is decrepit, can barely walk and is visibly not right. You cannot see his gaffes and think anything else surely. There is absolutely no way Biden should be in office even if his policies and leadership were amazing.

Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 26, 2024, 05:30 PMreally? I feel like I often phrase things pretty strongly. I just loathe him because he's a corrupt liberal creep, I guess in the same way that I hate all politicians of that type, except that he has an extra ick-factor to me that's completely irrational and based on vibes. I feel exactly the same way about him as about Dutch (former-ish) prime minister Mark Rutte, another icky corrupt liberal creep

Ehh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

I agree with @DJChameleon . At this point I can only hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Speaking as a trans person I think it's a good time to make plans for DIY treatments and potentially relocating.

I cannot cling to a country whose president is actively committing direct harm to myself and my people to thunderous applause. If I were granted the opportunity to leave I would do so without hesitation.

Quote from: Mindy on Feb 26, 2024, 05:31 PMIf RFKJ doesn't win I'm setting myself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy (https://i.postimg.cc/fy999YkX/YiDVdfR.png)

I like dark jokes but literally too soon. You know the airman died right?

RIP.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 05:58 PMEhh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

This is rather old information, but I figured some may not have heard about it. The 'Ashley Biden diary'. I'm not sure why it was not a bigger story, as different news reports seem to confirm that the diary was real, was Ashley Biden's, and two people plead guilty to stealing it and they're prosecuting them for it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/guilty-trafficking-ashley-biden-diary-00053770

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/aimee-harris-ashley-biden-diary-sentencing.html

The diary is on the Library of Congress's archive site and can be found here:

https://ia803405.us.archive.org/20/items/ashley-biden-diary/Ashley_Biden_Diary_Original_10_15_2021.pdf

Page 25 in the PDF of the diary above is the one about Joe Biden taking showers with his daughter, among other really gross things:

(https://media.scored.co/post/QSx2MLu3DO18.png)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 06:15 PMI like dark jokes but literally too soon. You know the airman died right?

RIP.

yeah, it's sad. He didn't seem like the "bout bout" type too. Probably should have thought it over. Fucked up how an israeli embassy agent pointed a gun at him the whole time he was burning alive.

yeah maybe that joke was too soon too, my bad.

The mossad twitter page made fun of him right away! it was messed up, they were the ultra 'too soon'.

Quote from: Mindy on Feb 26, 2024, 06:23 PMyeah, it's sad. He didn't seem like the "bout bout" type too. Probably should have thought it over. Fucked up how an israeli embassy agent pointed a gun at him the whole time he was burning alive.

yeah maybe that joke was too soon too, my bad.

The mossad twitter page made fun of him right away! it was messed up, they were the ultra 'too soon'.

I think I would have been more okay with the joke if he was still alive and just severely injured but him passing away which I didn't learn about til this morning is a bit much. 🤔

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 06:17 PMThis is rather old information, but I figured some may not have heard about it. The 'Ashley Biden diary'. I'm not sure why it was not a bigger story, as different news reports seem to confirm that the diary was real, was Ashley Biden's, and two people plead guilty to stealing it and they're prosecuting them for it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/guilty-trafficking-ashley-biden-diary-00053770

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/22/us/politics/aimee-harris-ashley-biden-diary-sentencing.html

The diary is on the Library of Congress's archive site and can be found here:

https://ia803405.us.archive.org/20/items/ashley-biden-diary/Ashley_Biden_Diary_Original_10_15_2021.pdf

Page 25 in the PDF of the diary above is the one about Joe Biden taking showers with his daughter, among other really gross things:

(https://media.scored.co/post/QSx2MLu3DO18.png)

How scandalous! A parent taking a shower with their child woopty fucking do.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 05:58 PMEhh...I dunno that I'd call it completely irrational.

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fb2467970-5578-11e9-a8f5-a9ee11ff7e6d.png?crop=1500%2C1200%2C0%2C0)

Smelly old nonce.

Him, not you.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 06:27 PMHow scandalous! A parent taking a shower with their child woopty fucking do.

Well besides the fact that she was supposedly 10 or 11 when this happened. She was old enough that even she said in the diary it was 'probably not appropriate'.

I don't mind taking showers with my 8 year old and am gonna guess I won't mind when she's 10/11 either, but I also wouldn't be surprised if people think that's inappropriate.

For myself, I think it's a symptom of an unhealthy sexualizing of everything when naked = sexual, whatever context.

Quote from: Guybrush on Feb 26, 2024, 07:19 PMI don't mind taking showers with my 8 year old and am gonna guess I won't mind when she's 10/11 either, but I also wouldn't be surprised if people think that's inappropriate.

For myself, I think it's a symptom of an unhealthy sexualizing of everything when naked = sexual, whatever context.

That's fair - a cultural difference. I'm American, and any baths I had with my parents ended so early that I don't remember any of them.

When it comes to Biden, I'm predisposed to think the worst of it given his propensity for sniffing little girls, but that's not fair.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 26, 2024, 05:56 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/Mp112m1P/JB2.jpg)

Jimmy Dore recently said: "Biden is as sharp as Kindergarten scisscors, and he's as focused as a Bigfoot video!"  :laughing:

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 26, 2024, 05:14 PMSo much to touch on. Why do you guys think Biden needs to be in a care home and Trump doesn't?

I really like this guy's videos. He's not a Republican or Democrat cheerleader and he's always come off to me as pretty level-headed and unbiased. His video on the topic might be worth a watch, as I agree with most of what he says.


That being said, Trump really is too old to be running (we have a minimum age to be president, we should have a maximum, and I'd suggest something in the range of 70 - 75), even if he doesn't display as many signs of mental decline as Biden does. Of course, because he's running against Biden who's even older, he can mostly avoid this obvious criticism and line of attack, as long as he doesn't make egregious verbal mistakes.

Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2024, 10:58 PMI really like this guy's videos. He's not a Republican or Democrat cheerleader and he's always come off to me as pretty level-headed and unbiased. His video on the topic might be worth a watch, as I agree with most of what he says.

That being said, Trump really is too old to be running (we have a minimum age to be president, we should have a maximum, and I'd suggest something in the range of 70 - 75), even if he doesn't display as many signs of mental decline as Biden does. Of course, because he's running against Biden who's even older, he can mostly avoid this obvious criticism and line of attack, as long as he doesn't make egregious verbal mistakes.

Funny you made the comment about the maximum age limit. I made a FB post about that like three weeks ago. The age limit should also apply to members of Congress as well. This is bordering on elder abuse. Let these old people go home and spend time as grandpas and grandmas. We don't need this geriatric population dedicating policies for the younger generations that they won't even be around to see how badly they fuck us up.  The max age should be similar to retirement age. Whatever the current retirement age is to apply for social security should be the same age for elected officials to no longer be able to hold office.

I'm going to check that video out later but I saw this video this morning showcasing Trump's just rambling nonsense it is even more than his usual ramblings. He's definitely in mental decline as well. The only difference is that he isn't tripping over words but he's spewing straight non sense.

All you have to do is watch the clip showcase in the first 10 mins or so of this video.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 27, 2024, 10:24 PMFunny you made the comment about the maximum age limit. I made a FB post about that like three weeks ago. The age limit should also apply to members of Congress as well. This is bordering on elder abuse. Let these old people go home and spend time as grandpas and grandmas. We don't need this geriatric population dedicating policies for the younger generations that they won't even be around to see how badly they fuck us up.  The max age should be similar to retirement age. Whatever the current retirement age is to apply for social security should be the same age for elected officials to no longer be able to hold office.

100% agreed. It only makes sense, doesn't it? If we are willing to generalize all people under age 35 as not having enough experience or wisdom to lead our country, there must be an upper limit in which we generalize all people over a certain age as just too much of a liability because of physical and mental decline to lead our country. Retirement age (which I think is 65) might be a little too strict (imo), but I could get behind 70. And yeah, apply it congress and the senate too so we don't have doddering fools who look like they're on the verge of a heart attack leading our chambers of congress - Pelosi should be out and so should McConnell:

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/630/016/474.gif)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 27, 2024, 10:24 PMI'm going to check that video out later but I saw this video this morning showcasing Trump's just rambling nonsense it is even more than his usual ramblings. He's definitely in mental decline as well. The only difference is that he isn't tripping over words but he's spewing straight non sense.

All you have to do is watch the clip showcase in the first 10 mins or so of this video.

I watched the first 10 minutes, and I dunno man, I definitely agree that Trump has lost a step or two, especially since 2016. He seems a lot more tired and drained in his speeches, and I think all the campaigning is wearing on him more now than it did then, but most of those clips just seem to be typical Trump ramblings, without as much energy. He's had this strange non-sequitir way of speaking since he began campaigning in 2016 when he doesn't use a teleprompter. He pinballs from one topic to another, back to something else, and then back to his original topic like some kind of weird verbal fever dream. Bragging how popular his mugshot is, bragging how black people loved his mugshot, rambling about how persecuted he is - weird tangents about 'migrant crime' somehow being different from other crime and deserving its own special designation, etc. But we're not seeing him appear lost on stage, not seeing him trip over sandbags or stairs, not seeing him ask where dead congressmen are, forgetting who he's singing Happy Birthday to, etc. But one thing that is pretty apparent is how quickly he can speak, even now - his speeches get wildly tangential, but just the speed and frequency with how he speaks shows how quickly his mind still works - compare that to how Biden regularly appears to struggle to translate his thoughts to words, how slowly he speaks, it's obviously becoming much more difficult for him - even if Trump goes on sporadic tangents, he usually finishes his thoughts, whereas Biden has often struggled to complete his thoughts, abandoning them mid-sentence ("anyways..."):


Regardless, I agree - Trump should be too old to run, and Biden should be too old to run - but in my opinion, Biden is showing his age more than Trump is. The frustrating thing is, these old wrinkly ass motherfuckers are never going to pass legislation that would put them out of a job. Most of these people probably wouldn't have a clue how to survive without a government job. 

Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List (https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

Quote from: SGR on Feb 28, 2024, 03:40 PMImmigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List (https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/immigration-surges-top-important-problem-list.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication)

^ That's an ace card for Trump.


And this is the first time I can recall a candidate "unsuspending" a suspended campaign...

Marianne Williamson unsuspends her presidential campaign after placing 3rd in Michigan (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/marianne-williamson-unsuspends-presidential-campaign-rcna140882)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 28, 2024, 04:50 PM^ That's an ace card for Trump.


And this is the first time I can recall a candidate "unsuspending" a suspended campaign...

Marianne Williamson unsuspends her presidential campaign after placing 3rd in Michigan (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/marianne-williamson-unsuspends-presidential-campaign-rcna140882)

She must've seen a different future in her Crystal Ball after the Michigan primary results came in:

(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1687,w_3000,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_600/f_jpg/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1564599737/190731-weill-marianne-tease_rysyxy)

That said, I'll always love her for her fire collab with Donny:

Quote from: SGR on Feb 27, 2024, 11:01 PMPelosi should be out and so should McConnell 

Mitch McConnell, 82, cries as he STEPS DOWN as longest-serving Senate leader in history: GOP grandee addresses surprisingly empty floor and says 'father time remains undefeated' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13137055/mitch-mcconnell-resigns-republican-senate-leader.html)

Impeccable timing!

I just came here to post the same thing but yeah it's about damn time and also I don't think 65 is too strict.

Matter of fact they should open it up and have people be able to run at 30 to 65 instead of 35 to 70.

If they feel like 65 is a good enough age for retirement for the general public then it should apply to all government positions as well.

Kick their asses out at 65.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 28, 2024, 08:32 PMI just came here to post the same thing but yeah it's about damn time and also I don't think 65 is too strict.

Matter of fact they should open it up and have people be able to run at 30 to 65 instead of 35 to 70.

If they feel like 65 is a good enough age for retirement for the general public then it should apply to all government positions as well.

Kick their asses out at 65.

I'm not so fixated on it that I'd argue the exact number. At this point, if they put almost any maximum age restriction on it that's 75 or less, I'd consider it a win. If you're older than fucking Leonid Brezhnev was when he died, you're too old to be leading the free world, I know that much. And yet, thanks to our system, that's going to be our reality unless something unexpected happens in this upcoming election.

Why doesn't the Democrat party kick Biden out while they can still get someone else to be the candidate? Looks like Trump is nailed on to win. Surely they know this. They're just gonna let Biden go up and lose? :laughing:

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 29, 2024, 12:04 AMWhy doesn't the Democrat party kick Biden out while they can still get someone else to be the candidate? Looks like Trump is nailed on to win. Surely they know this. They're just gonna let Biden go up and lose? :laughing:

If they decide to do the switch-a-roo, it'll be at or close to convention time in August. And of course, it'll be for some 'totally unexpected downturn in Biden's health'.

The other difficult part is - who will that other candidate be? If Michelle Obama doesn't want to do it (as seems likely), then it becomes much more difficult to find a clear successor.

Donald Trump REMOVED from Illinois Republican primary ballots after judge orders him to be disqualified over role in January 6 riot (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138679/Donald-Trump-REMOVED-Illinois-Republican-insurrection.html)

Not like it'll really matter in that state, but I expect Trump to get a small boost in his polling anyways.

Supreme Court will decide if Trump is immune from prosecution: Justices agree to take up case and delay Jack Smith's election interference trial (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13138219/Supreme-Court-decide-Trump-immune-prosecution-Judges-agree-case-delay-Jack-Smiths-election-subversion-trial.html)

Of course, while I agree with the idea of many politicians being way too old, it's nothing new. From my Sherlock Holmes novella...

 "I have, as you know, Watson, the greatest respect for the law," he said, lighting his pipe and shaking his head. "But this idea of men who are so far past working age that they should be in a bathchair watching the sunset ,rather than trying to deciper the case of another unfortunate who happens to fall to their tender mercies, is something that has long been at the root, I believe, of many a wrong verdict, miscarriage of justice, and, sad to say, innocent man hanged." He looked up sharply. "The whole system of justice needs a complete overhaul, but with the stranglehold the aristrocracy and nobility has on appointments, this seems to me something which will not happen in my lifetime, nor in yours."

I arched an eyebrow. I had never taken my friend to be a revolutionary or an activist, though I could not fault his reasoning. Too many old men who should have retired ten years ago were still practicing on the bench, many often having to be nudged awake during a case. It really was a shocking state of affairs, but had been the norm for so long now that I feared Holmes was right when he prophesied gloomily that it would take longer to change than either of us had time on this earth.

I fully agree that the Democrats are dicing with electoral defeat. Why in the name of the Great Pixie can't they see that they MUST look beyond Bedtime Biden for a serious challenger to el Trumpo? Have they learned nothing from 2016? You can hear the nasty sarcastic laughter ringing through the halls of Mar-a-Lago if you listen hard enough.

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 01:28 AMOf course, while I agree with the idea of many politicians being way too old, it's nothing new. From my Sherlock Holmes novella...

 "I have, as you know, Watson, the greatest respect for the law," he said, lighting his pipe and shaking his head. "But this idea of men who are so far past working age that they should be in a bathchair watching the sunset ,rather than trying to deciper the case of another unfortunate who happens to fall to their tender mercies, is something that has long been at the root, I believe, of many a wrong verdict, miscarriage of justice, and, sad to say, innocent man hanged." He looked up sharply. "The whole system of justice needs a complete overhaul, but with the stranglehold the aristrocracy and nobility has on appointments, this seems to me something which will not happen in my lifetime, nor in yours."

I arched an eyebrow. I had never taken my friend to be a revolutionary or an activist, though I could not fault his reasoning. Too many old men who should have retired ten years ago were still practicing on the bench, many often having to be nudged awake during a case. It really was a shocking state of affairs, but had been the norm for so long now that I feared Holmes was right when he prophesied gloomily that it would take longer to change than either of us had time on this earth.

I fully agree that the Democrats are dicing with electoral defeat. Why in the name of the Great Pixie can't they see that they MUST look beyond Bedtime Biden for a serious challenger to el Trumpo? Have they learned nothing from 2016? You can hear the nasty sarcastic laughter ringing through the halls of Mar-a-Lago if you listen hard enough.

The challenging part is - he's the incumbent (who will naturally enjoy an incumbent advantage) - if they had a clear succesion plan, they would've been fine with real primaries after Biden announced that he'd not be seeking a second term - but since he's apparently running for real, they'd need to switch him at or near the convention - and even doing that, regardless of the candidate, will look suspect. But assume they do it, who would or should they replace him with, if we assume Michelle Obama isn't interested?

Just replace him with someone under 60 who has a relatively clean history. Is it really that difficult? I don't know many Democrats by name but there must be someone boring, inoffensive and low risk to pick.

In a roundabout way it seems like the fact so many Democrat voters are 'Anyone But Trump' is going to hurt the party and ironically get Trump elected again. The party seems fine with going with Biden because it worked last time as so many people voted against Trump.

I just had a look at the senators on Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Padilla

Alex Padilla 4 Prez.

Not fat, not bald. Not old. Can play the ethnic minority card. Described as moderate. Seems to support the things Democrats care about.

Biden out, Padilla in 8)

What about AOC? I mean, what do the Dems do when they realise Walmart no longer make the batteries that power Biden? They can't seriously be sitting there saying "That'll do, pig. That'll do." Republicans must be pissing themselves laughing. Maybe a clone of Obama?

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 05:34 PMWhat about AOC? I mean, what do the Dems do when they realise Walmart no longer make the batteries that power Biden? They can't seriously be sitting there saying "That'll do, pig. That'll do." Republicans must be pissing themselves laughing. Maybe a clone of Obama?

AOC would have a hard time winning over moderate(corporate) democrats. She's a bit left of them known as progressive and the establishment democrats won't get behind a progressive democrat.

I'd get behind her.  :love:  :love:
Seriously though: is the democrat party so dead that they can't even wheel out one decent candidate?

Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 03, 2024, 06:55 PMI'd get behind her.  :love:  :love:
Seriously though: is the democrat party so dead that they can't even wheel out one decent candidate?

I disagree with AOC on multiple different things politically, but regardless, DJ is right - she's a bit too far left for most American moderates. Republicans would paint her as a socialist/communist. AOC is still young and figuring out exactly how the game (politics) is played. I've said before that I think she will become President some day, and I stand by that (also probably the first woman president), but before that happens, I think AOC will soften her views, improve her communication/messaging, and run a campaign that corporate Democrats can support (in many ways, similar to Obama's first run). But just having her as the face of the Democratic party would give it some much needed life. If she was more of a center-left Dem, she'd wipe the floor with Trump. Her time will come.

(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5d25f1f6c107e5000918e49d/master/pass/TNY-AOC.jpg)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 03, 2024, 05:10 PMJust replace him with someone under 60 who has a relatively clean history. Is it really that difficult? I don't know many Democrats by name but there must be someone boring, inoffensive and low risk to pick.

In a roundabout way it seems like the fact so many Democrat voters are 'Anyone But Trump' is going to hurt the party and ironically get Trump elected again. The party seems fine with going with Biden because it worked last time as so many people voted against Trump.

I just had a look at the senators on Wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Padilla

Alex Padilla 4 Prez.

Not fat, not bald. Not old. Can play the ethnic minority card. Described as moderate. Seems to support the things Democrats care about.

Biden out, Padilla in 8)

I like the thought, but generally, picking some random senator who doesn't appear to have a lot of baggage isn't usually a winning strategy for president. A lot of different things come into play, but to become president, you generally need to be charismatic and a good speaker as well (and usually, you need some kind of connections). I don't think the Democrats would beat Trump just because their candidate is younger (though that certainly would help, considering they're now in a position where they can't really criticize Trump's age without drawing attention to Biden) - the candidate would need to inspire people to go out and vote. Love or hate Trump, there's no denying that Trump supporters would walk through glass to vote for him in 2024. Biden supporters? Ehhhh.......

Is Biden charismatic or a good speaker? Is Padilla any worse?

"Vote Padilla and he'll buy you a beer."

"Never fear, Padilla is here!"

Slogans sorted.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 03, 2024, 10:55 PMIs Biden charismatic or a good speaker? Is Padilla any worse?

"Vote Padilla and he'll buy you a beer."

"Never fear, Padilla is here!"

Slogans sorted.

He can be charismatic, but he's no longer a good speaker - he used to be a decent speaker.

Unfortunately, I think it's likely that Biden was selected because the people really pulling the strings have the goods on him - in other words, he's in their pocket and controllable. Bernie, as an example, I doubt he has any baggage like that, therefore, he wouldn't be controllable.

Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether Donald Trump can hold office TOMORROW - just in time for Super Tuesday (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13152173/Supreme-Court-expected-rule-Donald-Trump.html)

Supreme Court puts Trump back on Colorado Republican primary ballot (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/04/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-colorado-ballot-case.html)

Happy Super Tuesday everyone!

Here's one less mystery for us to think about, I suppose:

Michelle Obama's office says the former first lady 'will not be running for president' in 2024 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/michelle-obama-former-first-lady-not-running-president-2024-rcna141767)

Wildcard picks to replace Biden, that would really get the popcorn buttered:

-Mark Cuban
-Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

Trump wins ELEVEN STATES to Nikki Haley's ONE in Super Tuesday steamrolling: Ex-President almost certain to face-off with Joe Biden in November - but GOP rival has 'NO plans' to concede (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13161655/super-tuesday-virginia-vermont-polls-close-voting-results-trump-haley.html)

Things are still in flux and it appears to me that Nikki will win Vermont over Trump, for what that's worth.

Trump says his Super Tuesday rout is the most 'conclusive' in Mar-a-Lago victory speech where he ignores Nikki Haley again and tears into Biden for his 'secret migrant flights' and going to the beach as he prepares for 2024 showdown  (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13160429/super-tuesday-donald-trump-mar-lago.html)

And now it's official - Nikki Haley is out, which I believe leaves Trump defacto unopposed for the Republican nomination.

Nikki Haley to Exit Republican Presidential Race - Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/nikki-haley-drops-out-2024-presidential-election-625277ca)

Who is Jason Palmer? Biden loses the American Samoa Democratic caucuses to entrepreneur (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jason-palmer-biden-loses-american-samoa-democratic-caucuses/story?id=107832052)

"Running Out Of Options" - Supreme Court Keeps Trump on Ballot Infuriating the Establishment

Joe Biden says he was WRONG to describe Laken Riley's accused murderer as an 'illegal' and vows to never treat migrants with 'disrespect' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13178043/joe-biden-wrong-laken-riley-illegal.html)

Well that's nice - an illegal alien is let into the country by Biden's administration - said illegal alien bashes a young 22 year woman's skull in and kills her - Biden botches her name in his SOTU speech and refers to him as an 'illegal alien' - and now went back on TV to apologize for referring to him as an 'illegal alien' when he believes he should've used 'undocumented person' and promises to show them more respect in the future. Nice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 01:44 AMJoe Biden says he was WRONG to describe Laken Riley's accused murderer as an 'illegal' and vows to never treat migrants with 'disrespect' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13178043/joe-biden-wrong-laken-riley-illegal.html)

Well that's nice - an illegal alien is let into the country by Biden's administration - said illegal alien bashes a young 22 year woman's skull in and kills her - Biden botches her name in his SOTU speech and refers to him as an 'illegal alien' - and now went back on TV to apologize for referring to him as an 'illegal alien' when he believes he should've used 'undocumented person' and promises to show them more respect in the future. Nice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Illegal alien term is outdated though regardless of what said undocumented person did

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2024, 06:15 AMIllegal alien term is outdated though regardless of what said undocumented person did

It's not outdated. It describes accurately and succinctly exactly what he was. Democrats want to make it 'outdated' though. Changing minds through the manipulation of language.

But let's assume that is true for the sake of argument.

Correcting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 06:31 AMCorrecting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

It is outdated because people are humans not aliens. It doesn't describe them accurately. It just continues the xenophobic terminology to fear monger people into hating undocumented people.

It's not an either or thing. Both can AND should be done.

Correcting the term AND discussing solutions to prevent it from happening again through policy changes.

Republicans are on a full scale war against migrants and their messaging is the type that is trying to divide the lower/middle class when they should be joining together against the upper class and fighting to get the uber rich taxed fairly.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2024, 01:59 PMIt is outdated because people are humans not aliens. It doesn't describe them accurately. It just continues the xenophobic terminology to fear monger people into hating undocumented people.

It's not an either or thing. Both can AND should be done.

Correcting the term AND discussing solutions to prevent it from happening again through policy changes.

Republicans are on a full scale war against migrants and their messaging is the type that is trying to divide the lower/middle class when they should be joining together against the upper class and fighting to get the uber rich taxed fairly.

The evolution of language and terms into pejoratives is kind of interesting. I think one of the more obvious examples is 'retard'. What once was meant simply as 'delayed development' and was applied to those with delayed mental development became a term used to insult others ("What are you, retarded?").

I don't necessarily find 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant' to be cut from the same cloth though. It is an accurate term (much of the time) - and unlike other terms that evolve into pejoratives that necessarily refer to humanity or personhood of someone, this term simply means that someone is a foreign national who's current immigration status in the country is illegal. That's true in this guy's case (José Antonio Ibarra).

I'd argue that, often times, 'undocumented person' is much less precise and accurate term. It makes it sound like these people either don't have any papers or form of identification (which is not true, as many of them have birth certificates (from another country), passport (from another country), international drivers license, etc), or that we (the U.S. / ICE / Department of Homeland Security) haven't documented them somehow - which is also often not true. Let's take a look at the suspect in this case for example - and I'll just refer to the Wikipedia article on the matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Laken_Riley):

QuoteU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that Ibarra is not a U.S. citizen and was caught crossing the border but was released into the United States.

José Antonio Ibarra, a 26-year-old Venezuelan, had entered the United States illegally in September 2022, crossing the US's southern border with Mexico near El Paso, Texas. According to Jeffrey Clark, the chief of UGA police, Ibarra lived in an apartment complex about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the wooded area where Riley's body was found. Ibarra had been previously arrested by both federal and state officials in multiple jurisdictions. He had a bench warrant issued for his arrest in December 2023 after failing to appear in court in a shoplifting case in Georgia.

So in his case (and many others), he was caught trying to cross the border, processed (documented), and released into the US anyways. He's had multiple arrests, both state and federal, and was processed/documented. He had a bench warrant issued for his arrest in late 2023 for shoplifting - we knew exactly who he was, we knew where he was from, we knew where lived - he wasn't 'undocumented' - his immigration status here was simply illegal.

But it goes to show that there probably isn't one term that could accurately encompass all the different kinds of scenarios of being in the country illegally. For example, someone is here to work on a work VISA. They stay past the timeframe the VISA allows them to - are they an 'illegal immigrant'? Well, not really - their presence in the US might now be illegal, but they didn't immigrate here - they were here to work on a work VISA. Are they an 'undocumented person'? No - because they went through proper channels to be here, we've documented them - they have their own documentation - they just exceeded the length of time they were supposed to be here. Perhaps 'Fraudulent Traveler' would be a better term in this case, not sure.

But there are multitudes of ways/circumstances someone could be in the country illegally - a catch-all term might be 'Individual Unlawfully Present in the US' - but that doesn't have any zip to it, and it's too long for politicians/TV pundits. Neither 'undocumented person' or 'illegal immigrant' convey every case accurately.

I agree with you though, the terminology used should be done responsibly by politicians and those in the media (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). It's irresponsible when Trump uses the term 'illegal immigrants' and then says 'they're poisoning the blood of our nation' - it's not necessarily the term itself that's irresponsible, but the context language it's couched in.

And my criticism for Biden isn't that he wants to double back and use a different term, it's that he did it with an (alleged) murderer. The messaging and optics are just poor. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt a swing voter saw Joe Biden's SOTU speech where he referred to the (alleged) murderer as an 'illegal immigrant' and thought: "He really should be calling them 'undocumented persons', this language is just irresponsible" and was happy to see his retraction. Immigration is a big issue going into the election with the majority of Americans (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/07/state-of-the-union-2024-where-americans-stand-on-the-economy-immigration-and-other-key-issues/), and Biden had an opportunity to appear strong on that issue; when asked, he could've said: "No, I don't regret calling him an 'illegal immigrant' - he was in this country illegally and what he did was illegal". Instead, he looked weak and provided Trump with free ammunition.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 01:44 AMNice to see Joe's got his priorities in order.

Biden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout. With three posts and a link focusing on one word in the speech, perhaps you should be checking your own priorities, SGR: are they, by any chance, Biden-bashing at any opportunity ?

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 06:31 AMCorrecting an outdated term applicable to a murderer who shouldn't have been in the country in the first place should be the priority over expressing remorse for a dead, murdered American and explaining and addressing how policy changes will be enacted to mitigate this from happening in the future?

^ In fact, he did both of those things in the speech that I heard, clearly laying out how a bi-partisan proposal to provide extra staffing levels, facilities etc at the border is there, waiting for implementation, but speaker Johnson is blocking even a discussion about it on the House floor.

This is the shortest summary of Biden's speech that I could find on YouTube, if anyone wants to check the overall impression that it left on these Fox commentators:-


EDIT: just read your long post about the sad case of this woman being killed by J A Ibarra, and you make a lotof good points, SGR. You are obviously well-informed on the details, and I can understand the sense of outrage about a guy who just slips through the system without being stopped by the authorities. Same thing often happens in the UK too, with violent criminals "known to the police" who still end up committing some atrocity or other.
(How many are home-grown violent types and how many are immigrants I couldn't say.)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMBiden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout. With three posts and a link focusing on one word in the speech, perhaps you should be checking your own priorities, SGR: are they, by any chance, Biden-bashing at any opportunity ?

To be fair Lisna, you're right, I'm not Biden's biggest fan. But the three posts are because I'm having a discussion with DJ about it, and in doing so, I've learned more (until I started digging deeper, I didn't realize just how many different ways someone could be in the country illegally), so it hasn't just been about bashing Biden, the initial criticism opened up a wider discussion that, ideally, would help us all learn a little bit more than we currently do. And to be fair, it wasn't just one word (term) in a speech, it was from one of the more memorable moments in the speech that ended up getting talked about widely. To Biden's credit, he did much better in the speech than I thought he would.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PM^ In fact, he did both of those things in the speech that I heard, clearly laying out how a bi-partisan proposal to provide extra staffing levels, facilities etc at the border is there, waiting for implementation, but speaker Johnson is blocking even a discussion about it on the House floor.

This is the shortest summary of Biden's speech that I could find on YouTube, if anyone wants to check the overall impression that it left on these Fox commentators:-

Admittedly, I haven't watched the video yet, but I assumed (when I was watching the speech) that this was in reference to the previous border bill that the Republicans blocked - is that not the case?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMEDIT: just read your long post about the sad case of this woman being killed by J A Ibarra, and you make a lotof good points, SGR. You are obviously well-informed on the details, and I can understand the sense of outrage about a guy who just slips through the system without being stopped by the authorities. Same thing often happens in the UK too, with violent criminals "known to the police" who still end up committing some atrocity or other.
(How many are home-grown violent types and how many are immigrants I couldn't say.)

Thanks Lisna, yeah, like I said, I don't care if people want to use the term 'undocumented persons', but in my opinion, Biden caving to the left and making that correction about an alleged murderer just doesn't look good optically (imo).

Yeah, believe me, we've got a lot of criminals who get arrested, and let off on bail, only to commit some worse crime shortly after - and I'd bet money that most aren't illegal immigrants - it's a different problem than that of illegal immigration.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 11:01 PMTo be fair Lisna, you're right, I'm not Biden's biggest fan. But the three posts are because I'm having a discussion with DJ about it, and in doing so, I've learned more (until I started digging deeper, I didn't realize just how many different ways someone could be in the country illegally), so it hasn't just been about bashing Biden, the initial criticism opened up a wider discussion that, ideally, would help us all learn a little bit more than we currently do. And to be fair, it wasn't just one word (term) in a speech, it was from one of the more memorable moments in the speech that ended up getting talked about widely. To Biden's credit, he did much better in the speech than I thought he would.

^ :thumb: Yeah, that's a really good answer, SGR, and I must admit I was rather over-stating my comment about your posts: perfectly natural that you would respond to DJ's comment. That's how these discussions usually advance.

QuoteAdmittedly, I haven't watched the video yet, but I assumed (when I was watching the speech) that this was in reference to the previous border bill that the Republicans blocked - is that not the case?

^ Yes, that's my understanding too: the border bill that's been so much in the news lately, defended by Republican Senator Langford. I think.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 10, 2024, 10:50 PMBiden's SOTU speech lasted over an hour, coherent and on-topic throughout.

... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 


Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 11, 2024, 02:49 PM... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 

Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

Katie Britt's speech was horrible (I watched it the day after the fact), without even getting into the details and distortions of what she said. She's an awful public speaker (not persuasive at all). It felt so stilted and awkward - at times it felt like she was being held hostage/at gunpoint off-camera to give this 'rebuttal'. If she has any kind of big future in the GOP, then the GOP is in big trouble.

Briahna Joy Gray & Glenn Greenwald Lament the State of the Union

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 11, 2024, 02:49 PM... in stark contrast to the Republican's reply: a speech that has not only turned Sen Katie Britt into a laughing-stock, but that also contained a completely non-relevent story about a Mexican woman raped in Mexico 20 years ago. By injecting that story into comments about border issues, KB led America to think that there was a connection between the two topics, when there is none. That is very dishonest, as this news clip makes clear:- 

Rape victim, Karla Jacinto Romero: "No one reached out to me for permission to use my story as part of a political speech. Someone using my story and distorting it  for political purposes is not fair at all."

So Katie Britt, in her see-through pose as an outraged mom in her all-American kitchen, exploits a Mexican woman who's tradgedy is not relevant. It's not much of a rebuttal of the points made in Biden's speech, but without a platform other than loyalty to Trump, the GOP don't have much to work with these days.

They write these speeches ahead of time and film them so it's not going to ever be a direct rebuttal to what the president says during the SOTU.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 10, 2024, 10:35 PMI agree with you though, the terminology used should be done responsibly by politicians and those in the media (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). It's irresponsible when Trump uses the term 'illegal immigrants' and then says 'they're poisoning the blood of our nation' - it's not necessarily the term itself that's irresponsible, but the context language it's couched in.

And my criticism for Biden isn't that he wants to double back and use a different term, it's that he did it with an (alleged) murderer. The messaging and optics are just poor. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt a swing voter saw Joe Biden's SOTU speech where he referred to the (alleged) murderer as an 'illegal immigrant' and thought: "He really should be calling them 'undocumented persons', this language is just irresponsible" and was happy to see his retraction. Immigration is a big issue going into the election with the majority of Americans (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/07/state-of-the-union-2024-where-americans-stand-on-the-economy-immigration-and-other-key-issues/), and Biden had an opportunity to appear strong on that issue; when asked, he could've said: "No, I don't regret calling him an 'illegal immigrant' - he was in this country illegally and what he did was illegal". Instead, he looked weak and provided Trump with free ammunition.

So you mentioned something about optics. The optics are bad when you toss around terminology that the opposing party uses as a fear tactic for their base. Maybe undocumented person isn't as great or accurate but it is a hell of a lot better than saying illegals or illegal aliens. Migrants and Asylum seekers is better imo. He's always gonna look weak to Trump and Trump's base is always locked into him. All Biden had to say was this person was a murderer(allegedly) and it doesn't matter where he was from.  It's almost like Joe Biden fell into a trap and didn't know how to talk his way out of it. If an uncommitted voter is that salty over him apologizing for using a word they were gonna vote for Trump.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 11, 2024, 07:17 PMSo you mentioned something about optics. The optics are bad when you toss around terminology that the opposing party uses as a fear tactic for their base. Maybe undocumented person isn't as great or accurate but it is a hell of a lot better than saying illegals or illegal aliens. Migrants and Asylum seekers is better imo. He's always gonna look weak to Trump and Trump's base is always locked into him. All Biden had to say was this person was a murderer(allegedly) and it doesn't matter where he was from.  It's almost like Joe Biden fell into a trap and didn't know how to talk his way out of it. If an uncommitted voter is that salty over him apologizing for using a word they were gonna vote for Trump.

It doesn't matter where he was from, I agree - but I think it does matter if he was here illegally or not (if he said 'undocumented person', he could've avoided the question of legality altogether, which is part of why Dems use it in messaging, I think). I think there's a substantive difference between someone who shouldn't even be here committing a crime and someone who's here legally committing a crime. The former shouldn't have even had the opportunity to committ the crime, and indicates that we have problems with our immigration system that need to be fixed. If it matters for nothing else, it matters for political messaging and influence in these two presidential campaigns.

Like you said, he kind of fell into a trap. If he just said 'undocumented person' to begin with, there wouldn't be any talk about this. He can't get on TV and grovel/apologize to Laken Riley's family, because then that would make him look incompetent and would paint his administration in a terrible light, in regards to border security (and would also play right into Trump's hands) - but by going on TV and talking about how much he regrets the word he used, it makes it look like (even if this isn't exactly what happened - optics) he's apologizing for using terminology that could be offensive to an (alleged) murderer.

If Democrats want to win in 2024, they need to tighten up their messaging about the border issue (and ideally, find a way to improve the problem - messaging is great, but obviously, real solutions are better and strengthen the messaging). It's not too late to do it because of this one flub - by November 2024, no one is even going to remember this incident - unless Democrats continue to flub the messaging and optics about the border problem, and the border remains as porous as it's been.

The reality right now is that 78% of Americans view the border issue as either a crisis or a major problem (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/how-americans-view-the-situation-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-its-causes-and-consequences/). That's a lot more than just Republicans, and surely includes a majority of swing voters. Given that it's a top issue people will be voting on, the messaging and optics (not just of this one incident, but over time) will matter. You can call it fearmongering, but Republicans are speaking to and acknowledging this issue (you bet they are, because it makes Biden and the Democrats look bad) and making vast (and possibly ethically questionable) promises of how they will fix it if people vote for them. The concerns and fears that voters have about it aren't baseless or removed from reality either. The influx of these people will strain resources like health care, social services and housing and inevitably, an influx of low-wage workers will affect wages for low-income earners in America. It's not necessarily that swing voters and independents think that a majority of these people coming through the border are bad people (in fact, I can only speak for myself, but some of the horrors and tribulations that these people go through to get here speaks to their bravery and courage, like the 38,000 economic migrants that came through the southern border from China (https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Chinese-migrants-flock-to-U.S.-Mexico-border-on-economic-pressures#:~:text=More%20than%2037%2C000%20Chinese%20migrants,and%20Border%20Protection%20data%20shows.) [yes, China] last year), but rather they're concerned that our systems/resources simply can't handle all these people, and immigration needs to happen in a more slow and controlled manner. If Trump and the Republicans are the only ones who are consistent and clear in their messaging of how they will address and fix it, and Democrats continue to just blame the Republicans for the problem and don't offer a clear message/solution, swing voters will vote for Trump (everything else remaining the same of course, things could change if he's convicted of a felony), and that probably is a reason why he's up in the polls.

I agree with your post. You said it all. Nothing to add really. Dems need to get their shit together all around.

Yes, it's really weird, but I also completely agree with SGR !

I like that you are using the word "porous" about the border, instead of the over-simplistic accusation coming all the time from Trump and the Republicans: that Biden maintains an "open" border that they will "close".

Somewhat interesting to hear foreigners' thoughts on our presidential candidates:

Black America Votes: Many Voters Say Money Is The Top Issue In The 2024 Race!

Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura on RFK Jr vice-presidential shortlist (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68515517)

How about some levity?

So it appears, despite Joe's impressive SOTU showing, it hasn't had much effect on general election polls - at least not yet:

Trump vs. Biden Polls: No State of the Union Bounce for Joe (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-vs-biden-polls-state-of-the-union.html)

Quote from: SGR on Mar 14, 2024, 11:13 PMSo it appears, despite Joe's impressive SOTU showing, it hasn't had much effect on general election polls - at least not yet:

Trump vs. Biden Polls: No State of the Union Bounce for Joe (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-vs-biden-polls-state-of-the-union.html)

I despise polls in general. That's the one major annoying thing that I hate with the upcoming election all these stupid polls that doesn't really matter because things WILL change the night before the election and even the day of.

I hate election math.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 14, 2024, 11:29 PMI despise polls in general. That's the one major annoying thing that I hate with the upcoming election all these stupid polls that doesn't really matter because things WILL change the night before the election and even the day of.

I hate election math.

Yeah, I understand the feeling. They're supposed to be a snapshot in time of how the American people are currently feeling and leaning politically (and how accurate they are is definitely up for debate). But yes, it means very little in terms of that support/leaning will look like months ahead when it's actually time for the election. Can't forget October surprises - I'm sure we all remember the Trump 'Grab Em By The Pussy' tape and the FBI re-opening the investigation into Hillary's e-mails - all that last minute stuff does affect support.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 13, 2024, 03:59 PMSomewhat interesting to hear foreigners' thoughts on our presidential candidates:

I agree, SGR, it's always interesting to hear what outsiders think about your own country.
What do Mexicans think of Britain, for example? Their impression seems to be that it's always raining, that the country is beautiful like in a Harry Potter movie, but inexplicably we still tolerate having a monarchy, and what's all that football hooliganism about? We thought the English were very polite, as they sit around drinking tea from dainty cups - oh, and punctual as well. (When Mexicans plan to meet, they even have a phrase, "hora inglés" = "English time" = be punctual : "Let's meet at 7:30, hora inglés").

Quote

^ For me this was disappointing because, quite understandably, those Japanese teenagers have some very superficial impressions of Trump and Biden. I heard "He's funny""He stands out so it's easy to like him". In fact, all credit to them for having an opinion at all, because if I were asked about Japanese politicians, I'd stand there totally dumb on that subway platform in the video clip.

Although it's from 8 years ago and is only about Trump, this might give Americans some idea about how Trump is seen in Europe:-


And here's a snapshot about the European response to Biden's win in 2020:-

RFK Jr. to name wealthy attorney Nicole Shanahan as running mate in prez run (https://nypost.com/2024/03/16/us-news/rfk-jr-to-name-nicole-shanahan-as-running-mate-in-white-house-run-report/)

Trump suggests Prince Harry could be deported for past drug use (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-prince-harry-deported-drug-use-rcna144105)

QuotePrince Harry, who has recently expressed interest in American citizenship, has been the target of several Trump attacks. In an interview with British journalist Piers Morgan in 2022, he called the prince "whipped like no person he had ever seen."

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 19, 2024, 09:49 PMTrump suggests Prince Harry could be deported for past drug use (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-suggests-prince-harry-deported-drug-use-rcna144105)

This should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

I realize Meghan is an American, but is it possible Trump could find a way to deport her too?  ;)

Quote from: SGR on Mar 19, 2024, 11:04 PMThis should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

That's one of the best campaign promises I've ever heard from a politician.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 19, 2024, 11:04 PMThis should be the highest priority deportation!  :laughing:

I realize Meghan is an American, but is it possible Trump could find a way to deport her too?  ;)

Booo. Leave Meghan alone. She already had to deal with Harry's racist ass family.

This is how I imagine many foreigners (Non-Americans) think of our current presidential horse race

I think I might need a translation of Joe's vocals there, to appreciate that performance to its fullest.

Trump's social media company will go public in a merger that could net the cash-strapped ex-president $3 billion (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-windfall-top-3-billion-shareholder-vote-social-media-merger-rcna144634)

Firebrand Democrat strategist James Carville says Biden's poll numbers are as bad as seeing your grandma naked and that president's party is dominated by 'too many preachy females' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13231253/democrat-strategist-james-carville-biden-polls.html)

QuoteDespite his overall approval of the incumbent president, Carville said that he suspected there to be too many 'preachy females' in the party.

He added: '"Don't drink beer. Don't watch football. Don't eat hamburgers. This is not good for you." The message is too feminine.'

 :laughing:

RFK Jr. threatens to sue Nevada over ballot access (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-threatens-lawsuit-nevada-over-ballot-access/)

Are Republicans trying to lose the election? Why would you bring this case to the Supreme Court now, instead of after the election?

Supreme Court's antiabortion conservatives could restrict abortion pills sent by mail, even in blue states (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-courts-anti-abortion-conservatives-100007255.html)

Trump better pray that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court rules against restricting these pills.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2024, 05:48 PMAre Republicans trying to lose the election? Why would you bring this case to the Supreme Court now, instead of after the election?

Supreme Court's antiabortion conservatives could restrict abortion pills sent by mail, even in blue states (https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-courts-anti-abortion-conservatives-100007255.html)

Trump better pray that the conservative majority in the Supreme Court rules against restricting these pills.

I don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 26, 2024, 06:13 PMI don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

I didn't mean to come off as insensitive to the women that would be affected if this restriction gets passed, and I personally am against the restriction.

With presidential races, I often like to view them through the lens of 'political strategy', regardless of what my opinions on any given individual issue might be (politics and the history of American presidential races fascinates me - all it takes is one little stumble or faux pas to change the outcome of a race - like Dukakis riding in the tank, or George Bush Sr. checking his watch during the debates). It probably doesn't help either that, as a guy, the pro-life/pro-choice issue doesn't affect me personally (and thus, isn't as emotionally-charged of an issue for me), which probably influences the way I think/talk about it (though it most certainly would affect the women in my life).

The broad impact this restriction would have would be a massive political blow to the Republicans. I'm by no means shocked they want to pass the restriction, but the fact they're doing it now seems like a complete oversight. It's an immense political gift they're handing the Democrats if it gets passed (even bringing the case to the SC is a gift, regardless of how they rule). Women, who might be disastisfied with the state of the economy or the border issue and might otherwise be leaning towards voting (R) will vote (D) if the Republicans continue to push this issue.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 26, 2024, 06:13 PMI don't know why you're so shocked, evil oppressive actions like this are the republicans' entire platform at this point. I'm sure their pro-lifer base is glad they're doing it now rather than waiting.

And I'm gonna be frank, it does come off as a little weird to me to say that Trump is the one that should be worrying about the Supreme Court banning abortion pills with no mention of the people who would actually be greatly negatively impacted by such bans.

Aw don't do it! We much prefer you as Lexi!

Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2024, 06:39 PMI didn't mean to come off as insensitive to the women that would be affected if this restriction gets passed, and I personally am against the restriction.

With presidential races, I often like to view them through the lens of 'political strategy', regardless of what my opinions on any given individual issue might be (politics and the history of American presidential races fascinates me - all it takes is one little stumble or faux pas to change the outcome of a race - like Dukakis riding in the tank, or George Bush Sr. checking his watch during the debates). It probably doesn't help either that, as a guy, the pro-life/pro-choice issue doesn't affect me personally (and thus, isn't as emotionally-charged of an issue for me), which probably influences the way I think/talk about it (though it most certainly would affect the women in my life).

The broad impact this restriction would have would be a massive political blow to the Republicans. I'm by no means shocked they want to pass the restriction, but the fact they're doing it now seems like a complete oversight. It's an immense political gift they're handing the Democrats if it gets passed (even bringing the case to the SC is a gift, regardless of how they rule). Women, who might be disastisfied with the state of the economy or the border issue and might otherwise be leaning towards voting (R) will vote (D) if the Republicans continue to push this issue.

Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your point of view.

Trump's Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World's 500 Richest People (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-net-worth-hits-6-190742235.html)

QuoteDonald Trump's business empire was supposed to be in peril like never before on Monday. Instead, it turned into the single-greatest day on record for the former president's wealth.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his running mate for his independent White House bid (https://apnews.com/article/rfk-bobby-kennedy-vp-running-mate-6be6d7e04ba7d9e74190b8c01a1bf075)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 27, 2024, 04:09 PMRobert F. Kennedy Jr. picks Nicole Shanahan as his running mate for his independent White House bid (https://apnews.com/article/rfk-bobby-kennedy-vp-running-mate-6be6d7e04ba7d9e74190b8c01a1bf075)

Damn, I was rooting for him to pick Aaron Rodgers (even though I knew it wasn't gonna happen) just for all the drama/entertainment that would inevitably ensue.

Quote from: SGR on Mar 27, 2024, 06:09 PMDamn, I was rooting for him to pick Aaron Rodgers (even though I knew it wasn't gonna happen) just for all the drama/entertainment that would inevitably ensue.

I think his choice of Nicole Shanahan has pissed off the DNC more than they already were and would've been otherwise. The Democrat establishment is only going to amp up the personal attacks against him from this point onward.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 28, 2024, 05:45 PMI think his choice of Nicole Shanahan has pissed off the DNC more than they already were and would've been otherwise. The Democrat establishment is only going to amp up the personal attacks against him from this point onward.

You'll have to fill me in here - is there something specific about Nicole Shanahan that pisses the DNC off? The only thing I really know about her is that she seems intelligent and is the ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Bryn. I do know that the DNC has been making efforts to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/dnc-rfk-fec-00140719#:~:text=The%20Democratic%20National%20Committee%20is,candidate%20in%20the%202024%20race.) to, y'know, protect democracy and all that. 

Quote from: SGR on Mar 28, 2024, 07:04 PMYou'll have to fill me in here - is there something specific about Nicole Shanahan that pisses the DNC off? The only thing I really know about her is that she seems intelligent and is the ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Bryn. I do know that the DNC has been making efforts to keep RFK Jr. off the ballot (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/dnc-rfk-fec-00140719#:~:text=The%20Democratic%20National%20Committee%20is,candidate%20in%20the%202024%20race.) to, y'know, protect democracy and all that. 

A woman, a POC, articulate, a lawyer, fabulously wealthy, and previously donated to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign but is now running against him with RFK Jr.

Looks like the perfect combination in his VP pick to piss off the DNC in the 2024 Presidential election to me.

Trump allies hope to raise $33 million at Florida fundraiser, seeking to narrow gap with Biden (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fundraiser-33-million-florida-biden/)

Why Hasn't Biden Called Chris Christie? (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/29/biden-anti-trump-republicans-00149610)

Nicole Shanahan has been quiet since being named RFK Jr.'s running mate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/nicole-shanahan-quiet-named-rfk-jrs-running-mate-rcna146432)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 06, 2024, 06:36 PMNicole Shanahan has been quiet since being named RFK Jr.'s running mate (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/nicole-shanahan-quiet-named-rfk-jrs-running-mate-rcna146432)

Perfect, she's showcasing how capable she is for the VP job!

George Galloway MP - MOATS with Garland Nixon

Biden plans order to limit southern border crossings by end of month (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)

So you're telling me that, as the election looms ever closer, Biden in fact didn't need a new border bill and more aid to Ukraine in order to enforce the law? And that he could've done this all along? Huh.

(https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png)

Biden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

I can sympathize with anyone in the US being very concerned with what goes on at the southern border, and as you prob know, I like any graphic that gives an easy-to-read history of trends, so thanks for this SGR:

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 04:28 PM(https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20240127_EPC149.png)

^ This one shows a spectacular, alarming jump the minute the Biden admin kicks in - that is, until you read the asterisk that tells us that the Biden-years figures include expulsions as well, that hadn't previously been included. Who or how was it decided to include expulsions as part of the immigration figures?! It seems to me like a decision with an ulterior motive: to muddy-up or tilt the stats in a preferred direction.
And sadly, getting to the actually stats is a pretty muddy affair already:- 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/

What a shame there cannot be more honesty on both sides of this political issue. :(

Quote from: SGR on Apr 10, 2024, 04:28 PMBiden plans order to limit southern border crossings by end of month (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)

So you're telling me that, as the election looms ever closer, Biden in fact didn't need a new border bill and more aid to Ukraine in order to enforce the law? And that he could've done this all along? Huh.

Yeah, both sides playing politics with these issues. As I understand it, Biden was holding out for a long-standing commitment from the Senate to help with improved border funding, but as that was never delivered (thank you, Speaker Johnson) he's gone for a short-stop fix instead. With a bit more Republican participation, there could've been a bi-partisan bill ensuring a consistent policy over various White House admins. Instead, Biden is left with just an exec order, which could be rescinded if Trump were to win the election, so back to dizzying policy changes that, I imagine (i) don't look good on the world stage and (ii) are prob inefficient and expensive in terms of implementing staffing/legal/facility policies.   

(And for anyone exasperated by the way the actual figures for "gotaways" and releases are so hazy - it hasn't been so different in the UK, which has its own fiascos dealing with border issues.) 

Quote from: SGR on Apr 17, 2024, 10:55 PMBiden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

Pinocchio Joe tells yet another tall tale. :laughing:


Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt000001nzWi4EAE)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMI can sympathize with anyone in the US being very concerned with what goes on at the southern border, and as you prob know, I like any graphic that gives an easy-to-read history of trends, so thanks for this SGR:

^ This one shows a spectacular, alarming jump the minute the Biden admin kicks in - that is, until you read the asterisk that tells us that the Biden-years figures include expulsions as well, that hadn't previously been included. Who or how was it decided to include expulsions as part of the immigration figures?! It seems to me like a decision with an ulterior motive: to muddy-up or tilt the stats in a preferred direction.
And sadly, getting to the actually stats is a pretty muddy affair already:- 

Good eye, Lisna! Honestly, I missed that. This graph is a YouGov/Economist graph, who I normally put a baseline level of trust in to model and contextualize things fairly and accurately. And I suppose to their credit, they did include the caveat in the asterisk, but if you don't read that, the graph looks worse than it would otherwise. Regardless, I think however you graph out border crossings/encounters, it will look much higher for Biden's admin than previous administrations - here's another graph from Statista that doesn't appear to make any caveats about previous data - whether this graph is completely reliable though, I can't say for sure. If you can find a similar graph that you think would be more accurate, I'd be happy to see it:

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20397.jpeg)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMhttps://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/breaking-down-the-immigration-figures/

What a shame there cannot be more honesty on both sides of this political issue. :(

I gave that a read, and there are some interesting nuggets in there. At the same time, I always suggest skepticism (as you had with the graph I linked) when reading statistics and percentages and using those to try and paint a clear picture (you mention later in your post about the 'haziness' of it all, which I'd agree with). Looking at the last two paragraphs of the link you provided:

QuoteBier calculated release and removal rates for the last two years of former President Donald Trump's term and the first 26 months of Biden's, using DHS data, including the lifecycle report, ICE detention statistics and other figures published by the Republican majority on the House Judiciary Committee. Bier wrote in November that his work showed the Biden administration "has removed a higher percentage of arrested border crossers in its first two years than the Trump DHS did over its last two years. Moreover, migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under President Biden."

While the raw numbers are much higher under Biden — 5 million encounters compared with 1.4 million under Trump in those time frames — the percentages for the two administrations were similar: 47% removed under Trump and 51% under Biden. Bier's estimates are for illegal immigration between ports of entry. (As our bar graph above shows, both administrations had removal rates above 50% when Title 42 was being used to expel people.)

I have to wonder why we're looking specifically at that timeframe (last two years of Trump, first 26 months of Biden) instead of Trump's full term and Biden's term (or at least, all available data) up til now. As the article points out earlier, Trump's last year (during the pandemic) saw Title 42 being used to immediately expel border-crossers - given that, how does that affect the percentages/numbers of release/removal that are cited in the last two paragraphs quoted above? Even if the percentages cited are correct, it does concede that the raw numbers of immigrants being released are much higher under Biden. I think that cuts to the root of the concerns/fears of many Americans. It's not that Americans think the percentage of immigrants being released into the country, relative to the number encountered at the border is higher than it was under Trump or even Obama - it's that the raw number of immigrants being released into the country is much higher, which appears to be true. And all of this raises the question - why are the amount of border encounters so drastically higher than they were in the previous two administrations? Is it policy related? Or is it due to the perception that Biden is softer on immigration? What's changed between Obama/Trump and now?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 18, 2024, 12:59 AMYeah, both sides playing politics with these issues. As I understand it, Biden was holding out for a long-standing commitment from the Senate to help with improved border funding, but as that was never delivered (thank you, Speaker Johnson) he's gone for a short-stop fix instead. With a bit more Republican participation, there could've been a bi-partisan bill ensuring a consistent policy over various White House admins. Instead, Biden is left with just an exec order, which could be rescinded if Trump were to win the election, so back to dizzying policy changes that, I imagine (i) don't look good on the world stage and (ii) are prob inefficient and expensive in terms of implementing staffing/legal/facility policies.   

(And for anyone exasperated by the way the actual figures for "gotaways" and releases are so hazy - it hasn't been so different in the UK, which has its own fiascos dealing with border issues.) 

I think we've already gone over this, so I won't belabor it again - but I think that bill was a crock that would have made little if any difference in what's happening. The politics over this all is ridiculous (on both sides) - it's stupid optical advantages for purposes of electioneering (Trump: "Biden's leaving the border wide open! I'll fix that on day one!", Biden: "I tried to pass the most comprehensive border bill our country's ever seen, but the Republicans wouldn't let me!"). If the southern border/CBP truly needs more funding, it should not require congressional bickering and a new bill to make it happen. If we can swiftly, and without much argument, send tens of billions to Israel, giving our own CBP peanuts in comparison should happen practically automatically, without question. If what's happening at the border is a 'crisis', as both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree it is, Biden should be issuing executive orders. On his first day in office, Biden signed executive orders to dismantle/reverse Trump's immigration policies (https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_biden-signs-executive-orders-reversing-trump-immigration-policies/6201520.html), but now he's claiming: 'there's "no guarantee" he has the power to take action on the border without legislation from Congress (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-order-immigrants-asylum-limit)'? Give me a break. He proved on day one that he could. If a president can start war without congressional approval (and they've proven they can), they can take action on our own border without congressional approval - and Biden knows this. It's a difficult situation for Biden politically, because if he does issue executive orders and we get back to the point that our border policies look much like they did under Trump, then Trump can claim he was right all along (and he won't be shy about saying it). If Biden doesn't issue the executive orders and things don't improve, then Trump will use the border issue as a political cudgel. In a political sense, it's a very difficult tightrope for Biden and Democrats to walk.

One thought I had is - I wonder if we could find an effective proxy statistic/graph for border encounters. Given my (not entirely grounded with solid evidence) belief that Democrats and Republicans (or perhaps more accurately, the unelected bureaucrats like the CIA) have an agreement with the Mexican cartels that we allow them to do business (smuggling drugs in through the border) here in exchange for them acting as a proxy for American political control in central America (at the understood expense of American lives through drug overdoses), I wondered if the rate of drug overdoses in the US might map relatively closely to border encounters. Here are two graphs going back to 2002 - and while they're not perfect matches, they're close enough that it makes me wonder - the spikes seem to match pretty closely at the least:

(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/451-500/db491-fig1.png)

(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/SR_24.02.15_BorderEncounters_feature.png?w=1200&h=628&crop=1)

Fly Away with RFK (https://www.kennedy24.com/ziplining-sweepstakes)


I wonder what the "alternative indoor experience with Mr. Kennedy" will be in the event of inclement weather?

Quote from: SGR on Apr 17, 2024, 10:55 PMBiden Says His Uncle May Have Been Eaten by Cannibals (https://www.newsweek.com/biden-war-cannibals-pennsylvania-1891478)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 18, 2024, 03:33 PMPinocchio Joe tells yet another tall tale. :laughing:

Another day, another nickname for Biden, am I right?
____________________________________

I try not to post clips of political commentators on here, but I'm making an exception today:-

That loathesome pontificator, Bill Barr said yesterday that he'll be voting for Trump in November, despite having predicted that a second Trump term would be "chaos....a horrorshow". This newsclip from MSNBC has a lot of predictable outrage from the over-talkative Joe Scarborough (a man it is easy to get tired of), but then, at 3:10 mins in, he hands over to Bill Sykes. This guy, imo, provides a welcome reminder of the choice between Presidential candidates facing the US in November, and in particular points out how bizarre the Republican position is now becoming:-

 

Hilariously, I read the line about Biden and the cannibals, saw Lisna refer to a one-line link and say "what a pity there can't be more honesty about this issue" or something, and thought it referred to that link! It was like he was saying, "come on, now! Can't other politicans, on both sides of the aisle, please own up to the fact that their close relatives were eaten by cannibals too? Isn't it time to drop all the pretence and have these stories out in the open?"  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:  Oh man, that made my day, even if it was just my misreading of it!

Hillary Clinton Condemns Trump For Paying Hush Money To Political Liabilities Instead Of Just Killing Them (https://babylonbee.com/news/hillary-clinton-condemns-trump-for-paying-hush-money-to-political-liabilities-instead-of-just-killing-them)

 :laughing:

Democrats pulling out all the stops against RFK Jr. (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4606148-rfk-jr-robert-f-kennedy-jr-nicole-shanahan-libertarian-democrats-joe-biden-donald-trump/)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 20, 2024, 05:41 PMDemocrats pulling out all the stops against RFK Jr. (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4606148-rfk-jr-robert-f-kennedy-jr-nicole-shanahan-libertarian-democrats-joe-biden-donald-trump/)

I hope Bobby's got some high-quality body armor.

Speaking of RFK Jr....


RFK Jr.'s quest to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-quest-presidential-ballot-50-states/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 20, 2024, 06:30 PMI hope Bobby's got some high-quality body armor.

He better, since Biden won't give him secret service protection.

US House passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package, sends to Senate (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)

Since this happened on 04/20, I'll just assume congress was high. Actually, that's not fair to stoners, if they were high, they'd probably make better decisions. Funny how when it comes to funding wars, establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans can put all their petty differences aside and unite for a 'patriotic bipartisan bill'.

Just my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:43 PMUS House passes $95 billion Ukraine, Israel aid package, sends to Senate (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)

Since this happened on 04/20, I'll just assume congress was high. Actually, that's not fair to stoners, if they were high, they'd probably make better decisions. Funny how when it comes to funding wars, establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans can put all their petty differences aside and unite for a 'patriotic bipartisan bill'.

Just my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

I posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 01:41 PMSpeaking of RFK Jr....


RFK Jr.'s quest to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-quest-presidential-ballot-50-states/)

We live in very interesting times. RFK Jr. might end up being only a 'Teddy Roosevelt/Bull Moose' spoiler for either Trump or Biden, but there's a realistic shot he could win depending on what happens. Trump is in legal jeopardy (and he's old), Biden in many ways seems like a lame-duck president, and he's even older. Only a couple dominoes would need to fall the right way for RFK Jr. to have a legitimate shot. That being said, if those dominoes started falling the right way for RFK Jr., I fear we'll eventually wake up to national headlines about some 'totally deranged, lone gunman' with spurious ties to foreign nations who will become infamous by his first, middle, and last name.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 09:49 PMI posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

As a young man (I suppose at 29, I'm still young, but I guess I mean as a teenager and young 20-something where I was trying to formulate my worldview), George Carlin really influenced me politically in a big way. If you couldn't tell, I'm rather disillusioned and cynical about American politics. He was a national treasure. RIP.

Not a dime of all that $95 billion going to our border, of course.

One other thing about RFK Jr.

I feel bad for the guy. His family fucking sucks.

Kennedy family members endorse Biden in stinging rebuke to RFK Jr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/kennedy-family-endorse-biden)

Now I get if they privately thought Biden would be a better choice than RFK Jr., but a baseline expectation would be that your own family wouldn't come out and endorse your opposition. The worst case scenario, in a normal family (you'd think), is that they gave no public endorsements, rather than actively rebuking RFK Jr. My family would never do that to me, for example. I'd hope most healthy families wouldn't do that to their own.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:43 PMJust my opinion, but I think Ukraine is a big fat money-laundering scheme (as so many wars are), and the US seems poised to spend itself into oblivion. But on the bright side, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell's stock portfolios are doing well! That'll be a comforting thought, I'm sure, as average Americans rack up credit card debt to buy groceries.

I understand your point, SGR, but I think "spend itself into oblivion" is a overstating things, especially if this 2022 chart is accurate or relevant:-

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/2022_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png)

At $95 B, the proposed spending is about 1% of total 2022 spending. The cash will be split between 3 international allies (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), with Ukraine getting $60 B. Very generous of the US, but it's a pretty slim slice of pizza on the pie chart.

Here's another chart that might alleviate the sting of US spending on Ukraine: by percentage of GDP, the US is squarely in the middle of the pack:

  (https://static.dw.com/image/61526751_7.png)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 21, 2024, 09:49 PMI posted this quote in another thread but it's also appropriate here...

The word bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.

 - George Carlin

^ :laughing: Brilliant! As George Carlin often is.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:50 PMNot a dime of all that $95 billion going to our border, of course.

^ As you said elsewhere, SGR, you and I seem to be going round in a loop trying to find the blame for this funding shortfall at the border.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 21, 2024, 09:57 PMOne other thing about RFK Jr.

I feel bad for the guy. His family fucking sucks.

Kennedy family members endorse Biden in stinging rebuke to RFK Jr (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/kennedy-family-endorse-biden)

Now I get if they privately thought Biden would be a better choice than RFK Jr., but a baseline expectation would be that your own family wouldn't come out and endorse your opposition. The worst case scenario, in a normal family (you'd think), is that they gave no public endorsements, rather than actively rebuking RFK Jr. My family would never do that to me, for example. I'd hope most healthy families wouldn't do that to their own.

^ Are we destined to come to opposite conclusions on every political story, SGR ? :(
I don't know the details of this news item, but it certainly throws up a red flag for someone: do we red-flag all 15 members of RFK's family, or do we red-flag RFK ? To me, just by the numbers, it's more likely that RFK is at fault, how else would their disapproval be so uniform? 

I'm not familiar with all the details, but from what I did read I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on RFKJ. as his family, from what I understand, distanced themselves from his Nazi-supporting, right wing, Covid-denying, sonspiracy theories supporting (and advancing) and all but right wing views, and in an attempt not to allow their legacy and name to be shit on by a right wing in all but name nutjob. I'd have done the same in their position.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PMI understand your point, SGR, but I think "spend itself into oblivion" is a overstating things, especially if this 2022 chart is accurate or relevant:-

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/2022_Total_US_Government_Spending_Breakdown.png)

At $95 B, the proposed spending is about 1% of total 2022 spending. The cash will be split between 3 international allies (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), with Ukraine getting $60 B. Very generous of the US, but it's a pretty slim slice of pizza on the pie chart.

I appreciate how you're trying to contextualize things to make me feel better @Lisnaholic :laughing:, but a couple things:

• That chart is from 2022, and doesn't represent large amounts of aid to Ukraine from 2023 and 2024
• While that chart might showcase our federal spending, it does not showcase our ballooning national debt, which I think is unsustainable should we continue down the path we appear to be on - which also affects the value of our dollar and our interest rates (https://www.gao.gov/americas-fiscal-future#:~:text=The%20Nation's%20Unsustainable%20Fiscal%20Path&text=Federal%20debt%20held%20by%20the,the%20economy%2C%20which%20is%20unsustainable.), which is a large part of why my generation can't even afford a home to start a family

Quote from: 'GAO.gov'Federal debt held by the public (that is, the total amount of money that the federal government owes to its investors) will continue to grow faster than the economy, which is unsustainable.

Historically, debt has decreased during peacetime and economic expansions. But this pattern has changed in recent decades. Unless current revenue and spending policies change, by 2028 debt will reach its historical high of 106 percent of GDP, according to our simulation. If unaddressed, it will grow more than twice as fast as the economy and reach 200 percent of GDP by 2050.

• Let's say this chart of yours was from 2024 for the sake of argument. Is my criticism of how my spend-happy government spends our tax dollars not valid because it spends a shit ton of it in other places, which makes the aid to Ukraine look minor in comparison?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PMHere's another chart that might alleviate the sting of US spending on Ukraine: by percentage of GDP, the US is squarely in the middle of the pack:

 

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier in the thread about how stats/charts/graphs should be treated with skepticism. This chart doesn't mention the GDP of the countries listed. The US GDP dwarfs the GDP of all these other countries. You could combine the GDP of all the countries (other than the US) and you'd be lucky if you had even half of the US GDP ($25.5 trillion in 2022). It alleviates the sting of US spending because Lithuania and Slovakia are sending more to Ukraine in aid as a percentage of their rinky-dink countries' GDP? Nah.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PM^ As you said elsewhere, SGR, you and I seem to be going round in a loop trying to find the blame for this funding shortfall at the border.

Yes, we have been going back and forth on this, but in my last comment, I'm not trying to even find or assign blame. I'm simply noting how curious it is that our two major parties can so quickly agree on sending tens of billions to Ukraine and Israel, but can't seem to figure out how to handle our own border. What, if anything, does this tell us?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 21, 2024, 11:47 PM^ Are we destined to come to opposite conclusions on every political story, SGR ? :(
I don't know the details of this news item, but it certainly throws up a red flag for someone: do we red-flag all 15 members of RFK's family, or do we red-flag RFK ? To me, just by the numbers, it's more likely that RFK is at fault, how else would their disapproval be so uniform? 

The essence of this argument makes no sense to me. Because RFK Jr's family totals more in number (more than 1), they should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should assume it's RFK Jr's fault? Could we extend this argument to (yes, I'm now invoking Godwin's Law) the Nazis and the Jews? Do we red-flag the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Nazi Germany, or do we red-flag the tens of millions of Nazis? If the Jews weren't at fault, how else would the Nazis' disapproval be so uniform?  :laughing:

I jest, but my original comment had nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong in this scenario - because I don't know, ultimately, and the answer is most likely subjective. Rather just that I sympathize with RFK Jr for having a family that is happy to come out publicly in opposition to him.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 22, 2024, 01:05 AMI'm not familiar with all the details, but from what I did read I wouldn't waste too much sympathy on RFKJ. as his family, from what I understand, distanced themselves from his Nazi-supporting, right wing, Covid-denying, sonspiracy theories supporting (and advancing) and all but right wing views, and in an attempt not to allow their legacy and name to be shit on by a right wing in all but name nutjob. I'd have done the same in their position.

(https://media.tenor.com/-g_sKUkI3MkAAAAM/what-bruh.gif)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 02:26 AMI appreciate how you're trying to contextualize things to make me feel better @Lisnaholic :laughing:, but a couple things:

• That chart is from 2022, and doesn't represent large amounts of aid to Ukraine from 2023 and 2024

- Yes, I did point out that its relevance was not 100%

• While that chart might showcase our federal spending, it does not showcase our ballooning national debt, which I think is unsustainable should we continue down the path we appear to be on - which also affects the value of our dollar and our interest rates (https://www.gao.gov/americas-fiscal-future#:~:text=The%20Nation's%20Unsustainable%20Fiscal%20Path&text=Federal%20debt%20held%20by%20the,the%20economy%2C%20which%20is%20unsustainable.), which is a large part of why my generation can't even afford a home to start a family

I don't know much about how National Debts work - beyond the fact that every country seems to have one. I'm sorry that it's difficult for your generation to afford a home. Perhaps the housing market is a discussion for another thread as it's such a complex issue

• Let's say this chart of yours was from 2024 for the sake of argument. Is my criticism of how my spend-happy government spends our tax dollars not valid because it spends a shit ton of it in other places, which makes the aid to Ukraine look minor in comparison?

That's a good question, SGR. I didn't mean to say that your argument is not valid, and at one level every dollar spent on A is a dollar not spent on B. I was saying that linking support for Ukraine to "spending to oblivion" is a stretch.


This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier in the thread about how stats/charts/graphs should be treated with skepticism. This chart doesn't mention the GDP of the countries listed. The US GDP dwarfs the GDP of all these other countries. You could combine the GDP of all the countries (other than the US) and you'd be lucky if you had even half of the US GDP ($25.5 trillion in 2022). It alleviates the sting of US spending because Lithuania and Slovakia are sending more to Ukraine in aid as a percentage of their rinky-dink countries' GDP? Nah.  :laughing:
Like I said when I posted the chart, it shows percentage statistics. If you just look at it and say "Which bar is biggest?" then it could be misleading, but it doesn't have to be treated skepticism; plenty of people understand the difference between proportional and net figures. Yes, the US sends the biggest chunk of cash, but like in many areas of countries joining together to fund international causes, the fairest principle is some proportional system. Or what? The USA and Malta (pop. = 0.4 million) should pay the same towards, I don't know, cancer research, NATO or whatever ? 

Yes, we have been going back and forth on this, but in my last comment, I'm not trying to even find or assign blame. I'm simply noting how curious it is that our two major parties can so quickly agree on sending tens of billions to Ukraine and Israel, but can't seem to figure out how to handle our own border. What, if anything, does this tell us?
I don't know who is more surprised at the phrase "can so quickly": me or Zelenskyy ;)

The essence of this argument makes no sense to me. Because RFK Jr's family totals more in number (more than 1), they should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should assume it's RFK Jr's fault? Could we extend this argument to (yes, I'm now invoking Godwin's Law) the Nazis and the Jews? Do we red-flag the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Nazi Germany, or do we red-flag the tens of millions of Nazis? If the Jews weren't at fault, how else would the Nazis' disapproval be so uniform?  :laughing:

I jest, but my original comment had nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong in this scenario - because I don't know, ultimately, and the answer is most likely subjective. Rather just that I sympathize with RFK Jr for having a family that is happy to come out publicly in opposition to him.
Perhaps we should agree to differ on this one, SGR, because I'm too tired to explore RFKJ's record - but it looks like Trollheart has done some research, and his mention of "Covid-denying" is another red flag against the guy.    

:thumb: Thanks as always for your good humour, and I hope the pink font isn't too hard on your eyes!

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 02:42 AM(https://media.tenor.com/-g_sKUkI3MkAAAAM/what-bruh.gif)

Not sure why Steve Harvey is so dumbfounded, RFK has 100% pushed antisemitic conspiracy shit pretty openly, along with plenty of other offensively horrible conspiracy theories. I don't know how you would think that's a surprising thing for TH to say, lol.

Quote from: Lexi Darling on Apr 22, 2024, 04:44 AMNot sure why Steve Harvey is so dumbfounded, RFK has 100% pushed antisemitic conspiracy shit pretty openly, along with plenty of other offensively horrible conspiracy theories. I don't know how you would think that's a surprising thing for TH to say, lol.

To be honest, it was me who was dumbfounded because I didn't connect the dots of what (I think) TH meant, I was genuinely confused because I think I read it too literally - the way you just framed it, I think I understand where he was coming from now, though perhaps you or TH could provide me with additional context (admittedly, I haven't followed RFK Jr as closely as Trump/Biden). I didn't connect 'nazi supporting' with that thing he said about COVID-19 being ethnically designed to not target Jews (and Chinese people). I'm guessing that's what TH meant. The other thing that confused me was 'covid denying' - I'm guessing that's in reference to RFK Jr's controversial views on vaccines (or maybe it was an extension on the previous point of his claim it was designed to ethnically target) - if that's not the case, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Maybe I'm just not aware of something RFK Jr. said.

RFK Jr has said some pretty controversial things, but I wouldn't classify him as a 'right wing nutjob'. He has some views/policy proposals that are left of Republicans and some views/policy proposals that are right of Democrats, he doesn't exactly fit cleanly into one box.

And to TH, my apologies, I should have just asked what you meant instead of replying with a snarky Steve Harvey GIF (which is admittedly one of my favorite GIFs). Sorry about that, brother.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AM:thumb: Thanks as always for your good humour, and I hope the pink font isn't too hard on your eyes!

Out of all the font colors you could have chose, you opted with garish hot pink?  :laughing:

As always @Lisnaholic, I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to me (even though we often disagree, which kinda makes it fun and insightful) - give me a bit and I'll give you a proper (and hopefully thoughtful) response. Maybe tomorrow.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 22, 2024, 05:43 AMTo be honest, it was me who was dumbfounded because I didn't connect the dots of what (I think) TH meant, I was genuinely confused because I think I read it too literally - the way you just framed it, I think I understand where he was coming from now, though perhaps you or TH could provide me with additional context (admittedly, I haven't followed RFK Jr as closely as Trump/Biden). I didn't connect 'nazi supporting' with that thing he said about COVID-19 being ethnically designed to not target Jews (and Chinese people). I'm guessing that's what TH meant. The other thing that confused me was 'covid denying' - I'm guessing that's in reference to RFK Jr's controversial views on vaccines (or maybe it was an extension on the previous point of his claim it was designed to ethnically target) - if that's not the case, I'm not sure what's meant by that. Maybe I'm just not aware of something RFK Jr. said.

RFK Jr has said some pretty controversial things, but I wouldn't classify him as a 'right wing nutjob'. He has some views/policy proposals that are left of Republicans and some views/policy proposals that are right of Democrats, he doesn't exactly fit cleanly into one box.

And to TH, my apologies, I should have just asked what you meant instead of replying with a snarky Steve Harvey GIF (which is admittedly one of my favorite GIFs). Sorry about that, brother.

I don't follow him super closely either, but anytime I hear about him it always seems to be someone reporting on the insane shit he says. Here's an overview of some of that.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=43efffa53cef (https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/10/10/rfk-jr-launches-independent-2024-run-here-are-all-the-conspiracies-he-promotes-from-vaccines-to-mass-shootings/?sh=43efffa53cef)

Apologies if my reply came off as a bit indignant. As always I appreciate your respectfulness and willingness to hear others out even if we don't always see eye to eye.

Former Green Candidate CALLS OUT Party's DYSFUNCTION - w/ Matthew Hoh

New polling, just in (from 1,000 registered voters):

In a one-on-one match-up: Trump 46% of voters, Biden 44%

With RFKJ: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, RFKJ 13%

I say, "Go RFKJ ! Not for the win, but for helping with Trump's loss." RFKJ is luring away twice as many Trump voters as he is Biden voters - not surprising to judge from what is being said here about his political ideas.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 03:09 PMNew polling, just in (from 1,000 registered voters):

In a one-on-one match-up: Trump 46% of voters, Biden 44%

With RFKJ: Biden 39%, Trump 37%, RFKJ 13%

I say, "Go RFKJ ! Not for the win, but for helping with Trump's loss." RFKJ is luring away twice as many Trump voters as he is Biden voters - not surprising to judge from what is being said here about his political ideas.

That's strange. I thought he would pull away more left leaning voters from Biden than he would from Trump. RFKJ is more left leaning than the few right stances he has.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 22, 2024, 03:35 PMThat's strange. I thought he would pull away more left leaning voters from Biden than he would from Trump. RFKJ is more left leaning than the few right stances he has.

At this point, I'd take those polling results with a grain of salt until we start to see the polling paint a clear and consistent picture (assuming it does) month after month. This article/polling was from only 4 weeks ago, for example.

What the Polls Say Today: RFK Jr. Now Hurting Biden, Helping Trump (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-the-polls-say-today-kennedy-hurts-biden-helps-trump.html)

If anything, I think the recent polls would suggest that we still don't know who RFK Jr will pull more votes from. I think if Democrats were confident that RFK Jr. would hurt Trump more than Biden, they wouldn't be expending so much effort trying to block his ballot access.

Another factor will inevitably be voter interest/enthusiasm which NBC News claims is at a 20-year low. This typically indicates that there will be lower voter turnout, so a slice of pie 1,000 person poll might be representative of the way voters might be leaning, it doesn't necessarily indicate which side of the aisle will have greater turnout come election day and of course, the success and visibility of RFK Jr. muddies things further.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna148170

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMI don't know much about how National Debts work - beyond the fact that every country seems to have one. I'm sorry that it's difficult for your generation to afford a home. Perhaps the housing market is a discussion for another thread as it's such a complex issue.

...

That's a good question, SGR. I didn't mean to say that your argument is not valid, and at one level every dollar spent on A is a dollar not spent on B. I was saying that linking support for Ukraine to "spending to oblivion" is a stretch.

You're right, the issue of housing prices and housing availability is complex and probably would need to be discussed in isolation. I mentioned it not so much to provide an argument or explanation of A --> B causality or anything, just to give you an idea of where some Americans (many in my age bracket/demographic) might be coming from on an emotional level (which ultimately, to probably both of our chagrin, drives voting more than facts and figures do). While of course spending in one area (in this case, Ukranian aid) doesn't mean we can't spend money in other areas domestically and improve on various different problems and situations, just that it can feel frustrating seeing your government sending tens of billions overseas, while we can't afford homes, and the cost of our groceries (despite inflation cooling) are still so high. Our national debt is now around $10 trillion more than our yearly GDP, and it hasn't shown any signs of stopping in recent times. For the first time last year, annual interest payments on the US national debt exceeded $1 trillion (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-debt-interest-payments-reach-1-trillion/) (perhaps National Debts as a whole is a topic that deserves its own thread, I'm sure we'd all learn something new from that). While I'll concur that we're probably not in crisis mode yet, where we need to worry about defaulting on the debt, continued aid to Ukraine is particularly frustrating when 70% of Americans want talks to end the war in Ukraine (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-peace-talks-poll/). This is something I think we've already discussed, but I'm at the point where I want the focus to be on diplomacy to end the war - with compromises from all sides. I'd be less irritated with the aid if the signal and message was that we were simply providing them aid as a stopgap measure while we directed diplomatic resources to reach a compromise with Russia and Ukraine and end the war. That doesn't appear to be the goal though, per the following quote from the linked article:

QuoteThe Biden administration has publicly rejected the idea of negotiating an end to the war with Russia, with U.S. officials saying that they are prepared to back Ukraine "as long as it takes" to achieve the country's goal of ejecting Russian troops from all of its territory, including Crimea.

I don't know if you'd agree, but I just don't think that goal is realistic. I think we're long past the point of expelling Russian troops from all Ukranian territory being achievable. If it isn't realistically achievable, then this aid seems like money down the drain - a sunk-cost fallacy in action. That is of course, if the publicly stated goals are the true goals, and not, as often happens with war, an opportunity seized upon by bad actors to line their own pockets. Respected investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, yes, the same Seymour Hersh who exposed the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh), recently wrote an article on his Substack (https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy) that contains some information that is pretty damning, including that Ukraine is using US aid to buy diesel from Russia. Unfortunately, you need to start a subscription to read the whole article, but I'll include a quote from what is available without doing that below, with bold emphasis in spots of interest:

Quote from: Seymour Hersh; 'Trading With the Enemy'What also is unknown is that Zelensky has been buying the fuel from Russia, the country with which it, and Washington, are at war, and the Ukrainian president and many in his entourage have been skimming untold millions from the American dollars earmarked for diesel fuel payments. One estimate by analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency put the embezzled funds at $400 million last year, at least; another expert compared the level of corruption in Kiev as approaching that of the Afghan war, "although there will be no professional audit reports emerging from the Ukraine."

"Zelensky's been buying discount diesel from the Russians," one knowledgeable American intelligence official told me. "And who's paying for the gas and oil? We are. Putin and his oligarchs are making millions" on it.

Many government ministries in Kiev have been literally "competing," I was told, to set up front companies for export contracts for weapons and ammunition with private arms dealers around the world, all of which provide kickbacks. Many of those companies are in Poland and Czechia, but others are thought to exist in the Persian Gulf and Israel. "I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are others in places like the Cayman Islands and Panama, and there are lots of Americans involved," an American expert on international trade told me.

The issue of corruption was directly raised with Zelensky in a meeting last January in Kiev with CIA Director William Burns. His message to the Ukrainian president, I was told by an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the meeting, was out of a 1950s mob movie. The senior generals and government officials in Kiev were angry at what they saw as Zelensky's greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because "he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals."

Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government. Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else. "The ten he got rid of were brazenly bragging about the money they had—driving around Kiev in their new Mercedes," the intelligence official told me.

So what I gather from this, assuming it's all true (and given Seymour Hersh's track record, I'm inclined to think it is), is that our American tax dollars are getting sent to Ukraine, a country we've long known to be politically corrupt, and there's little oversight or at least enforcement on how that money is used. Putin and his goons (who are supposed to be our geopolitical enemies) are making millions off us as Zelensky uses our money to buy diesel from Russia. Zelensky and his generals, for their part, are also embezzling hundreds of millions off the aid we send them (and that's just last year) to personally enrich themselves, as his generals brag about it and drive around Kiev in their shiny new Mercedes. And of course, private weapons contractors, as long as the war keeps going, get to make their money too. As all this goes on, our congressmen and congresswomen cheer and applaud and wave Ukrainian flags in the US House Chamber as they vote to send another $61 billion to Ukraine:



https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1781767781945360480

As Smedley Butler once said: "War is a racket"

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMLike I said when I posted the chart, it shows percentage statistics. If you just look at it and say "Which bar is biggest?" then it could be misleading, but it doesn't have to be treated skepticism; plenty of people understand the difference between proportional and net figures. Yes, the US sends the biggest chunk of cash, but like in many areas of countries joining together to fund international causes, the fairest principle is some proportional system. Or what? The USA and Malta (pop. = 0.4 million) should pay the same towards, I don't know, cancer research, NATO or whatever ?

That's fair I suppose, and I understand where you're coming from, but it does ignore the debt-to-GDP ratios of the countries involved, which would ignore how fiscally wise it might be for each given country to provide that aid. For example, Sweden and Lithuania both have a debt-to-GDP ratio of around 35% (very healthy fiscal situation) while America has a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 120% (not so healthy fiscal situation).

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMI don't know who is more surprised at the phrase "can so quickly": me or Zelenskyy ;)

Trust me, compared to the usual seemingly endless bickering between R's and D's to get anything useful done domestically, the aid to Ukraine was done quickly!  ;)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 22, 2024, 04:20 AMPerhaps we should agree to differ on this one, SGR, because I'm too tired to explore RFKJ's record - but it looks like Trollheart has done some research, and his mention of "Covid-denying" is another red flag against the guy.   

That's fine. To be frank, I haven't really made up my mind about RFK Jr. in totality. As I mentioned to Lexi, I haven't followed him as closely as I have Trump/Biden. He's a very interesting wildcard. Believe me, there's a lot of things I disagree with him on politically. But when I've listened to him speak, I can't help but get the feeling that deep down, he is a good man who genuinely wants what he believes is best for the country. Does that mean he is a good man? Not necessarily. Does that mean he's right about what is best for the country? Probably not, at least not in total. But there is an authenticity I get from him that I get from very few US politicians. That whole ethnically targeted COVID stuff for example, that was presented by many as showcasing RFK Jr's antisemitism - I believe him when he came out and apologized and said he in no way meant what he said in an anti-semitic fashion, and that he shouldn't have said it, because he could see how some might take it to mean something which he didn't mean. Perhaps others get the same feeling of genuineness and authenticity from him and that's why he has as much support as he does, despite less media coverage and his obvious voice issue. Who knows, maybe I'm just easily duped.  :laughing:

Trump Doubles Down That RFK Jr. Is 'Most Radical Left Candidate' (https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/04/11/trump-doubles-down-that-rfk-jr-is-most-radical-left-candidate-id-vote-for-rfk-jr-every-single-time-over-biden/?sh=3a9effe868f7)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 22, 2024, 06:45 PMTrump Doubles Down That RFK Jr. Is 'Most Radical Left Candidate' (https://www.forbes.com/sites/caileygleeson/2024/04/11/trump-doubles-down-that-rfk-jr-is-most-radical-left-candidate-id-vote-for-rfk-jr-every-single-time-over-biden/?sh=3a9effe868f7)

Trump calls him 'radical left', it would be hilarious if Biden came out and called him a 'right wing conspiracy filled nutjob'.  :laughing:

Depending on who he ends up taking more votes from, someone will probably regret giving him more attention. I could see Biden not addressing him at all and pretending he doesn't exist. That's honestly probably the smart play.

I'm skeptical presidential debates will even happen, but man it would be interesting if RFK Jr was up on the stage with Trump/Biden (I'm confident that won't happen).

First off, @SGR , no problem with the gif. I do that, too, though I didn't understand why you and this Steve Harley sorry Harvey were so dumbstruck, and thanks @Lexi Darling  for helping to clear it up for me. Been transferring my journals all last week and today; getting close to having them all up to date, but it's been keeping me from checking out/responding to threads.

I used to post in an admittedly pretty left-wing, liberal forum called - ah damn I forget, but it was one of those places where they post all the fuck Trump stuff. I learned through bitter experience though that they were, or are, in their way, as close-minded and ready to stab you if you stick one toe out of line (as they see it) when I was banned. Yeah, me! Banned! Have you ever met a nicer, less offensive person, not counting Lisna? Yet they banned me. Long story. Anyway (what the hell was the name of that place? I just seem to have gone blank on it. It'll come to me) it was there that I first learned of RFKJ, who was actually taking legal action against them for posting perfectly legitimate pictures of his taking part in a Nazi rally, or rather, for refusing to reveal the source that posted them. They have a back-and-forth with him, but again it was there that I had learned the family had disowned him and accused him of shitting on the proud legacy of the Kennedys.

Okay, I looked it up. Daily KOS, that was it. Here's the story, sent to me in email format way back in 2022, obviously before they banned this dangerous radical from their site!



Nazi-cavorter Robert Kennedy is suing Daily Kos. Here's where things currently stand:
Inbox

Daily Kos <campaigns@dailykos.com> Unsubscribe
Tue, 25 Jan 2022, 15:09
to me

Deryck, at an anti-vax rally over the weekend in Washington, D.C., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. compared the current pandemic safety policies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Except, according to Kennedy, it was easier to escape the Holocaust, saying "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did" (ignoring the fact that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp). He followed that up with a tirade about 5G and satellites tracking our every move.

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Kennedy can freely spew his conspiracy theories and exploit one of the greatest human tragedies in history into a microphone in the middle of the nation's capital—it's one of those rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. Yet, this man is suing Daily Kos to reveal the identity of a user who wrote about Kennedy's participation in an anti-mask rally in Germany that was organized and attended by Nazis. A story that was also reported by many major media outlets.

Daily Kos is now in the second year of defending Kennedy's frivolous lawsuit to protect the privacy of our community and our First Amendment rights. The lawsuit now spans two coasts--in courts in both New York and California—and it is getting costly. But we refuse to back down from Kennedy's bullying.

Unfortunately, Kennedy comes from one of those American dynasty families and has unlimited financial resources. Unlike Kennedy, nearly half of our revenue comes from thousands of grassroots supporters chipping in a few dollars at a time. Help fund our legal efforts against Robert Kennedy Jr. a dangerous, life-threatening conspiracy theorist, by donating $5 to Daily Kos today.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMFirst off, @SGR , no problem with the gif. I do that, too, though I didn't understand why you and this Steve Harley sorry Harvey were so dumbstruck.

It was a combination of my lack of familiarity with Kennedy and some of what he's said (and his controversies) and not being able to connect the dots with what you said, essentially. Steve Harley... :laughing:

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMand thanks @Lexi Darling  for helping to clear it up for me. Been transferring my journals all last week and today; getting close to having them all up to date, but it's been keeping me from checking out/responding to threads.

I used to post in an admittedly pretty left-wing, liberal forum called - ah damn I forget, but it was one of those places where they post all the fuck Trump stuff. I learned through bitter experience though that they were, or are, in their way, as close-minded and ready to stab you if you stick one toe out of line (as they see it) when I was banned. Yeah, me! Banned! Have you ever met a nicer, less offensive person, not counting Lisna? Yet they banned me. Long story.

That's certainly not unheard of, especially among the left as of late. It more than likely factors into why many lefties shunned Hillary and decided to either not vote, vote for Trump or vote third party - and also why some are planning to either not vote for Biden or vote third party now. You were 'morally outbid', Trolls.  :laughing:

Purity spiral - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_spiral#:~:text=A%20purity%20spiral%20is%20a,called%20%22moral%20outbidding%22).)

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 01:55 AMAnyway (what the hell was the name of that place? I just seem to have gone blank on it. It'll come to me) it was there that I first learned of RFKJ, who was actually taking legal action against them for posting perfectly legitimate pictures of his taking part in a Nazi rally, or rather, for refusing to reveal the source that posted them. They have a back-and-forth with him, but again it was there that I had learned the family had disowned him and accused him of shitting on the proud legacy of the Kennedys.

Okay, I looked it up. Daily KOS, that was it. Here's the story, sent to me in email format way back in 2022, obviously before they banned this dangerous radical from their site!



Nazi-cavorter Robert Kennedy is suing Daily Kos. Here's where things currently stand:
Inbox

Daily Kos <campaigns@dailykos.com> Unsubscribe
Tue, 25 Jan 2022, 15:09
to me

Deryck, at an anti-vax rally over the weekend in Washington, D.C., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. compared the current pandemic safety policies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Except, according to Kennedy, it was easier to escape the Holocaust, saying "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland, you could hide in an attic like Anne Frank did" (ignoring the fact that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp). He followed that up with a tirade about 5G and satellites tracking our every move.

Unlike in Nazi Germany, Kennedy can freely spew his conspiracy theories and exploit one of the greatest human tragedies in history into a microphone in the middle of the nation's capital—it's one of those rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. Yet, this man is suing Daily Kos to reveal the identity of a user who wrote about Kennedy's participation in an anti-mask rally in Germany that was organized and attended by Nazis. A story that was also reported by many major media outlets.

Daily Kos is now in the second year of defending Kennedy's frivolous lawsuit to protect the privacy of our community and our First Amendment rights. The lawsuit now spans two coasts--in courts in both New York and California—and it is getting costly. But we refuse to back down from Kennedy's bullying.

Unfortunately, Kennedy comes from one of those American dynasty families and has unlimited financial resources. Unlike Kennedy, nearly half of our revenue comes from thousands of grassroots supporters chipping in a few dollars at a time. Help fund our legal efforts against Robert Kennedy Jr. a dangerous, life-threatening conspiracy theorist, by donating $5 to Daily Kos today.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of this. But what gives rise to characterizing the people of this rally as 'nazis'? What positions do they hold? I'm guessing it wasn't as obvious as they were flying swastika flags (because that's banned in Germany) - if their primary reason for being there was because they were anti-mask or anti-lockdown, that's a hard-sell as a 'nazi' to me, particularly coming from the Daily Kos, which, while I'm no regular reader - I'm familiar enough with to know their bias is rather far left (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-kos), they're like the 'Breitbart' of the left. Again, I'm not very familiar with the situation or the rally, maybe there's a good reason to suspect they're nazis that I'm not aware of.

I'm digging. Here are a few:
 Auschwitz Memorial respond as Kennedy compares vaccine mandates to holocaust (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/24/2076463/-Robert-Kennedy-Jr-Anti-vaxxers-these-days-are-worse-off-than-Anne-Frank?detail=emailaction&link_id=0&can_id=8f1be5c2b7ce8d9d9ea7107533568f8f&source=email-nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand-2&email_referrer=email_1420461&email_subject=nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand)

I guess not swastikas, but here's what they said:

The protest was organized by right-wing extremist organizations- including the AfD party and various anti-Semitic conspiracy groups as well as the neo-Nazi NPD party.

Among the speakers was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. who warned against the "totalitarianism" of Angela Merkel.

"He sounded the alarm concerning the 5G mobile network and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.  Referring to the famous Berlin speech of his uncle JFK he said 'Today Berlin is is once again the front against totalitarianism.'"

Protester were seen carrying poster urging "Trump, Please Help"  with the QAnon logo.

As for me, I was on notice after calling someone a "right wing bitch" (they didn't like the b-word and I had to apologise). Next thing I posted my American West journal, and because I used the word "savage" about the Native Americans it was called racist and pulled. Even though the word was clearly in quotes, to show I did not agree and was making a point. I replied, explaining this (though it should have been obvious) and asking the editor if he understood what context was? Next time I tried to post I was advised I had been banned. Idiots. Didn't want their stupid lefty forum anyway.

Yuck. Litigation like that seems such a bullying tactic. I obviously don't know the story or what really happened, but if you're a politician joining a public demonstration, that does sound like a matter of public interest and fair game for news reports. But then I guess litigation is used to scare or bully whether they're right or wrong.

About your ban, they didn't deserve you, @Trollheart.

Biden implied his uncle lost in WWII was eaten by cannibals. Papua New Guinea's leader pushes back. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/papua-new-guinea-james-marape-joe-biden-uncle-cannibals-comment/)

Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 23, 2024, 08:32 AMYuck. Litigation like that seems such a bullying tactic. I obviously don't know the story or what really happened, but if you're a politician joining a public demonstration, that does sound like a matter of public interest and fair game for news reports. But then I guess litigation is used to scare or bully whether they're right or wrong.

About your ban, they didn't deserve you, @Trollheart.

Thanks man. What really grinds my gears is that I made a very formal, public and quite embarrassing apology about the b-word, and they STILL banned me! Looks like they were just looking for an excuse, as some other opinions in my other journals hadn't gone down too well. I was even told it was not my  place to write a history of America, as I was not American! In terms of their mindset, and I told them this (which may have led to the ban too) they were being as close-minded and as speech-censoring as the Republicans and Trump supporters they claimed to hate. Two sides of the one coin, very ugly. Ah well, as Jesus said in the New Testament, fuck those guys.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 23, 2024, 03:55 AMI'm digging. Here are a few:
 Auschwitz Memorial respond as Kennedy compares vaccine mandates to holocaust (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/1/24/2076463/-Robert-Kennedy-Jr-Anti-vaxxers-these-days-are-worse-off-than-Anne-Frank?detail=emailaction&link_id=0&can_id=8f1be5c2b7ce8d9d9ea7107533568f8f&source=email-nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand-2&email_referrer=email_1420461&email_subject=nazi-cavorter-robert-kennedy-is-suing-daily-kos-heres-where-things-currently-stand)

I guess not swastikas, but here's what they said:

The protest was organized by right-wing extremist organizations- including the AfD party and various anti-Semitic conspiracy groups as well as the neo-Nazi NPD party.

Among the speakers was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. who warned against the "totalitarianism" of Angela Merkel.

"He sounded the alarm concerning the 5G mobile network and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.  Referring to the famous Berlin speech of his uncle JFK he said 'Today Berlin is is once again the front against totalitarianism.'"

Protester were seen carrying poster urging "Trump, Please Help"  with the QAnon logo.

As for me, I was on notice after calling someone a "right wing bitch" (they didn't like the b-word and I had to apologise). Next thing I posted my American West journal, and because I used the word "savage" about the Native Americans it was called racist and pulled. Even though the word was clearly in quotes, to show I did not agree and was making a point. I replied, explaining this (though it should have been obvious) and asking the editor if he understood what context was? Next time I tried to post I was advised I had been banned. Idiots. Didn't want their stupid lefty forum anyway.

I'm gonna have to claim ignorance on those far right German parties, as I'm in the dark there. I'll have to do some reading on that. Comparing vaccine mandates to the holocaust though is just nonsensical. Obviously, RFK Jr can say whatever he wants, but if he's serious about gaining support/voters, saying things like that makes him look like a non-serious candidate. Doesn't he have someone whispering in his ear and coaching him on his speeches? Comparisons like that is just a completely unforced error. Sloppy (similar to his comments on COVID and it being genetically targeted).

Isn't it just the Trumpification of the political rhetoric? Just say whatever crazy shit gets people riled up. There's hardly any accountability for past utterings anyways, so why not.

Quote from: Guybrush on Apr 23, 2024, 08:30 PMIsn't it just the Trumpification of the political rhetoric? Just say whatever crazy shit gets people riled up. There's hardly any accountability for past utterings anyways, so why not.

That's certainly a frame you could look at it through. Maybe the poor analogy was completely intentional because he knew it would make some headlines and get him some attention. And when you're running as an independent in America, you kinda need all the press you can get. But is all press 'good press'? I find that adage to not always be true - but maybe it's true in this particular case - and maybe my previous comment (that it was an 'unforced error') was looking at it wrong, and perhaps it wasn't an error at all. After all, here we all are talking about him because of it.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 23, 2024, 03:06 PMBiden implied his uncle lost in WWII was eaten by cannibals. Papua New Guinea's leader pushes back. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/papua-new-guinea-james-marape-joe-biden-uncle-cannibals-comment/)

Now imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

Wasn't it Frank Zappa who had a song or album called Uncle Meat?  :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:

Hmmm, given that Pecker is being forced to stand trial and spill the beans on Trump, could it fairly be said that the judge in this case is 'grabbing Trump by the Pecker'?

Second day of Pecker testimony wraps in Trump's hush money trial (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4614711-trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/)

And let's not even get started with all the 'gag' orders...

Considering Trump's infamous "you can grab them by the colloquial name for a cat" tape, I think that's a case of turnabout is fair play.

Very interesting to read about your experiences in that Daily Kos forum, Trollheart! Guybrush says, they didn't deserve you.

Thanks for the wiki link to "Purity Spiral", SGR: it's good to have a term for something that is surprisingly common in political, religious groups. The Communist Party in the 1930s suffered from this syndrome big time, and I see it alive today with Majorie Taylor Green's threats to oust Speaker Johnson, ( if I am understanding the concept right.)

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 23, 2024, 10:07 PMNow imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

There wouldn't be any with his supporters. Just the media outlets for a few days and then it would be forgotten. Just like he said he could walk in a busy tourist area and shoot someone and still get away with it.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 24, 2024, 12:15 AMHmmm, given that Pecker is being forced to stand trial and spill the beans on Trump, could it fairly be said that the judge in this case is 'grabbing Trump by the Pecker'?

Second day of Pecker testimony wraps in Trump's hush money trial (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4614711-trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/)

And let's not even get started with all the 'gag' orders...

Trump gagged & hit by Pecker

That would be my headline if I was a writer for the New York Post.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 24, 2024, 11:42 AMThere wouldn't be any with his supporters. Just the media outlets for a few days and then it would be forgotten. Just like he said he could walk in a busy tourist area and shoot someone and still get away with it.

Yeah his supporters wouldn't but I'm talking about everyone else. This is exactly what I meant when I said Biden gets a pass and an easy ride. He saw Papau New Guinea and thought 'cannibals'. If Trump had done that it'd be all over the news, social media and celebrities would be speaking out against it, like what happened with the shithole countries comment or when he said Mexicans were sending their worst over the border.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 23, 2024, 10:07 PMNow imagine the shitfest if Trump had come out with that. You'd never hear the end of it for racism accusations.

New Yorkers SHOCKED by These REAL Joe Biden Quotes

How Idaho 'fraudster' wormed his way into Donald Trump's inner circle, 'scammed thousands of dollars in phony political donations' and even faked cancer treatment to swindle wealthy Mar-a-Lago members (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13319915/Fraudster-Jesse-Taylor-infiltrated-Donald-Trump-inner-circle-scammed-donations.html)

This guy lookin like the love child of Rand Paul and Gilderoy Lockhart (Harry Potter): :laughing:

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/04/17/20/83778915-13319915-image-a-21_1713383311591.jpg)

Rand:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Rand_Paul_Official_Portrait.jpg)

Gilderoy:

(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1525724160i/25500137._SY540_.jpg)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 24, 2024, 12:51 PMTrump gagged & hit by Pecker

That would be my headline if I was a writer for the New York Post.

Oh man, that's good. There's probably a lot of hilarious ones that could be come up with:

Pecker unloads on Trump pornstar tryst  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 24, 2024, 02:45 AMVery interesting to read about your experiences in that Daily Kos forum, Trollheart! Guybrush says, they didn't deserve you.

Thanks for the wiki link to "Purity Spiral", SGR: it's good to have a term for something that is surprisingly common in political, religious groups. The Communist Party in the 1930s suffered from this syndrome big time, and I see it alive today with Majorie Taylor Green's threats to oust Speaker Johnson, ( if I am understanding the concept right.)

I was thinking it might even be a better fit for what happened in the USSR in the 1920s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin%27s_rise_to_power), as Stalin fought back against his left opposition (led by Trotsky) that were more of the mind of international socialism and expansion, while Stalin essentially wanted to fortify their own territory and achieve industrial strength first. Later in the 20s, Stalin and his allies fought back against Right-leaning opposition of his party that opposed greater central control of the economy and collectivization practices. Stalin was a monster, no doubt, and there's no way to know how things would've ultimately turned out - but I think it's certainly possible that if Trotsky won out over Stalin and assumed control of the country, the toll on human lives may have been even worse. Additionally, who knows, if all things remained the same, if Russia would've been able to win out against the Nazis, and how a potential alliance with them would have manifested.

To your point, I think the divide in the Republican party could be described as a purity spiral.

Quote from: SGR on Apr 24, 2024, 04:30 PMOh man, that's good. There's probably a lot of hilarious ones that could be come up with:

Pecker unloads on Trump pornstar tryst  :laughing:

Trump held by Pecker
Pecker forced to stand
Pecker flip-flops
Trump has Pecker problems
No cure for Trump's Pecker ailment

I'm here all week. Unless they manage to break the door down...

Trump takes it on the chin as Pecker spills (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/david-pecker-testimony-trump-trial-reveals-seedy-underbelly-tabloid-jo-rcna149507)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 27, 2024, 01:49 PMTrump takes it on the chin as Pecker spills (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/david-pecker-testimony-trump-trial-reveals-seedy-underbelly-tabloid-jo-rcna149507)

Now there's a headline!  :laughing:

President Joe Biden says he's 'happy to debate' Donald Trump. Trump says he's ready to go (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-97c527d59bac59c06d2ee0e1edb81d9b)

My money is still on the debates not happening.

But boy I sure hope I'm wrong.

White House plans to limit Biden's graduation speeches as campuses erupt in protests (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-plans-limit-bidens-graduation-speeches-campuses-erupt-prot-rcna149137)

QuoteWASHINGTON — Amid growing protests on college campuses by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, the White House is planning for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to have a minimal presence for a traditional rite of spring: delivering commencement addresses.

Faculty at historically black Morehouse College revolt over Biden commencement invite — some refuse to sit with President (https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/morehouse-college-faces-revolt-over-biden-invite/)

QuoteFaculty at Morehouse College are in uproar over plans for President Biden to deliver the school's commencement address next month.

Professors at the historically black college say Biden's ongoing support or Israel amid the war in Gaza is too much, with some saying they will not be seen next to the Democratic president.

"I've spoken with several faculty members who say under no conditions are they going to sit on a stage with Joe Biden," Andrew Douglas, a political science professor at Morehouse told NBC. "It's on everybody's mind."

Bad news for Biden.

Exclusive poll: America warms to mass deportations (https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/trump-biden-americans-illegal-immigration-poll)

(https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/axios%20am.JPG?itok=6Ioq4xcE)

42% of Democrats supporting mass deportation of undocumented immigrants is wild.

Quote from: 'Axios'Americans are open to former President Trump's harshest immigration plans, spurred on by a record surge of illegal border crossings and a relentless messaging war waged by Republicans.

President Biden is keenly aware the crisis threatens his re-election. He's sought to flip the script by accusing Trump of sabotaging Congress' most conservative bipartisan immigration bill in decades.
But when it comes to blame, Biden so far has failed to shift the narrative: 32% of respondents say his administration is "most responsible" for the crisis, outranking any other political or structural factor.

More bad news for Biden...

Biden's 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically (https://news.gallup.com/poll/644252/biden-13th-quarter-approval-average-lowest-historically.aspx)

QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Joe Biden averaged 38.7% job approval during his recently completed 13th quarter in office, which began on Jan. 20 and ended April 19. None of the other nine presidents elected to their first term since Dwight Eisenhower had a lower 13th-quarter average than Biden.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Apr 27, 2024, 11:22 PMMore bad news for Biden...

Biden's 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically (https://news.gallup.com/poll/644252/biden-13th-quarter-approval-average-lowest-historically.aspx)

(https://media.tenor.com/JPkESyIjgKkAAAAM/joe-biden.gif)

Everyone knows that among presidents who are 80 years old or older, Biden's 13th quarter approval ranking actually ranks HIGHEST historically!

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZHNkd2FxMWVkcHM4OGNxOXY3bWtwYmdiN245Y2xtMzFxZ3Z2a2I2eSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ktfInKGOVkdQtwJy9h/giphy.gif)

Trump and DeSantis, once GOP rivals, meet in South Florida to talk about 2024 election (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-desantis-meeting-florida/)

RFK Jr. challenges Trump to debate after 'Democrat plant' accusation (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-challenges-trump-debate-democrat-plant-accusation)

Quote"When frightened men take to social media they risk descending into vitriol, which makes them sound unhinged," Kennedy wrote in an X post on Saturday afternoon. "President Trump's rant against me is a barely coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate. President Trump, who has proven himself the most adept debater in modern American political history, should not be panicked to meet me on that stage."

This would be stupid for Trump to agree to (because really, the only upside here is for RFK Jr, with little to no upside for Trump). Still, I'd love to see it happen. I wanna see Trump and RFK Jr debate about all these aliens/UFOs we keep hearing about. And it would be quite something to see RFK Jr. put Trump in a position where he has to defend and support the COVID-19 vaccine.

(https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media2.salon.com/2023/07/donald_trump_rfk_1272685148_1543053033_1148109735.jpg)

Quote from: SGR on Apr 29, 2024, 03:56 PMRFK Jr. challenges Trump to debate after 'Democrat plant' accusation (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-jr-challenges-trump-debate-democrat-plant-accusation)

This would be stupid for Trump to agree to (because really, the only upside here is for RFK Jr, with little to no upside for Trump). Still, I'd love to see it happen. I wanna see Trump and RFK Jr debate about all these aliens/UFOs we keep hearing about. And it would be quite something to see RFK Jr. put Trump in a position where he has to defend and support the COVID-19 vaccine.

(https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media2.salon.com/2023/07/donald_trump_rfk_1272685148_1543053033_1148109735.jpg)

That bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

To his fans Trump is the best debater by default because they're in a cult that is convinced that anyone debating him is just a lying agent of the deep state shadow government.

You win every contest if you can convince your supporters that you're the only fair player.

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 29, 2024, 06:11 PMThat bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

I think it's an appeal to Trump's ego and part of the challenge itself. Imagine you're the fastest kid in a small school (or at least, you think you are) and everyone knows it. A new kid starts coming to the school. Then, in front of the class, the new kid says to the fast kid: "I challenge you to a race at recess. Since you're the fastest kid in school, you should have no problem beating me, right?"

Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 29, 2024, 06:11 PMThat bit about Trump being the most adept debater: that's clearly him having a laugh, no? Trump couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag.  Mind you, place "mast" in front of the word and maybe he's on to something...

I think they meant to say entertaining debater. He runs circles around most politicians. There might not be substance but there is flash and he creates buzzworthy clips for days after.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 29, 2024, 11:53 PMI think they meant to say entertaining debater. He runs circles around most politicians. There might not be substance but there is flash and he creates buzzworthy clips for days after.

That's a very fair assessment. Trump can make many of the establishment politicians look foolish and inept not by engaging in the real substance of the debate, but rather by taking shots at their integrity (of which most politicians have none) or their past or their insecurities (which often includes their physical appearance). Trump comes from a media/TV background. He knows how to handle media optics in a way that gives him an edge over many politicians. The 2016 Republican debates will forever be some of the most ridiculously entertaining political spectacles America had the (mis?)fortune of witnessing:



The underlying problem is that people don't vote (by and large) based on a logical calculation of policy proposals, but rather based on their emotions. I think Trump realized this, leveraged it, and that's why he was able to win in 2016. Perception is reality for better or worse. Politics has always had an element of bloodsports to it. Trump amplified this further than we've so far seen. Which again raises the interesting question of what the GOP will do when he's out of the picture.

Inside the National Enquirer's hunt for a 'blockbuster' Trump story (https://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-national-enquirers-hunt-blockbuster-trump-story/story?id=109797235)

I've heard this said in a couple different ways now, but I think there's definitely some truth to it.

The Republicans have nominated the only candidate who could possibly lose to Joe Biden.

And the Democrats have nominated the only candidate who could possibly lose to Donald Trump.

 :laughing:

South Dakota Gov. Noem admits error of describing meeting North Korea's Kim Jong Un in new book (https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-north-korea-90e61965e9ac486e52cec5b35da41f47)

lol Kristi Noem didn't read her own book before it was released.  :laughing: How the hell did the ghostwriter include a completely fictitious story about meeting Kim Jong Un? I'd be curious who the ghostwriter was, because it seems like this mistake was intentional to take Kristi Noem out of VP contention.

Yeah, she ain't getting Trump's VP spot. Especially after the 'dog story'.

Quote from: SGR on May 06, 2024, 07:26 PMSouth Dakota Gov. Noem admits error of describing meeting North Korea's Kim Jong Un in new book (https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-north-korea-90e61965e9ac486e52cec5b35da41f47)

lol Kristi Noem didn't read her own book before it was released.  :laughing: How the hell did the ghostwriter include a completely fictitious story about meeting Kim Jong Un? I'd be curious who the ghostwriter was, because it seems like this mistake was intentional to take Kristi Noem out of VP contention.

Yeah, she ain't getting Trump's VP spot. Especially after the 'dog story'.

Come on now: don't you know that the divine Kim can be wherever he wants to be, even if he wasn't born yet? This is the man, remember, who, having never picked up a golf club before, scored eighteen holes-in-one on his very first try, and then retired from golf forever! If he wanted to be there, you can bet he was there. She probably just doesn't remember it because his awesome presence so overpowered her that it shorted out her memory.

Or maybe he had one of these.
(https://media.tenor.com/2jDvQSfU3lUAAAAM/men-in-black.gif)

Well, we've had enough of Pecker on the stand, so now we get to hear from a porn star (https://apnews.com/article/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-trial-takeaways-f34f094124fc7ec455d6a73cbb6eec21). Gag orders abound! Though there may have been some awkwardness and some sexual dissatisfaction, we've now settled it once and for all: there was no erection interference.

(https://preview.redd.it/fjjzg4qz7baz.jpg?auto=webp&s=6b84147bbd3d102feb2b780df009ada092e33cb4)

In other news, apparently a worm ate part of RFK Jr's brain (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/08/rfk-jr-brain-worm-00156794). Now let me ask you, my fellow Americans; being president may be a job like no other, but it's still a job nonetheless. Even if you're not a business owner, I'm sure you've hired people to do a job before. Maybe a plumber to fix your pipes for example. Maybe you had only three plumbers in your town. Still, did you ever need to ask yourself: "Well, I've got three plumbers here who could do this job...but do any of them still have a functioning brain?"

Moving on, the federal court case against Trump for mishandling classified documents has been indefinitely delayed by the judge (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/07/politics/judge-postpones-trump-classified-documents-trial/index.html). And why might you ask? Well, it appears the prosecution/special counsel mishandled the classified documents and misled the judge (https://www.ntd.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-admits-prosecutors-misled-judge-in-trump-case_990699.html) and there are too many questions surrounding this to continue the case at this juncture. But not to worry, I'm sure once another independent special counsel is tasked with investigating whether or not this special counsel mishandled the classified documents in the case against Trump for mishandling classified documents, we'll hastily be back in the courtroom!

Stay tuned folks, as is your duty as proud Americans, things can only get more exciting from here!

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNDJsenB4N2ZwZ242eXN6ODJuZGFzdzUyODE1MWduNG84YWJqOXR1YSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/14B1JWOH17oJlscPGK/giphy.gif)

I like this! Witty, sarcastic and cutting observations from the man on the ground (well, in the garden anyway, and I don't mean the Rose one) - always liked your writing style, SGR, and I'd definitely come back to check out more of your "updates" in this thread, so hope you considering making this a regular thing!

Quote from: Trollheart on May 08, 2024, 07:51 PMI like this! Witty, sarcastic and cutting observations from the man on the ground (well, in the garden anyway, and I don't mean the Rose one) - always liked your writing style, SGR, and I'd definitely come back to check out more of your "updates" in this thread, so hope you considering making this a regular thing!

Thanks Trolls! I had a lot of fun writing it, so maybe I'll make it a regular thing. Can't force it though. The stories have to be right, and the jokes will have to come to me, but this definitely won't be the last time I do a spoof of the presidential race news. I will certainly not be bereft of material to work with, that's for sure. :laughing:

You mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

Quote from: Guybrush on May 09, 2024, 07:43 AMYou mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

Thanks Guy, I was on the fence about skipping breakfast, but now I think I can skip lunch too.  ;D

Quote from: SGR on May 09, 2024, 03:05 PMThanks Guy, I was on the fence about skipping breakfast, but now I think I can skip lunch too.  ;D

good thing you weren't eating while reading.

Lesson learned for me but good think I didn't get sausage patties like I normally do for breakfast.

Biden taps Obama, George Clooney, Julia Roberts and the Clintons for mega fundraisers (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/biden-taps-obama-george-clooney-julia-roberts-clintons-mega-fundraiser-rcna151183)

Quote from: Guybrush on May 09, 2024, 07:43 AMYou mentioned a parasite, so I ofc latched on to that bit.

The brain eating worm is probably the common pork tapeworm. It has a stage where it lives in the intestine, which is what people know about, but that stage produces eggs that hatch into another stage, a stage that makes a smaller worm that burrows into tissues and lives inside the cyst it creates there.

If people ingest those eggs, say from drinking water contaminated with faeces containing tapeworm eggs, those worms can end up in the brain - or in the eyes even.

It really is awful and so if you want something new to keep you up at night, just Google pork tapeworm brain.

When I read this I decided to give up eating and drinking entirely -  a resolve that lasted for about an hour.

I've prob mentioned this before, but pork is a risky meat to eat because pigs are genetically close to us: a bug that lives in pork can probably transfer comfortably to us. It's safer to eat beef, chicken or fish that are furthur removed from us genetically, so those bugs are less adept at finding a new home in us.

Nearly 100,000 people pack Wildwood beach for Donald Trump rally (https://abc7ny.com/post/donald-trump-wildwood-nj-2024-rally-new-jersey-tickets/14801435/)

Biden and Trump agree to 2 presidential debates, with first set for June 27 on CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/joe-biden-debate/index.html)

This is going to be a shit show

RFK Jr. rages at Trump and Biden 'colluding' to exclude him from debates (https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/rfk-jr-rages-at-trump-and-biden-colluding-to-exclude-him-from-debates/)

'Biden didn't come to the Bronx': Trump makes a foray into Democratic turf (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/23/trump-bronx-rally-new-york-00159838)

QuoteA Siena College poll released Wednesday showed Biden leading Trump in New York by only 9 points — 47 to 38 percent among 1,191 registered voters. Four years ago, Biden defeated Trump in the state by 23 points. And according to a recent New York Times and Siena College poll of battleground states, Trump and Biden had equal support with Latino voters, while Trump had 20 percent support from Black voters. Trump only needs to make marginal gains with Latino voters to make a difference in the November election.

If the polling suggests Trump's appeal may extend even incrementally beyond his traditionally white base, it was evident at the rally too. The crowd reflected New York's diversity, with Hasidic Jews, Blacks and Latinos in attendance wearing MAGA hats and holding signs with Trump's mugshot and the slogan "Never Surrender."

(https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/bf49a6b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3000x2000+0+0/resize/1540x1026!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F4f%2Fe1%2Ff015e79f4783bf23d22ee61cca60%2Fuseuntil06-23-2024-012.jpg)

With Trump's recent rally in the Bronx, it's provided a pretty stark contrast in visible levels of voter enthusiasm.

Here's what Biden's recent event in reliably blue New Hampshire looked like before he started speaking.


Here's what Trump's recent event in the reliably blue Bronx looked like before he started speaking.

https://x.com/EricSpracklen/status/1793766685662740703?t=9eUzWxnyMuejSrtwRcQCuw

Yeah...a little bit of a difference.  :laughing:

Thanks for the pro-Trump propaganda, SGR!

Joy Reid has her own interpretation: a refutation that she packs into the first 3 mins:


(One of JR's photos reminds me of that classic Sean Spicer moment to the American people: "Pay me an inflated salary and I will lie shamelessly to your face". Good times.)

RFK urges Libertarians to heckle Trump with rubber chickens (https://nypost.com/2024/05/25/us-news/rfk-jr-urges-libertarians-to-heckle-trump-with-rubber-chickens/)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 25, 2024, 03:37 PMThanks for the pro-Trump propaganda, SGR!

Joy Reid has her own interpretation: a refutation that she packs into the first 3 mins:

(One of JR's photos reminds me of that classic Sean Spicer moment to the American people: "Pay me an inflated salary and I will lie shamelessly to your face". Good times.)

I tried to find a Youtube video of that Twitter clip that didn't include the obviously pro-Trump sentiment in the guy's tweet, but unfortunately, I couldn't find it.

As for Joy Reid, I wasn't arguing about what Trump's crowd size was. Rather, that the two clips are reflective of the contrast of enthusiasm of Democrats to vote for Biden and of Republicans to vote Trump. Polls reflect that of course, with Republicans right now being almost twice as enthusiastic to vote as Democrats (https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/biden-trump-2020-election-president-georgia-new-jersey-minnesota-polling-morehouse-college-voters-protests-israel-hamas-palestinians-war-gaza-college-campus-campaigns-gop-republicans-democrata-monmouth). Enthusiasm, I think, converts to energy. The atmosphere of the Trump event looked like a party or a celebration, while the atmosphere of the Biden event was more akin to bingo night at a senior center, even replete with elevator music ambiance. To be fair, there are surely Biden events that have more energy than the Biden NH one I posted, but I was trying to make a point about voter enthusiasm.

QuoteA Monmouth poll from late April shows Republicans are much more interested in the presidential rematch than Democrats or Independents. According to the poll, 63% of GOP voters were "somewhat or very enthusiastic" about it, compared to just 36% of Democrats.

Going back to the Joy Reid thing, and it's not just her, but many other liberals who have covered this Trump Bronx event, discrediting his crowd size or whatever. It seems like a similar mistake that the left-leaning media made in the 2016 cycle (though it could only be classified as a mistake if they cared more about Biden being reelected than generating clicks/money). All Trump's campaign apparently has to do is exaggerate his crowd size, and then left-leaning media swoops in to 'correct the record', but at the same time, giving him all kinds of free national press to people outside of New York who'd otherwise have no clue Trump was in the Bronx - feeding into the aforementioned 'energy'. When it's election day, will your average swing voter who's seen these stories on left leaning news outlets remember what Trump's crowd size was, or will they just remember that Trump campaigned in the Bronx, and tried to create outreach to a more diverse electorate?

crowd-size...energy...enthusiasm: yes, these things aren't identical and can be teased apart by all means, although, by the end of your post, you're surely pulling those threads back together again, to link them to turnout.

To me the point is that your clips are cherry-picked and partisan, and I believe that calling out distortions and lies are signs of healthy media coverage. Does that give Trump too much free publicity? I don't know, but it's better than letting lies go unchallenged, imo.

I have no idea what swing voters think, but at least JR and other fact-checkers might be giving them a heads up: that from Sean Spicer to today, the GOP is a party of irresponsible and blatant liars, from this:-

Sharpiegate: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/trump-sharpie-hurricane-dorian-alabama/index.html

...to this:

QuoteFormer President Trump's false claim that President Biden was "locked & loaded ready to take me out" during the FBI's search at his Mar-a-Lago residence has quickly fallen apart.

Why it matters: Trump's claim fueled a social media frenzy among some of his MAGA allies, leading federal law enforcement to denounce the accusations.

Trump posted on his Truth Social account earlier this week that Biden's Justice Department "authorized the FBI to use deadly (lethal) force" during the search at Mar-a-Lago.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) falsely wrote on X on Tuesday that "the Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light." 

^ With Space-Laser Lady, Marjorie Failure Green, writing such junk accusations, then yeah, I think refutation is the best policy:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 02:17 AMcrowd-size...energy...enthusiasm: yes, these things aren't identical and can be teased apart by all means, although, by the end of your post, you're surely pulling those threads back together again, to link them to turnout.

They may not be the exact same - but there's certainly an intersection - a venn diagram if you will. But by all means, if you think the Democrats' current approach and strategy is working and will be successful in winning the election with their current voter engagement and enthusiasm, more power to you.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 02:17 AMTo me the point is that your clips are cherry-picked and partisan, and I believe that calling out distortions and lies are signs of healthy media coverage. Does that give Trump too much free publicity? I don't know, but it's better than letting lies go unchallenged, imo.

The irony is not lost on me that the clip you sent me as a rebuttal in your first response is from MSNBC, which is essentially the highly partisan left wing version of Fox News (they're even more biased than CNN). This outlet, who you claim are a sign of healthy media coverage in fact-checking Trump's crowd size claims, are the same outlet that have a history of spreading lies about Trump, which we've already discussed in a different thread. But these lies were much more impactful and important to know the truth about than Trump's crowd size numbers. So important, that Biden originally announced he was running for president in 2020 because of one of the lies (which he certainly knew was a lie by then).


MTG is a clown. But for this whole DOJ authorizing the use of deadly force in the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago deal, I haven't come to my own conclusion about that completely. To me, it seems like a 'cover your ass' manuever so that if something crazy and unexpected happens, and one of the FBI agents needs to use deadly force, they can't be prosecuted for it afterwards. I'll admit that I haven't dug deep into the subject, but if someone could show me evidence that the DOJ granting the FBI authority to use lethal force in a raid like this is a real anomaly, maybe I'd change my mind. Otherwise, I think the whole story is a nothing-burger that Republicans will attempt to use to paint Trump as a victim/martyr of a corrupt justice system.

Trump, RFK Jr. face hostile reception at Libertarian convention amid efforts to sway voters (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rfk-jr-hostile-reception-libertarian-convention/)

Quote from: SGR on May 26, 2024, 06:00 AMThey may not be the exact same - but there's certainly an intersection - a venn diagram if you will. But by all means, if you think the Democrats' current approach and strategy is working and will be successful in winning the election with their current voter engagement and enthusiasm, more power to you.

Yes, Venn diagram is a good way to describe it. I'm not saying that the Dems have a winning strategy, SGR, I was saying that random snippets of rallies don't tell us much of value about the election.

QuoteThe irony is not lost on me that the clip you sent me as a rebuttal in your first response is from MSNBC, which is essentially the highly partisan left wing version of Fox News (they're even more biased than CNN). This outlet, who you claim are a sign of healthy media coverage in fact-checking Trump's crowd size claims, are the same outlet that have a history of spreading lies about Trump, which we've already discussed in a different thread. But these lies were much more impactful and important to know the truth about than Trump's crowd size numbers. So important, that Biden originally announced he was running for president in 2020 because of one of the lies (which he certainly knew was a lie by then).

Yes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

 I notice that, on the one hand, you have previously made a point about the unreliability of the Charlottevilllle quote, but then go on to accept that that quote was the reason Biden is running for President. Why not go the extra mile and conclude that the whole quote-and-inspiration-to-run story is just a made-for-tv simplification, and that Biden was considering running anyway? They just stitched together a story that made it sound good: that's advertising, not politics. 

QuoteMTG is a clown. But for this whole DOJ authorizing the use of deadly force in the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago deal, I haven't come to my own conclusion about that completely. To me, it seems like a 'cover your ass' manuever so that if something crazy and unexpected happens, and one of the FBI agents needs to use deadly force, they can't be prosecuted for it afterwards. I'll admit that I haven't dug deep into the subject, but if someone could show me evidence that the DOJ granting the FBI authority to use lethal force in a raid like this is a real anomaly, maybe I'd change my mind. Otherwise, I think the whole story is a nothing-burger that Republicans will attempt to use to paint Trump as a victim/martyr of a corrupt justice system.

Yep, I think it's already sufficiently debunked, along with so many empty accusations from the GOP.

When my mum was telling me about life during WWII, she said this: "There was a new news story every day and it was hard to understand what was really happening". To me that's a problem with so much election coverage: this poll, that rally turns the election into a kind of personality contest. That's not the big picture to my mind. More important are some of the fundamental policy divides between the two parties. Not all, but some are outlined in this BBC article, which, in terms of bias, is probably fairer than the US cable tv news channels:-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68790777 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 08:49 PMYes, Venn diagram is a good way to describe it. I'm not saying that the Dems have a winning strategy, SGR, I was saying that random snippets of rallies don't tell us much of value about the election.

That's fair, you didn't necessarily say that. To clarify my previous point (perhaps I initially did so poorly), I understand what you mean by the snippets of rallies not being a valuable comparison point in isolation about voter enthusiasm, I was trying to, with a little levity and humor, make the point of the difference in voter enthusiam between Democrats (quiet sit down with elevator music) and Republicans (cheering crowds, rap videos being shot) that is indicated in real polling (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_042924/). Unfortunately, it seems like I didn't get a laugh out of you.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 08:49 PMYes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

 I notice that, on the one hand, you have previously made a point about the unreliability of the Charlottevilllle quote, but then go on to accept that that quote was the reason Biden is running for President. Why not go the extra mile and conclude that the whole quote-and-inspiration-to-run story is just a made-for-tv simplification, and that Biden was considering running anyway? They just stitched together a story that made it sound good: that's advertising, not politics. 

I'm not sure I completely understand your point here. It's not that the Charlottesville quote was 'unreliable', it's that it was a lie by omission to make it seem like Trump believed that neo-nazis/white nationalists were "fine people" and that he was sympathtetic to them and their causes.

You're probably right that Biden was going to run anyways, and it was a 'made for TV simplification' of his reason(s) for running, but is that supposed to make the lie better somehow? My issue isn't that it was 'Biden's reason for running', it's that the lie was so impactful (in terms of how the media spread it, without the context that makes it completely untrue), and so many people believed it, that Biden used it to kick off his campaign - and that the media outlets that you appreciate for 'fact checking' and believe are a 'sign of healthy media coverage' also freely traffic in lies like this when the lie is damaging someone who's not 'their guy' and it benefits their side to spread the lie. To be fair, it's not just Dems/Liberals, I'm sure Fox News does it too against Biden and Democrats (though I can't immediately think of an example that's as damaging and egregious as this one), but I don't regularly watch Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 08:49 PMYep, I think it's already sufficiently debunked, along with so many empty accusations from the GOP.

When my mum was telling me about life during WWII, she said this: "There was a new news story every day and it was hard to understand what was really happening". To me that's a problem with so much election coverage: this poll, that rally turns the election into a kind of personality contest. That's not the big picture to my mind. More important are some of the fundamental policy divides between the two parties. Not all, but some are outlined in this BBC article, which, in terms of bias, is probably fairer than the US cable tv news channels:-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68790777 

There's definitely a 'fog of war' element to election coverage. It's hard to know who and what to believe. I'm not sure if 'personality contest' is the right term, but I think it's definitely a 'popularity contest'. I agree, it would probably be ideal if elections could be solely about policy differences and records of the politicians in question, but that will never be the reality of it. Human beings, I think probably by their nature, are incapable of mechanistically and robotically analyzing policy differences to make their voting decisions. People, by and large I think, vote with their emotions (https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_emotions_that_make_you_decide_to_vote). Sometimes, it's about the candidate that makes you feel good. Other times, it might be the candidate who makes you feel fear about the other candidate. I think fear is probably the biggest driver, but there's also identity which is a large driver of actions. For Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?". I think it was one of Trollheart's threads, but I posted a link to a study on how malleable the behavior of children are when you motivate them by identity.

One addition to the 'voting on policy differences' thing. Even if human beings by and large were remotely capable of appreciably doing this, it would all be for naught with the way our media is structured. Not just the mainstream TV media, but internet/Youtube/print media, etc. Could you imagine a world where Sean Hannity or Joy Reid popped up on the TV on a nightly basis to report only policy differences, direct quotes from new statements the candidates made recently, how the polling is looking, recent economic indicators that might sway the election to one candidate or the other based on their proposed policies, etc. (i.e. reporting nothing but dry facts)? Firstly, no one would watch it because it would be too boring, and secondly, outrage is what makes them money.  :laughing: So yeah, in our media landscape, and by our nature (I think), we cannot escape the emotions which drive our voting behavior.

By the way, not a bad article from the BBC. It didn't come across as very biased to me, but definitely a little on the brief side in terms of the issues. A decent summary at least.  :)

Libertarians choose Chase Oliver as presidential nominee. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/libertarian-party-chase-oliver-presidential-nominee-rejects-trump-rfk-jr/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on May 27, 2024, 11:10 PMLibertarians choose Chase Oliver as presidential nominee. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/libertarian-party-chase-oliver-presidential-nominee-rejects-trump-rfk-jr/)

 :laughing:  :laughing:  :laughing:

Great job Mises Caucus, you backed a loser who had to stop his remarks at the convention short because he took a weed edible beforehand (https://www.newsweek.com/michael-rectenwald-libertarian-admits-eating-weed-gummy-before-remarks-1904859). What a bunch of unserious clowns.

Quote from: SGR on May 27, 2024, 08:09 PMUnfortunately, it seems like I didn't get a laugh out of you.  :laughing:

:laughing: Sorry if I took you too seriously, SGR !

QuoteI'm not sure I completely understand your point here. It's not that the Charlottesville quote was 'unreliable', it's that it was a lie by omission to make it seem like Trump believed that neo-nazis/white nationalists were "fine people" and that he was sympathtetic to them and their causes.

You're probably right that Biden was going to run anyways, and it was a 'made for TV simplification' of his reason(s) for running, but is that supposed to make the lie better somehow? My issue isn't that it was 'Biden's reason for running', it's that the lie was so impactful (in terms of how the media spread it, without the context that makes it completely untrue), and so many people believed it, that Biden used it to kick off his campaign - and that the media outlets that you appreciate for 'fact checking' and believe are a 'sign of healthy media coverage' also freely traffic in lies like this when the lie is damaging someone who's not 'their guy' and it benefits their side to spread the lie. To be fair, it's not just Dems/Liberals, I'm sure Fox News does it too against Biden and Democrats (though I can't immediately think of an example that's as damaging and egregious as this one), but I don't regularly watch Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

Is it worthwhile or possible to differentiate between lies generated/propagated by media and lies generated/propagated by politicians? That's my question concerning your statement in bold. I accept what you say about the Trump "both sides" quote being cut from its complete context and thus misused, but I don't think it beats in egregiousness these lies:

- Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss defamed by Guiliani and others
- Dominion Voting machines ditto
- "Stop the Steal" even though there was no steal

The first two lies have done specific and lasting damage to innocent victims. The last two lies have energized millions of supporters who are ready to deny any election result that doesn't go their way and thus those lies have undermined trust in the democratic process in a big way, that shows little sign of being repaired anytime soon.
so, yeah, I count those lies as more egregious than a mis-used quote attributed to Trump - which, as you suggest, is pretty much business as usual "on both sides" ;) for media coverage.

QuoteThere's definitely a 'fog of war' element to election coverage. It's hard to know who and what to believe. I'm not sure if 'personality contest' is the right term, but I think it's definitely a 'popularity contest'. I agree, it would probably be ideal if elections could be solely about policy differences and records of the politicians in question, but that will never be the reality of it. Human beings, I think probably by their nature, are incapable of mechanistically and robotically analyzing policy differences to make their voting decisions. People, by and large I think, vote with their emotions (https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_emotions_that_make_you_decide_to_vote). Sometimes, it's about the candidate that makes you feel good. Other times, it might be the candidate who makes you feel fear about the other candidate. I think fear is probably the biggest driver, but there's also identity which is a large driver of actions. For Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?". I think it was one of Trollheart's threads, but I posted a link to a study on how malleable the behavior of children are when you motivate them by identity.

One addition to the 'voting on policy differences' thing. Even if human beings by and large were remotely capable of appreciably doing this, it would all be for naught with the way our media is structured. Not just the mainstream TV media, but internet/Youtube/print media, etc. Could you imagine a world where Sean Hannity or Joy Reid popped up on the TV on a nightly basis to report only policy differences, direct quotes from new statements the candidates made recently, how the polling is looking, recent economic indicators that might sway the election to one candidate or the other based on their proposed policies, etc. (i.e. reporting nothing but dry facts)? Firstly, no one would watch it because it would be too boring, and secondly, outrage is what makes them money.  :laughing: So yeah, in our media landscape, and by our nature (I think), we cannot escape the emotions which drive our voting behavior.

By the way, not a bad article from the BBC. It didn't come across as very biased to me, but definitely a little on the brief side in terms of the issues. A decent summary at least.  :)

Yes, "popularity contest" is a better phrase.

I read through your take on what people consider when voting, and I appreciate how, as a polite debater, you put in a lot of "I think"s and "probably"s - because we can´t generalize or say for sure. My feeling is that you overstate how "incapable" people are of analysing policy differences. And although I know it's just a graphic and amusing example, (the idea of Sean Hannity and Joy Read breaking out the statistics and graphs, etc,) even so, I think you could've also mentioned that people can and do turn to other, drier sources of information too. In fact, you and I do it, SGR, and I'm sure we are not alone.

 

QuoteFor Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?".

^ I don't set out to be argumentative, SGR, but rereading this, I'm not entirely happy with the way you mention these "identity messages" from the Dems/GOP  as if they were just two equal alternatives. The Dem one seems accurate enough, but the GOP one seems to me to be based on two false jingoistic concepts:-
i) capital "P" Patriot is removing a word from its original meaning and applying it to a special group, when in fact, most Americans, incl the Dems are, afaik, patriotic.
ii) The Republicans do not want to uphold the rule of law: they are calling prisoners "hostages", they won't condemn the beating up of the Capitol police, and they are turning up outside Trump's trial to critise the judicial system. They want Biden to be impeached although there is no evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", they want SCOTUS to be a political tool, and they want Trump to be above the law. Also, when in power, they want their own AG (previously Bill Barr) to wield, not impartial justice on behalf of the American people, but vendetta prosecutions at Trump's direction.

So the GOP identity as you describe it is a sham. Better to put, "Are you a Xenophobe, ready to trample on your democratic heritage and the rule of law, in order to establish Trump as God-King and Emperor?"   

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 02:23 AMIs it worthwhile or possible to differentiate between lies generated/propagated by media and lies generated/propagated by politicians? That's my question concerning your statement in bold. I accept what you say about the Trump "both sides" quote being cut from its complete context and thus misused, but I don't think it beats in egregiousness these lies:

- Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss defamed by Guiliani and others
- Dominion Voting machines ditto
- "Stop the Steal" even though there was no steal

The first two lies have done specific and lasting damage to innocent victims. The last two lies have energized millions of supporters who are ready to deny any election result that doesn't go their way and thus those lies have undermined trust in the democratic process in a big way, that shows little sign of being repaired anytime soon.
so, yeah, I count those lies as more egregious than a mis-used quote attributed to Trump - which, as you suggest, is pretty much business as usual "on both sides" ;) for media coverage.

Sure, it's possible to do so. In the case of the 'fine people' lie though, there wouldn't be much difference, besides the fact that the media generated the lie and Biden (a politician) propagated it.

I honestly don't know how'd you'd equate these examples against accusations of a president being sympathetic with nazis and white nationalists. Not 'you' specifically, but just in general. While accusations against a president have a graver political import, they also carry, almost by default, a faction of defenders and multiple levels of legal safeguards, while accusations against non-elected individuals and companies don't carry the same political import but also carry less legal safeguards. So in terms of egregiousness, it seems up in the air or at least up to debate. But what I will say, since you've brought these examples up, as I've said before: we as Americans can't know for sure the reliability of the results of the election. Since it's not fully auditable, and each state is operating on its own (sometimes under slightly different rules), it's not only difficult, but impossible to be 100% sure that the election results you've got are accurate. We've had, since the end of the election, multiple stories about ballots that should've been counted that weren't, and ballots that were counted that shouldn't have been. And to be clear, I'm not saying there's any evidence that there were enough mistakes to point to the idea that Trump would've been elected without the mistakes, but rather just that it seems that our election system is not as 'secure and safe and reliable' as many of our politicians would like us to believe. And I guarantee this is a non-partisan issue - because neither Democrats or Republicans will push and actually fix this issue, because they were elected with the system as it is. That being the case, why would they want to change the system that saw them succeed?

If you'd like to go deeper on this specific topic, we could, and I could provide you with a myriad of evidence that would suggest or at least raise the possibility of the vulnerability of our current election system. Just let me know.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 02:23 AMYes, "popularity contest" is a better phrase.

I read through your take on what people consider when voting, and I appreciate how, as a polite debater, you put in a lot of "I think"s and "probably"s - because we can´t generalize or say for sure. My feeling is that you overstate how "incapable" people are of analysing policy differences. And although I know it's just a graphic and amusing example, (the idea of Sean Hannity and Joy Read breaking out the statistics and graphs, etc,) even so, I think you could've also mentioned that people can and do turn to other, drier sources of information too. In fact, you and I do it, SGR, and I'm sure we are not alone.

Firstly, I appreciate your appreciation, and I appreciate you as well. If I were to have these debates/discussions on Reddit, for example, I'd be met with a lot of snark, smugness, sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and downvotes, so I appreciate that you refrain from all of that in your discussions with me. Neither of us have many absolute answers, and neither of us pretend to, we only bring what we know and what we understand to the table of discussion. :)

Let me clarify, I don't think people are 'incapable' of analyzing policy differences, and I don't think people don't read or consume drier sources of info (as you and I do). I just think at the end of the day, if we had some way to tally it accurately, we'd find that much more people were ultimately voting based on emotions rather than on a logical analysis of policy differences between the candidates. Or in other words, if there was some kind of gauge, the tilt would largely be in favor of emotion over logical and unemotional analysis of policy.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 02:23 AM^ I don't set out to be argumentative, SGR, but rereading this, I'm not entirely happy with the way you mention these "identity messages" from the Dems/GOP  as if they were just two equal alternatives. The Dem one seems accurate enough, but the GOP one seems to me to be based on two false jingoistic concepts:-
i) capital "P" Patriot is removing a word from its original meaning and applying it to a special group, when in fact, most Americans, incl the Dems are, afaik, patriotic.
ii) The Republicans do not want to uphold the rule of law: they are calling prisoners "hostages", they won't condemn the beating up of the Capitol police, and they are turning up outside Trump's trial to critise the judicial system. They want Biden to be impeached although there is no evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", they want SCOTUS to be a political tool, and they want Trump to be above the law. Also, when in power, they want their own AG (previously Bill Barr) to wield, not impartial justice on behalf of the American people, but vendetta prosecutions at Trump's direction.

So the GOP identity as you describe it is a sham. Better to put, "Are you a Xenophobe, ready to trample on your democratic heritage and the rule of law, in order to establish Trump as God-King and Emperor?" 

Don't feel any shame, you can be argumentative with me!  :laughing:

Lisna, I wasn't trying to present the identities as 'equal alternatives', what I was attempting to do was to, in good faith, best describe what Democrats might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics) and what Republicans might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics). The capitalization of the 'P' in 'patriots' was an error on my part, because as an American football fan, I'm used to using it as a proper noun.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61M6mGYPQAL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)

While I might disagree with some of the points you made, and I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff, I think it would be fair to say that most Republicans would not agree with the identity I assigned to the Democrats, as an example, similar to how you disagreed with the identity I assigned to the Republicans. As a result, I'd understand why you would disagree with the 'identity' I assigned to Republicans - but you're also using 'they' monolithically, as if it describes all Republicans. I'm guessing you'd take issue if I used 'they' in a similarly monolithic manner (though I could be wrong) against the Democrats: "They want to open up the border, they want higher taxes, they want more aid sent to Israel and Ukraine, etc".

A little more levity and humor (I don't remember if I've posted this or not):

^ That would certainly make November a more exciting month on cable tv than just watching for scuffles outside polling stations!

Quote from: SGR on May 28, 2024, 05:27 AMI honestly don't know how'd you'd equate these examples against accusations of a president being sympathetic with nazis and white nationalists. Not 'you' specifically, but just in general. While accusations against a president have a graver political import, they also carry, almost by default, a faction of defenders and multiple levels of legal safeguards, while accusations against non-elected individuals and companies don't carry the same political import but also carry less legal safeguards. So in terms of egregiousness, it seems up in the air or at least up to debate.

Aren't you taking a very thin-skinned approach to an accusation made against Trump? Any President is a public figure and has a whole department of PR people and lawyers to defend them (probably paid for by the US tax-payer). Fending off accusations is just part of the job, as Obama had to do with numerous slurs about his citizenship, etc. Also a bunch of stuff I'm not sure about: Pizzagate, paedofilia, etc, etc. To me your suggestion that a lie about a President is worse than a lie about an innocent nobody (sorry, R Freeman) has an unpleasant tinge of "protect the powerful, more than the weak".
My own take is the reverse: that the lie is worse when the rich and powerful take aim at the poor and defenseless, thus destroying their lives. Luckily the US system of justice seems to take a similar view, which is why millions of $ of damages have been levied against Trump (defaming E Jean Carroll),Guiliani (attacking Freeman), Fox news (settled out of court for lies against Dominion), etc. If that Charlottesville misquote or any other Dem misinformation was as egregious as you say, where are the settlements, the damages, the court cases, and the CNN versions of Tucker Carlson, chucked out of his job for parroting lies? My own answer: it is the MAGA lies that are more egregious, more frequent than the Dem lies.

 

QuoteBut what I will say, since you've brought these examples up, as I've said before: we as Americans can't know for sure the reliability of the results of the election. Since it's not fully auditable, and each state is operating on its own (sometimes under slightly different rules), it's not only difficult, but impossible to be 100% sure that the election results you've got are accurate. We've had, since the end of the election, multiple stories about ballots that should've been counted that weren't, and ballots that were counted that shouldn't have been. And to be clear, I'm not saying there's any evidence that there were enough mistakes to point to the idea that Trump would've been elected without the mistakes, but rather just that it seems that our election system is not as 'secure and safe and reliable' as many of our politicians would like us to believe. And I guarantee this is a non-partisan issue - because neither Democrats or Republicans will push and actually fix this issue, because they were elected with the system as it is. That being the case, why would they want to change the system that saw them succeed?

If you'd like to go deeper on this specific topic, we could, and I could provide you with a myriad of evidence that would suggest or at least raise the possibility of the vulnerability of our current election system. Just let me know.

^ I am still completely not buying into this notion at all. What do expect of a nationwide system applied to millions of voters?! Of course there'll be discrepancies, but nothing has been deemed outcome determinative. In fact, every GOP guy in the House or Senate is perfectly comfortable with the integrity of the vote that put them there. To me that, on its face, shows how false the cries about "the Steal" are.

QuoteFirstly, I appreciate your appreciation, and I appreciate you as well. If I were to have these debates/discussions on Reddit, for example, I'd be met with a lot of snark, smugness, sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and downvotes, so I appreciate that you refrain from all of that in your discussions with me. Neither of us have many absolute answers, and neither of us pretend to, we only bring what we know and what we understand to the table of discussion. :)

^ :laughing: Yeah, thanks, SGR! Pat on the back all round, that we remain forum buddies despite our endless disagreements :thumb:

QuoteLet me clarify, I don't think people are 'incapable' of analyzing policy differences, and I don't think people don't read or consume drier sources of info (as you and I do). I just think at the end of the day, if we had some way to tally it accurately, we'd find that much more people were ultimately voting based on emotions rather than on a logical analysis of policy differences between the candidates. Or in other words, if there was some kind of gauge, the tilt would largely be in favor of emotion over logical and unemotional analysis of policy.

Don't feel any shame, you can be argumentative with me!  :laughing:

On this point, I'm more than happy to honour your perception of voter thought processes. We have a kind of glass-half-full/glass-half-empty difference of viewpoint, I think. 

QuoteLisna, I wasn't trying to present the identities as 'equal alternatives', what I was attempting to do was to, in good faith, best describe what Democrats might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics) and what Republicans might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics). The capitalization of the 'P' in 'patriots' was an error on my part, because as an American football fan, I'm used to using it as a proper noun.

^  :) Yep, that's fair enough: I realize now that you were describing Republicans as they see themselves.

QuoteWhile I might disagree with some of the points you made, and I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff, I think it would be fair to say that most Republicans would not agree with the identity I assigned to the Democrats, as an example, similar to how you disagreed with the identity I assigned to the Republicans. As a result, I'd understand why you would disagree with the 'identity' I assigned to Republicans - but you're also using 'they' monolithically, as if it describes all Republicans. I'm guessing you'd take issue if I used 'they' in a similarly monolithic manner (though I could be wrong) against the Democrats: "They want to open up the border, they want higher taxes, they want more aid sent to Israel and Ukraine, etc".

Actually, I don't have any problem with using a monolithic "they": it's a useful shorthand to talk about the political parties, and both of us are well-aware that there is a whole range of shades of grey and dissenting opinions within each "they".
"They want to open up the border," I would, though, take issue with this because the Dems don't want to open the border, they want to make border controls both more efficient and more humane.

"I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff"

^ You are clearly not up-to-date with MAGA hopes, iconography and merch ;):-

(https://newschannel9.com/resources/media/b53d07cf-2284-48d0-84af-917f6d8db84e-jumbo16x9_E_LyFzJXsAUwRiz.jpg?1632250849774)
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/1*8_xZ-GgbNoa_m51Sr2uJWw.jpeg)
(https://i0.wp.com/onlysky.media/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/god-made-trump-youtube-screenshot.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/God_Emperor_Trump.jpg)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PMAren't you taking a very thin-skinned approach to an accusation made against Trump? Any President is a public figure and has a whole department of PR people and lawyers to defend them (probably paid for by the US tax-payer). Fending off accusations is just part of the job, as Obama had to do with numerous slurs about his citizenship, etc. Also a bunch of stuff I'm not sure about: Pizzagate, paedofilia, etc, etc. To me your suggestion that a lie about a President is worse than a lie about an innocent nobody (sorry, R Freeman) has an unpleasant tinge of "protect the powerful, more than the weak".
My own take is the reverse: that the lie is worse when the rich and powerful take aim at the poor and defenseless, thus destroying their lives. Luckily the US system of justice seems to take a similar view, which is why millions of $ of damages have been levied against Trump (defaming E Jean Carroll),Guiliani (attacking Freeman), Fox news (settled out of court for lies against Dominion), etc. If that Charlottesville misquote or any other Dem misinformation was as egregious as you say, where are the settlements, the damages, the court cases, and the CNN versions of Tucker Carlson, chucked out of his job for parroting lies? My own answer: it is the MAGA lies that are more egregious, more frequent than the Dem lies.

This specific lie about Trump we're discussing is just one example - it just so happens to be an interesting and unique example (that I tied in because we were discussing MSNBC). The broader point I was trying to make was not that Democrat lies are worse than Republican lies, or more voluminous in number, or more egregious or anything like that (if you believe that to be the case, that's fine, that's not my point of argument). This entire argument we're having stemmed from you saying my clips were partisan in nature and me noting the irony that you provided a rebuttal with a partisan news outlet video. The broader point that I was using this example for was that many of these news networks/outlets simply aren't credible to me and they are not signs of a 'healthy media environment'. I think this may be simply a philosophical difference you and I might have, but when I find out I've been lied to, I don't put any credibility in the person or entity that's lied to me. You yourself have conceded that they all lie:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 26, 2024, 08:49 PMYes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

It seems to be your point of contention that the left-leaning news outlets are better in this regard. But if the argument is that "My side's liars don't lie nearly as much or as egregiously as the other side's liars", it's not the hill I'd die on, but I'll accept that you believe that to be true, and I'll accept that it very well could be true.

There is of course a difference between a newspaper (for example) simply getting some facts wrong and making corrections later - that's understandable and will inevitably happen. But as your examples of Republican/Fox News lies illustrate, sometimes, it's just straight up lying. For the record, I don't put any more credibility in Fox News than I do in CNN or MSNBC (as I pointed out originally, I view MSNBC as the left-wing version of Fox News). If I'm looking for links to back up viewpoints or opinions I have, those would be the last ones I'd pull from. One thing that might be useful that I've considered in the past as a not completely accurate barometer for the truth: if you're interested in a specific news story, and you can find a left wing outlet (e.g. MSNBC) and a right wing outlet (e.g. Fox News) reporting essentially the same thing, with the same underlying facts, there are to me two possibilities:

• It's probably true
• It's not true, it's a very big coordinated lie, and you should be worried (e.g. reports of foreign wars the US is engaged in)

:laughing:

To this point, I'll add one more thing. Our (US) news media is too close, and has too many ties to our intelligence agencies (https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-national-security-state-manipulates-news-media) for my liking or comfort level. Let us not forget that it was FBI agent Mark Felt (Deep Throat) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)) who provided information about Watergate to 'investigative journalists' Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This is not to say that I don't think investigative journalism exists - because I do. To give an example of one I appreciate; Seymour Hersh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh) who exposed parts of Watergate, the massacre of My Lai, the secret bombing campaign of Cambodia, the torture blacksite of Abu Ghraib, US domestic spying, and recently on his substack, exposed how Zelensky and his generals are enriching themselves off the foreign aid we're providing them (https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy). With this in mind, do we think it's a coincedence that the US fast-tracked a bill to ban TikTok, a social media platform that they couldn't control, after it started propagating pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content?

You have, and I don't mean this at all as a criticism necessarily, framed the lie about Trump as I would expect a Democrat might see the world (rich/powerful vs. poor/defenseless). I would note the lie came from the media companies (rich/powerful) against Trump (rich/powerful) largely in an effort to influence the (poor/defenselss) politically, and multiple of your examples (we can exclude R. Freeman) are the (rich/powerful) vs. (more rich/more powerful), but beyond that, I'll present you with a different frame as I might be more apt to see it with this Trump example.

The executive branch of the USA has outsized power and influence, would you agree? I think maybe you and I could even agree that the power of the executive branch should be drastically reduced. I for one would like to see more required Congressional approval for things (like involvement, direct or otherwise, in foreign wars), and less executive orders from the President. But if we could agree on that, as the power and influence of the executive branch currently exists, I see the Presidency and the Executive Branch more as a 'house'. Now let me expand a bit. Let's say I buy a house, and the home inspector tells me everything in the house is in tip-top shape. After moving in, I decide I want to replace the sink; the salesman at the store tells me this sink is great, it has no flaws whatsoever (even though there are widely known issues with this particular sink). I install my new sink, but things aren't working as expected. My water pressure is extremely low and I even find leaks. As it turns out, not only is my sink completely defective, but the plumbing infrastructure in my home is completely shot, rusted to hell, leaky, and needs to be replaced! And come to find out, my roof and furnace need to be replaced too! Would I be more mad at the guy who knowingly sold me a defective sink, or more mad at the home inspector who knowingly greenlit a home with glaringly obvious infrastructure issues?

This is not a perfect analogy, and I recognize that. And I also realize that analogies are not a replacement for thinking. But it's a slightly different frame to look at things - and again, I'm not saying your frame is either wrong or invalid either. Comparing the house as a whole, which has massive influence over the dependability and efficiency of your appliances based on its core infrastructure, to the president and executive branch, and the appliance (kitchen sink) to something like Giuliani and his claims against Ruby Freeman. Both are important, but one has a more outsized influence over the other. And I don't mean this at all to downplay or minimize the personal trauma and distress that someone like Ruby Freeman may have experienced, but rather just comparing which one would have a greater impact and effect on our personal (also poor [relatively]/defenseless) lives. And again, as I noted, I wish it wasn't this way and that executive power could be reduced, regardless of the party of the president.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PM^ I am still completely not buying into this notion at all. What do expect of a nationwide system applied to millions of voters?! Of course there'll be discrepancies, but nothing has been deemed outcome determinative.

A nationwide system applied to millions of voters - but elections are run on a state-by-state basis and tied together in a nationwide manner. I will agree that nothing has been deemed outcome determinative as you stated. I don't think Trump won the election in 2020. I also think that if he decides to keep bitching about it (recently, he seems to have cooled on that), that he will lose out on independent voters. Independent voters don't want to hear Trump's whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about 2020, they want to hear his vision for the future. This particular election, 2020, and all of the claims, substantiated or not, had me digging more deeply into the election, our system, how it works, etc. As we have also discussed before, claims of election vulnerability/cheating are nothing new - it's been going on for basically forever, accusations have been levied by both parties.

If highly secure infrastructure like an Iranian nuclear facility can be hacked and manipulated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet), I do not think it's beyond the realm of consideration that our election systems can as well - and that's not even considering vulnerabilities that don't require computer hacking. Until our election system is 100% auditable, end-to-end, we can either live with the assumption that 'we got the right outcome', or we can question it and push our representatives/leaders to improve our systems - even if only incrementally. I don't think the fact that there's been little to no calls for election/voting reform and increased security measures from either political aisle is some kind of mistake. When's the last time you heard Trump say that reforming the election/voting system is one of his top priorities? We've had decades and decades of this, with the same questions every single presidential election. At some point, I think many people will recognize that this 'design' is not a flaw, but a feature.

174,384 ballots counted by AVCBs do not link back to a voter registration number (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf)

New Judicial Watch Study Finds 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100% (https://www.judicialwatch.org/new-jw-study-voter-registration/)

Dead people can cast ballots in Michigan, data reasearcher alleges (https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/10000-dead-people-returned-mail-in-ballots-in-michigan-analysis-shows-3573209)

Pair Charged With Voter Fraud Allegedly Submitted Thousands of Fraudulent Applications on Behalf of Homeless People (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/pair-charged-with-voter-fraud-allegedly-submitted-thousands-of-fraudulent-applications-on-behalf-of-homeless-people/2464168/)

18,000 mail-in ballots didn't have a "Mailed Date" only a return date after Nov 3rd (https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm/about_data)

Rejected absentee ballots: 3.5% in 2018 to 0.3% in 2020 despite 500% more votes (https://gagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Deficiency_Letter_1_.pdf)

Jill Stein contested the results in 3 states 2016 for similar irregularities (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/one-big-flaw-in-how-americans-run-elections-433820)

(definitely read the Stein article)

95% registered voter turnout in Philadelphia (https://x.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1325453248254406657)

Data Expert: Up To 300,000 Fake People Voted In Arizona Election, "Biggest Fraud" In History (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expert_up_to_300000_fake_people_voted_in_arizona_election_.html)

95% of Bellwether counties break voting pattern, creating statistical anomaly (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bellwether-counties-nearly-wiped-out-by-2020-election-11605272400)

NYT FLASHBACK: Error and fraud at issue as absentee voting rises (2012) (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html)

1,127 ballots wrongly labeled through technical glitch (https://www.theepochtimes.com/second-georgia-county-finds-thousands-of-votes-with-majority-for-trump_3583419.html)

Electronic voting systems rely on abandoned operating systems in PA counties (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-use-vulnerable-software)

CIA expert explains how most electronic voting isn't secure (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24530650.html)

Elections supervisor can change votes on Dominion systems (https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/election-supervisor-shows-on-video-how-dominion-software-allows-changing-adding-votes-3613406)

Some of these links are paywalled (bastards) - but for those that are that you'd like to read, follow this link and plug the URL in and you should be able to read the article.

https://archive.is/

I'll be honest with you, I don't expect you to read through all of these links (though you're welcome to if you want), I just wanted to attempt to demonstrate why someone might not have full faith in our election systems and their reliability/integrity (on the other hand, if you want more links, just let me know, I have many more to share). And again, I don't think it's a partisan issue - I fully expect that every single election, both parties cut corners where they can and hope they can get away with it. In essence, every four years, which party can 'cheat better'? The margin of victory for many presidential elections are razor thin, so even small amounts of voting chicanery can make the difference. If you are willing to simply accept these irregularities and indications of vulnerabilities and problems with elections as 'par for the course', and that despite them, we'll still always get the right answer, then that's where we will disagree.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PMIn fact, every GOP guy in the House or Senate is perfectly comfortable with the integrity of the vote that put them there. To me that, on its face, shows how false the cries about "the Steal" are.

A GOP guy who is in the House or Senate, voted into office through our election system, and also perfectly comfortable with the "integrity" of the system that got him to where he is? Well....I must say I'm convinced! :laughing: (okay @Lisnaholic, excuse my sarcasm, just this once). My point here is that of course someone who gets elected via the system is happy and comfortable with the system, even if it is corrupt/vulnerable and they know it...because they benefit (or benefitted) from it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PM^ :laughing: Yeah, thanks, SGR! Pat on the back all round, that we remain forum buddies despite our endless disagreements :thumb:

Absolutely my friend. Never take our disagreements as any kind of ill will. I know, as I hope you do as well, that when we both tire or bore of this, we can happily engage in discussion on a thread about music. I completely enjoy chatting and debating with you on these subjects, as it challenges my perceptions and biases (which we all have) and offers me a different perspective. Sometimes, I don't understand, or I disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can about that. Part of me almost feels like, and don't take this the wrong way, but that the reason that you can so often engage me in these discussions and debates without snark, name-calling, sarcasm etc. is because you're a little bit older and wiser than the usual age demographic (i.e. my age, late 20s, early-to-mid 30s) that I might discuss these things with on other sites. And that's not a bad thing! In addition, I think our discussions might even be useful, interesting, or informative to whichever sad souls (I jest) who read through all of it (*cough* @Trollheart *cough*) - one thing is for sure, I'd never be able to have these kinds of, what I'd call productive, discussions with you on MB without the noise outweighing the signal, if you know what I mean. :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PMOn this point, I'm more than happy to honour your perception of voter thought processes. We have a kind of glass-half-full/glass-half-empty difference of viewpoint, I think. 

I think that's a completely fair assessment. Though I will add, if you had to live with and interact with Americans every day, you might tip towards my side of the 'glass half empty' argument.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PM^  :) Yep, that's fair enough: I realize now that you were describing Republicans as they see themselves.

Actually, I don't have any problem with using a monolithic "they": it's a useful shorthand to talk about the political parties, and both of us are well-aware that there is a whole range of shades of grey and dissenting opinions within each "they".
"They want to open up the border," I would, though, take issue with this because the Dems don't want to open the border, they want to make border controls both more efficient and more humane.

Right - but let me ask, since I haven't often engaged you with questions. Do you think my perception of how much identity affects voting patterns/behavior is accurate? In other words, does it make sense to you that people would attach themselves, or find comfort in an identity, and based on that identity, lean a certain way in voting?

I agree that it's a useful shorthand when not used egregiously, but rather fairly (in a statistical sense). And yes, I know Dems by and large don't want a literal 'open' border, but that's certainly how Republicans would (and do) frame it when they're using the shorthand.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 28, 2024, 04:43 PM^ You are clearly not up-to-date with MAGA hopes, iconography and merch ;):-

(https://newschannel9.com/resources/media/b53d07cf-2284-48d0-84af-917f6d8db84e-jumbo16x9_E_LyFzJXsAUwRiz.jpg?1632250849774)
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/1*8_xZ-GgbNoa_m51Sr2uJWw.jpeg)
(https://i0.wp.com/onlysky.media/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/god-made-trump-youtube-screenshot.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/God_Emperor_Trump.jpg)

Oh jeez, okay, nevermind. I know what you mean now. The kooky Q-Anon/Evangelical types. Yeah, those people are crazy.  :laughing:

@Lisnaholic, I'd formally like to apologize for my novel of a reply, as this is the first post I've made where I've run into the apparent 20,000 character limit. ["The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters)."]  :laughing:  :laughing:

I was trying to include a quote from the Jill Stein Politico article and SCD said: "Nuh-uh buddy, don't ya think you've posted enough characters here?" :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on May 29, 2024, 05:45 AM@Lisnaholic, I'd formally like to apologize for my novel of a reply, as this is the first post I've made where I've run into the apparent 20,000 character limit. ["The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters)."]  :laughing:  :laughing:

I was trying to include a quote from the Jill Stein Politico article and SCD said: "Nuh-uh buddy, don't ya think you've posted enough characters here?" :laughing:

:laughing: Yes, it is dauntingly long, SGR, but I'll try to address some of what you say later.

Sounds like you hit the block that I asked Guybrush to put in place: a character limit on anyone who isn't agreeing with me 100%

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 29, 2024, 05:54 PM:laughing: Yes, it is dauntingly long, SGR, but I'll try to address some of what you say later.

Sounds like you hit the block that I asked Guybrush to put in place: a character limit on anyone who isn't agreeing with me 100%

 :laughing:  :laughing:

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExOW90ZGx0Z201cHU4bm0yNGM2cHprbjVmbGZoOGhvcXU1bzlhMmhnNiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9dg/TxEf1hsfru62SLQ9ho/giphy.gif)

RFK Jr. files FEC complaint over June 27 presidential debate criteria (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-trump-cnn-debate-criteria-robert-f-kennedy-jr/)

Trump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/trump-trial-verdict-hush-money.html)

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit. :laughing:

Yes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 31, 2024, 01:34 AMYes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

Seems pretty likely to me that they'll do the same thing they did when he lost the 2020 election, they'll just say he's actually innocent and the trial was a sham by the secret deep state shadow government who wants to keep real upstanding American patriots down so the elites can infect our kids with woke.

Just to reiterate, @SGR and @Lisnaholic - yes, I am the sad soul who reads all your discourse and is thoroughly entertained, not only by your insights but also by the mutual respect you have for each other, so please, keep it up. A generational gap bridged! Either of you ever think of going into politics?

I just wanted to, if I may, present a view from the other side, as it were. Here in Ireland (and in the UK, as Lisna surely knows but you may not) our news outlets, while obviously biased in one way or another, don't show it. Which is to say, the "reporting dry facts" you spoke of earlier is exactly what happens here every evening. As an example, our news bulletin will begin with headlines, such as "Bridge collapses in America, several dead. Major accident on M50 motorway as motorcyclist collides with truck. Government to push through tougher anti-immigrant laws. And in sport, Manchester City win the title." Then each story is dealt with, thusly.

The main story is told, with shots/video. After that, reporters will be brought in who are on the ground, or experts may be spoken to. In the case of Gaza, this may be someone aligned with either side, though usually it's more a case of "these poor victims" than any real political aspect. Our news does not comment: our people (anchors, if you will, but they're really just newsreaders) may say, to someone in an interview, "it is terrible all these deaths are occurring. What can be done?" but they will be very careful not to take a side if possible and not to make any political statements. We therefore get the news, if you will, raw and unbiased, with no attempt to have us lean either way (except by showing, say, footage of dead children and then Israeli guns etc). At the end of the bulletin, we'll be told the headlines again and then we're out with weather.

The important point is that at no stage are we asked to make a judgement, other than our own, or pushed in a particular direction. Our coverage, for example, of Trump's trial will relate the facts, and nobody onscreen will smile, be angry, make comments. It's a news story and it's their job to report the news, and that's what they do.

We here have two main channels (RTE and Virgin) and most Irish people get their news from the former. So we are not "fired up" by the anchors, or told how to feel or react, by even stories of immigrant-related violence, fires etc. They will be deplored, by the anchors, but no side will be taken, and even while deploring the point will be made that many people are angry etc, so we see both sides.

Our guys and girls don't make up our minds for us. We have no equivalent of Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. We get our news at 1pm, 6pm and 9pm. That's it. Few Irish people watch CNN to my knowledge, fewer Fox, except maybe during an election cycle. When we have politicians on the news, even our leader (Taoiseach) they get grilled like any other guest. There is no favouritism and there is no bias. Of course it's probably all stage-managed before broadcast, I know that, but what's presented to us is, or seems to us, fair and balanced. There's no right-wing or left-wing news channel; ours report the news, as it is, and we make up our own minds.

Finally, a great thing BBC have is called Question Time, when politicians and other public figures (company directors, bankers etc) gather to be literally questioned by a public audience, and I've seen them asked (and avoid) hard questions, but at least the questions are aired. Can't see that happening in the US now can you?

Just, as I say, a view from across the water, where news has not (yet) become entertainment. And, yes, as you say, most people find it boring, but that's how we get it and that's how we digest it. And that's how we likes it. Were it made into an art or entertainment format, I honestly don't think as many of us would watch it as do now. We Irish want the news, and unlike Robbie Williams, in terms of our news, we do not want to be entertained. Just the facts, please, and we'll make up our own minds.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on May 31, 2024, 01:34 AMYes, I'm waiting to see how the Republicans are going to twist themselves into knots to justify supporting a guy who's been indicted twice, convicted of 34 felonies and been judged a rapist. I wonder if any senators will say, as good old Lindsay Graham once did, "Enough is enough!" (Of course those were the words in his mouth: his actions were to bend over and take more of the same.)

In theory, it'd be easy enough for Nikki Haley: she has all the moral conscience of a weathervane and could flip back to being an anti-Trumper again if she thinks it'll get her anywhere.

It's like you don't realize how much of a cult Trump supporters are. They will go into deep denial and vote for him anyways.

Quote from: SGR on May 30, 2024, 11:36 PMTrump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/trump-trial-verdict-hush-money.html)

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit. :laughing:

Imagine if Trump still manages to win re-election. And is sentenced to serve time in prison. I imagine the scene inside Trump's prison cell will look something like this...



Goodfellas - Dinner in Prison


With Donald Trump as "Paulie Walnuts."

Quote from: Trollheart on May 31, 2024, 01:59 AMJust to reiterate, @SGR and @Lisnaholic - yes, I am the sad soul who reads all your discourse and is thoroughly entertained, not only by your insights but also by the mutual respect you have for each other, so please, keep it up. A generational gap bridged! Either of you ever think of going into politics?

Thanks for those kind words, Trollheart: it's nice to think that someone else is actually looking through the apparently endless discussion that SGR and I are engaged in. I have discovered that SGR and I are more similar than I first imagined: we are both prepared to spend quite an amount of time and effort defending our different takes on American politics.

Thanks as well for your explanation about news coverage in the British Isles. It makes for a much healthier attitude to the news, I think.

Quote from: DJChameleon on May 31, 2024, 09:25 AMIt's like you don't realize how much of a cult Trump supporters are. They will go into deep denial and vote for him anyways.

:laughing: Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. It's like they say, "Hope springs eternal in the human breast" and I keep hoping that Trump supporters, allies and enablers will one day realise that he is a false prophet who is leading them into positions they will one day regret, with all his criticisms of the election process and the judicial system (which, we may note, are motivated entirely by self-interest on Trump's part).

Quote from: SGR on May 30, 2024, 11:36 PMTrump guilty on all 34 counts in hush money trial, in historic first for a former U.S. president (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/trump-trial-verdict-hush-money.html)

This is going to be a very weird election cycle.

The guy currently leading in the presidential polls is officially a convicted felon.

Now, as a convicted felon, if Trump is re-elected, he'll be able to wield the nuclear arsenal, but not a firearm. He'll be able to sign bills into law, but not vote.

Did the pecker fit? I thought that if the pecker doesn't fit, you must acquit. Oh well, it must've fit. :laughing:

He's gonna be able to pardon himself so he won't technically be a felon anymore. Or win in the appeal process but the day of the election he won't be able to do the photo op first vote.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 01, 2024, 02:51 AMHe's gonna be able to pardon himself so he won't technically be a felon anymore. Or win in the appeal process but the day of the election he won't be able to do the photo op first vote.

Presidents can only pardon for federal crimes, not state ones.  And the odds of New York state electing a Republican governor who would pardon Trump are slim to none. Those are also the odds of all of the convictions being reversed on appeal.

Regarding your limit-busting 20,000 character post, I read it all, but got a little lost with your kitchen sink and backed-up plumbing analogy, I'm afraid :(

Quote from: SGR on May 29, 2024, 12:57 AMA nationwide system applied to millions of voters - but elections are run on a state-by-state basis and tied together in a nationwide manner. I will agree that nothing has been deemed outcome determinative as you stated. I don't think Trump won the election in 2020. I also think that if he decides to keep bitching about it (recently, he seems to have cooled on that), that he will lose out on independent voters. Independent voters don't want to hear Trump's whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about 2020, they want to hear his vision for the future. This particular election, 2020, and all of the claims, substantiated or not, had me digging more deeply into the election, our system, how it works, etc. As we have also discussed before, claims of election vulnerability/cheating are nothing new - it's been going on for basically forever, accusations have been levied by both parties.

If highly secure infrastructure like an Iranian nuclear facility can be hacked and manipulated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet), I do not think it's beyond the realm of consideration that our election systems can as well - and that's not even considering vulnerabilities that don't require computer hacking. Until our election system is 100% auditable, end-to-end, we can either live with the assumption that 'we got the right outcome', or we can question it and push our representatives/leaders to improve our systems - even if only incrementally. I don't think the fact that there's been little to no calls for election/voting reform and increased security measures from either political aisle is some kind of mistake. When's the last time you heard Trump say that reforming the election/voting system is one of his top priorities? We've had decades and decades of this, with the same questions every single presidential election. At some point, I think many people will recognize that this 'design' is not a flaw, but a feature.
...

Jill Stein contested the results in 3 states 2016 for similar irregularities (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/one-big-flaw-in-how-americans-run-elections-433820)

(definitely read the Stein article)

I'll be honest with you, I don't expect you to read through all of these links (though you're welcome to if you want), I just wanted to attempt to demonstrate why someone might not have full faith in our election systems and their reliability/integrity (on the other hand, if you want more links, just let me know, I have many more to share). And again, I don't think it's a partisan issue - I fully expect that every single election, both parties cut corners where they can and hope they can get away with it. In essence, every four years, which party can 'cheat better'? The margin of victory for many presidential elections are razor thin, so even small amounts of voting chicanery can make the difference. If you are willing to simply accept these irregularities and indications of vulnerabilities and problems with elections as 'par for the course', and that despite them, we'll still always get the right answer, then that's where we will disagree.

I took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.
On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the legal obstacles that are put in the way of vote recounts, because there is a degree to which re- inspections, unless they are scrupulously monitored, can make matters more muddy rather than less so. That was my take-away from that Ninja-Auditing that went on: so many unqualified people working through ballot boxes that the whole chain of custody of the ballots becomes increasingly uncertain.

I'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place. What can they do? More uniform, nation-wide counting systems and better-quality ballot design might help; also checking what happens in the countries with higher democracy rankings, where doubts about counting and trust are much less prevalent.

QuoteAbsolutely my friend. Never take our disagreements as any kind of ill will. I know, as I hope you do as well, that when we both tire or bore of this, we can happily engage in discussion on a thread about music. I completely enjoy chatting and debating with you on these subjects, as it challenges my perceptions and biases (which we all have) and offers me a different perspective. Sometimes, I don't understand, or I disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can about that. Part of me almost feels like, and don't take this the wrong way, but that the reason that you can so often engage me in these discussions and debates without snark, name-calling, sarcasm etc. is because you're a little bit older and wiser than the usual age demographic (i.e. my age, late 20s, early-to-mid 30s) that I might discuss these things with on other sites. And that's not a bad thing! In addition, I think our discussions might even be useful, interesting, or informative to whichever sad souls (I jest) who read through all of it (*cough* @Trollheart *cough*) - one thing is for sure, I'd never be able to have these kinds of, what I'd call productive, discussions with you on MB without the noise outweighing the signal, if you know what I mean. :)

Thanks again, SGR. I also enjoy our discussions here, and in the process have certainly learned a lot from you about the USA. :thumb: 

Quote...Though I will add, if you had to live with and interact with Americans every day, you might tip towards my side of the 'glass half empty' argument.  :laughing:

Yes, you could easily be right! I should go on a fact-finding tour of some American cities one day.

QuoteRight - but let me ask, since I haven't often engaged you with questions. Do you think my perception of how much identity affects voting patterns/behavior is accurate? In other words, does it make sense to you that people would attach themselves, or find comfort in an identity, and based on that identity, lean a certain way in voting?

As far as I understand your question, I'd say "absolutely": it's only natural to align yourself with people who have broadly similar attitudes, and people's political position is part of how they see themselves/define themselves, isn't it? That's true in Britain too, I should think.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMRegarding your limit-busting 20,000 character post, I read it all, but got a little lost with your kitchen sink and backed-up plumbing analogy, I'm afraid :(

Ah yeah, after I wrote it, I thought: "Well, this isn't exactly clear as to what I mean." Basically, I was trying to compare lies about a president as lies about a house you want to buy (i.e. elect or re-elect), and lies about someone like R. Freeman or Dominion more as lies about an 'appliance' of the house (i.e. serving important purposes, but influence overall on our collective lives is not as outsized). Essentially, all I meant was that I was looking at it through a slightly different frame than you were (lies about the rich vs. lies about the poor/defenseless).

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMI took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.

Thanks for reading it and being open-minded Lisna! It's very easy for whichever party that wins to be dismissive of election/voting security and integrity concerns after they win using the system in question. And both sides have shown us this dismissive attitude at different times. But then that formerly winning party loses and voices similar concerns and complaints, only for it to fall on deaf ears, and they seem surprised. This mediocre 'election system' of ours has burned both parties. To this point from the Stein article, I thought this was poignant:

QuoteWithout mechanisms to support election integrity, many things can undermine it — even something as basic as public perceptions. Candidates who ask for recounts often get labeled sore losers, and election integrity activists who seek investigations of irregularities are often mocked as conspiracy theorists. (Stein's critics accused her of pursuing her recount effort as a fundraising ploy, and Trump dismissed it as a "scam.") Meanwhile, the public and the news media tend to lose interest in elections once the horse race is done, especially if the victory margin is wide — even if that allows systemic problems to go unaddressed.

It's been largely Democrats in the past 3 years that have lauded the legitimacy of the last election's results and the integrity of the voting infrastructure that was used to get that result, but I think we could probably both agree that the roles will likely be reversed if Donald Trump 'wins' in 2024. We know this because the same Democrats, after 2016, were asking similar questions and raising similar concerns that Republicans were after 2020. At the very least, Democrats would likely have some serious questions, and more than likely, questions that deserve investigation and answers (and if recent history is a useful guide, they won't be answered in a satisfactory way). And the Republicans complaining about it now will demote the issue way down their list of priorities that should be addressed and plug their ears. And the cycle will continue.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMOn the other hand, I have some sympathy with the legal obstacles that are put in the way of vote recounts, because there is a degree to which re- inspections, unless they are scrupulously monitored, can make matters more muddy rather than less so. That was my take-away from that Ninja-Auditing that went on: so many unqualified people working through ballot boxes that the whole chain of custody of the ballots becomes increasingly uncertain.

To this point, from the Stein article, state-by-state election officials don't like investigations for the following reason:

QuoteFinley said election officials generally dislike investigations because they eat up time and resources when officials are trying to certify election results. But they also hate them for another reason:

"For elections officials ... the only thing that can come out of a thorough examination of what might have gone wrong in an election is that [it's going to show] there was a mistake or some kind of malfeasance and the result of the election was incorrect. So they have a very strong interest in not letting that happen," he said.

So another way to read this is that election officials know that a deep and thorough investigation into their state or county's election is bound to dredge up some kind of malfeasance or error (even if it ultimately didn't affect the eventual outcome, it will still lower voter trust). In a way, it's almost an admission on their part of their knowledge of how fickle and insecure many of these elections really are. And when these things are inevitably found, it doesn't only look bad on their county/state, but it looks bad on them personally (and could potentially lead to further investigations)! Which is why they have a 'very strong interest in not letting that happen'.

Also, a broader point - the reason the 'winning' government party is so dead-set on upholding and lauding the 'legitimacy of the result and the system' is that, if a majority of Americans were convinced, as I essentially am, that our election systems are fundamentally flawed and provide us with an inadequate amount of confidence in the results of said election, the incoming govermnent could be thought of by the majority of people as 'illegitimate'. Once we reach that point, what happens next? Well, people might view the policies or actions of said government as 'illegitimate'. And as we've seen throughout history, eventually, people will rebel and take action against an 'illegitimate' government, and (*gasp*) even stop paying their taxes!  :laughing:

To recounts specifically, as the Stein article notes, this process is wholly removed from identifying actual systemic issues with the election - it's a focus purely on the results and not fundamental problems with the process:

QuoteWhen other integrity mechanisms aren't an option, recounts can at the very least help determine if the outcome was correct, but they tend to be politically charged and overly focused on results rather than uncovering systemic issues. And candidates and campaigns rarely pursue them unless they stand a chance of overturning the results.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMI'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place. What can they do? More uniform, nation-wide counting systems and better-quality ballot design might help; also checking what happens in the countries with higher democracy rankings, where doubts about counting and trust are much less prevalent.

I mostly agree with you. It doesn't have a clear and easy fix. Our election infrastructure, much like a large amount of our physical infrastucture is poor and needing serious repair and attention (and given how often I criticize Biden, I'll take this moment to thank and applaud him for passing the infrastructure bill (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/). And while I'm giving Biden his due, I'm also very grateful that he's seriously bolstering and pursuing nuclear energy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/29/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-steps-to-bolster-domestic-nuclear-industry-and-advance-americas-clean-energy-future/#:~:text=Under%20President%20Biden's%20leadership%2C%20the,chain%20for%20nuclear%20fuel%2C%20including%3A), which I believe to be the future, and I think our irrational fear of it (CHERNOBYL!! NUCLEAR FALLOUT!!) that the farther-left of our country (like Bernie/AOC) still seem to embrace (https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/#:~:text=To%20get%20to%20our%20goal,Regulate%20all%20dangerous%20greenhouse%20gases.) is very misguided. So good on the Biden admin for having some common sense there).

I won't pretend like I know the exact steps and solutions that need to be taken, but just some ideas:

• Federally regulated and mandated election rules/laws that all states must follow
• Paper ballots only (no electronic voting), so that we have a physical record we can refer to (they can be counted electronically, but not entered electronically)
• Absolutely no network cards or wifi chips in electronic vote counting machines - if anyone attempts to plug a physical device (like a USB) into the machine, there must be some kind of lockdown where the machine can only be unarmed via a specific biometric scan that is automatically recorded
• Modern technological advances should be used to ensure openness rather than obscurity. Voters should have some way, with a digital private key perhaps, to check later that their vote was correctly recorded and correctly counted
• Furthermore, we have blockchain technologies now (e.g. used in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin) - these could be used/leveraged to provide an open and public ledger that documents all voting transactions, and could be interrogated for possible problems with our digital infrastructure
• Uniformity is key, and consistency must be maintained across states

Now, back to reality, I expect none of this to happen any time soon. In fact, I don't think it can happen while both parties are so divided. It would require a serious bipartisan effort to push massive changes like this through. My current view of our election system is that both parties view it as presenting them an opportunity to 'cheat' and get an upperhand. If one party can do it better than the other, it might be their key to winning elections, so neither party will want to take that option off the table. The only thing that can be done is to talk to each other and inform each other about our system as it stands, and hope that enough resentment and public pressure can be generated to force them to make improvements. This, after all, is the legitimacy and the integrity of our democratic process and our succeeding government that we're talking about. It deserves more respect than it's been given, and I also agree with you that we should look to, and learn from other countries that have better systems than we do to learn ways we can improve.

One more thing - look at all the things our government and government tech experts are capable of doing, when they're properly motivated, specifically in warfare, cyber or otherwise. I fully believe, and this is my optimistic addendum to all this, that our government is fully capable of providing us with elections that we can trust so fully, that any questions we have will surely be nothing but moot points. They just need to be pressured and incentivized to do so.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMThanks again, SGR. I also enjoy our discussions here, and in the process have certainly learned a lot from you about the USA. :thumb: 

Thanks Lisna! I've learned a lot from you as well, and even if we continue to disagree, I hope we can both continue learning from each other's perspectives! :thumb:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMYes, you could easily be right! I should go on a fact-finding tour of some American cities one day.

Sounds like a good idea! Don't neglect the more 'countryside' areas though. In many ways, America has very different cultures and lifestyles depending on the area. If you drive through beautiful and rural Vermont, you're sure to see a different (and perhaps an older, more heritage-rich) side of America than if you only visited NYC or Chicago!  :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMAs far as I understand your question, I'd say "absolutely": it's only natural to align yourself with people who have broadly similar attitudes, and people's political position is part of how they see themselves/define themselves, isn't it? That's true in Britain too, I should think.

Yeah, I think it's a humanity-wide thing. Inevitably, political parties change over time in their priorities and messaging. We've seen it, for better or worse, in the "Trump" years. I think that, if you find yourself suddenly agreeing more with a party that opposes your current party of choice on issues that are important to you, you'll begin identifying yourself with that opposition party. After doing so, and I have nothing at the moment besides speculation to back this up, I'd imagine that your current party identification can gain your sympathy on other issues you might not have a strong opinion on, or might not have deep knowledge on (e.g. "Free trade" Republicans beginning to support and laud Trump's tariff wars on China).

Quote from: Drjohnrock on Jun 01, 2024, 04:59 AMPresidents can only pardon for federal crimes, not state ones.  And the odds of New York state electing a Republican governor who would pardon Trump are slim to none. Those are also the odds of all of the convictions being reversed on appeal.

Aren't there certain circumstances, where if certain errors were made in the trial, the entire thing could be reversed on appeal, rather than only specific convictions being reversed on appeal? (e.g. if the judge himself made an error or mistake that influenced the jury en masse in a certain way?) I honestly don't know, a genuine question.

Poss

Quote from: SGR on Jun 02, 2024, 04:58 AMAren't there certain circumstances, where if certain errors were made in the trial, the entire thing could be reversed on appeal, rather than only specific convictions being reversed on appeal? (e.g. if the judge himself made an error or mistake that influenced the jury en masse in a certain way?) I honestly don't know, a genuine question.

Very unlikely, if we're talking about strictly legal matters. The judge ruled for both sides on various issues during trial.  In fact, he bent over backwards for the defense by letting Trump repeatedly violate the gag order without jailing him, which would have happened with any other defendant who serially engaged in contempt of court.  But if this case ever got to the SCOTUS—which shouldn't even take the case IMO due to the lack of a significant constitutional question—then the bribe taking, ethically challenged majority might make up some nonsense to get Trump off the hook completely.  We'll see.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 02, 2024, 04:08 AMAh yeah, after I wrote it, I thought: "Well, this isn't exactly clear as to what I mean." Basically, I was trying to compare lies about a president as lies about a house you want to buy (i.e. elect or re-elect), and lies about someone like R. Freeman or Dominion more as lies about an 'appliance' of the house (i.e. serving important purposes, but influence overall on our collective lives is not as outsized). Essentially, all I meant was that I was looking at it through a slightly different frame than you were (lies about the rich vs. lies about the poor/defenseless).

Thanks! I understand your point better now, but I wonder if you are not under-estimating the impact of lying about the sink, because it's not just one sink. Other sinks are getting harrassed and/or intimidated by what Ruby Freeman went through:-

QuoteSo another way to read this is that election officials know that a deep and thorough investigation into their state or county's election is bound to dredge up some kind of malfeasance or error (even if it ultimately didn't affect the eventual outcome, it will still lower voter trust). In a way, it's almost an admission on their part of their knowledge of how fickle and insecure many of these elections really are. And when these things are inevitably found, it doesn't only look bad on their county/state, but it looks bad on them personally (and could potentially lead to further investigations)! Which is why they have a 'very strong interest in not letting that happen'.

^ That's true, but in fact it's universally true: what worker, at any level, any profession wants to have his performance checked/reviewed/audited?? It's always a no-win for the worker, but inspections go on regardless in medicine, engineering, accounting, etc. 

QuoteTo recounts specifically, as the Stein article notes, this process is wholly removed from identifying actual systemic issues with the election - it's a focus purely on the results and not fundamental problems with the process:

^ In fact, the recent Republican focus on recounts is worse than is noted in the Stein article. Here's my own convoluted plumbing analogy:

The Republicans are the devious landlords of a house, and they want to keep the water bill down by reducing waterflow to the tennants. The water is democratic representation, and there's lots of it in the water tank, but the GOP have put restricting valves on the pipework. One is voter repression, another is gerrymandering, so that now only a trickle reaches the tennants' showers. The tennants are the American people, and when they complain about the water flow the GOP landlords say, "Ah, yes, this water meter is not calibrated right. The reading is not accurate. I'll get my friends, Ninja Plumbing, to take it apart". Even if the water meter is faulty, the GOP landlord has successfully shifted the focus away from the far greater problems that are afflicting American democracy: problems that they are surreptitiously and intentionally creating.

This article explains the situation better:- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/
This section in particular caught my attention because it highlights how the real problems are not "both-sides-do-it" complaints about vote-counting, they are Republican-only anti-democratic manipulation of the whole, start-to-finish, electoral process:-

QuotePolitical scientist Jake Grumbach has developed the most comprehensive and rigorous measure of state-level electoral democracy, the State Democracy Index (SDI), which takes account of factors like polling place wait times, red tape voter registration procedures, and gerrymandering. The SDI quantifies the divergence occurring between U.S. states. In 2018, 17 states had a higher SDI than they did during the period from 2000 to 2010, indicating a stronger democracy in those states. The other states, however, have seen their SDI decline—some by a very substantial margin.

Figure 2 shows the 12 states at the bottom of the SDI. Almost all the states scoring poorly in 2018 have seen very large declines since 2010; these weak-democracy states have weakened recently and drastically.
(https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/GS_10162023_williamson-fig2@4x.png?resize=2000,1264)

At least as important as the magnitude of the decline is the reason for this erosion of electoral democracy. Grumbach finds that partisan polarization has a "minimal role" in explaining the states' democratic backsliding, but that Republican control of state government "dramatically reduces states' democratic performance." Grumbach's finding confirms earlier research identifying the association between GOP control and the adoption of measures to restrict access to the ballot. The declining commitment to democracy is occurring both at an elite level and in the base of the party; survey research demonstrates that "ethnic antagonism" has eroded "Republicans' commitment to democracy."

As for your remedial measures to improve how votes and ballots are conducted, they were very well thought-out and I agreed with all the bullet points you listed, especially the one about always having a paper back-up.

QuoteOne more thing - look at all the things our government and government tech experts are capable of doing, when they're properly motivated, specifically in warfare, cyber or otherwise. I fully believe, and this is my optimistic addendum to all this, that our government is fully capable of providing us with elections that we can trust so fully, that any questions we have will surely be nothing but moot points. They just need to be pressured and incentivized to do so.

^ Yes, I absolutely agree: that is so easily within reach, but as you say "properly motivated", which (in my opinion and see above) is NOT the direction that the GOP are pulling in. They want (i) less democracy and (ii) more distrust in election results.

QuoteSounds like a good idea! Don't neglect the more 'countryside' areas though. In many ways, America has very different cultures and lifestyles depending on the area. If you drive through beautiful and rural Vermont, you're sure to see a different (and perhaps an older, more heritage-rich) side of America than if you only visited NYC or Chicago!  :)

Yes, you're right: I think a road trip would be best, culminating in a scene in which you and I stand shoulder-to-shoulder, both of us cheering on a political candidate who has united us in a bright new vision for the future of America. :)

...and finally, thanks for your very fair-minded shout-out for the success of Biden's Infrastructure Bill. :thumb:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PMThanks! I understand your point better now, but I wonder if you are not under-estimating the impact of lying about the sink, because it's not just one sink. Other sinks are getting harrassed and/or intimidated by what Ruby Freeman went through:-

I'll admit it's possible that I am underestimating the impact of 'lying about the sink'. I suppose though, if we can greatly improve election security/transparency, we won't have to worry about lies about the sink. :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PM^ That's true, but in fact it's universally true: what worker, at any level, any profession wants to have his performance checked/reviewed/audited?? It's always a no-win for the worker, but inspections go on regardless in medicine, engineering, accounting, etc. 

Very true, and a fair point. With the fields you mentioned, there's usually not a very strict time element that would restrict or make difficult these kinds of inspections like there is with elections (i.e. in America, presidential election in November and the new (or not) president assumes the new term in January). With the importance of elections, and the progression of technology, perhaps we have an opportunity to remove the 'human fallibility' and 'human incentive' part of the election equation. We just have to gear it in such a way that it's transparent and auditable.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PM^ In fact, the recent Republican focus on recounts is worse than is noted in the Stein article. Here's my own convoluted plumbing analogy:

The Republicans are the devious landlords of a house, and they want to keep the water bill down by reducing waterflow to the tennants. The water is democratic representation, and there's lots of it in the water tank, but the GOP have put restricting valves on the pipework. One is voter repression, another is gerrymandering, so that now only a trickle reaches the tennants' showers. The tennants are the American people, and when they complain about the water flow the GOP landlords say, "Ah, yes, this water meter is not calibrated right. The reading is not accurate. I'll get my friends, Ninja Plumbing, to take it apart". Even if the water meter is faulty, the GOP landlord has successfully shifted the focus away from the far greater problems that are afflicting American democracy: problems that they are surreptitiously and intentionally creating.

This article explains the situation better:- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/
This section in particular caught my attention because it highlights how the real problems are not "both-sides-do-it" complaints about vote-counting, they are Republican-only anti-democratic manipulation of the whole, start-to-finish, electoral process:-

I don't necessarily disagree. I honestly don't know which party breaks the rules and 'cheats' more. Regardless, I'm fairly certain they both do it to varying degrees. The Brookings article is interesting and was an enjoyable read, but I definitely did pick up on a liberal bias in how certain things were framed (e.g. "On January 6th, with President Trump's encouragement, his supporters stormed the Capitol", essentially implying that Trump directly encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol in protest, which isn't true).
The New York Times describes them as 'a pillar of Washington's liberal establishment' (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/us/politics/john-allen-brookings-resigns.html), for whatever that's worth, but it doesn't mean they (they being Brookings) are wrong. Republicans could be doing more cheating and voter suppression than Democrats - but ultimately, I don't really care who's cheating more, I just want the issue (election security/integrity) to be corrected and improved enough so that we can stop having these questions and doubts about it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PMAs for your remedial measures to improve how votes and ballots are conducted, they were very well thought-out and I agreed with all the bullet points you listed, especially the one about always having a paper back-up.

Thanks Lisna! It's at least a starting point I think. One thing I left off my bullet point list is that I think Presidential Election Day should be a National Holiday so that no one has any excuses for not turning out and making their voices heard. We should do everything, as a nation, to empower people to vote.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PM^ Yes, I absolutely agree: that is so easily within reach, but as you say "properly motivated", which (in my opinion and see above) is NOT the direction that the GOP are pulling in. They want (i) less democracy and (ii) more distrust in election results.

Again, I don't think it's just the GOP, though they're certainly part of the problem. Like I said, if Trump wins, whether it's by a small margin or a large margin in 2024, I expect the GOP will largely shut up about election vulnerabilities and problems. And Democrats will take up the mantle in questioning the problems with the obviously problematic election system we have. I don't care who takes up the mantle, I just want it fixed, which I don't think will happen until we're less polarized politically. Who knows how long that will take?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 05:51 PMYes, you're right: I think a road trip would be best, culminating in a scene in which you and I stand shoulder-to-shoulder, both of us cheering on a political candidate who has united us in a bright new vision for the future of America. :)

...and finally, thanks for your very fair-minded shout-out for the success of Biden's Infrastructure Bill. :thumb:

I've failed to ask, have you ever visited America before Lisna? I've never visited either the UK or Europe myself, but would love to someday. Who knows, by the time I do, maybe AI will be running all of our governments, and we could both praise our new AI overlords and the undoubted integrity and security of the election system it's put in place. And maybe it will have a bright new vision for America that would unite us in cheers:

"*beep boop* Ask not what your AI can do for you - but what you can do for your AI *boop beep*"  :laughing:

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExZGNpc204bjVicjVuNnRna2t3YW1nZnpvcTdnc3I3djhyNDZ6d256MyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/humidv0MqqdO5ZoYhn/giphy.webp)

The billionaires rallying behind Trump after his conviction (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckvvlv3lewxo)

While I have, as usual, little of worth to add to this high-minded conversation, I would like to note two things:

1) The idea of all of the world's governments being controlled by AI seems to me, instead of Lisna and SGR praising their AI overlords, to be running a desperate, last-ditch resistance, the final hope of humanity, while also reading a lot and listening to, and sharing, some bitchin' music. Movie options scrawled on the back of a beermat...

2) Of no use whatever, but I thought you might like to know that before I found out what gerrymandering was, I used to picture a cute little green salamander called Gerry calling at people's doors asking who they intended to vote for.  :laughing:  :laughing:

That is all.

And now, I go back to whatever it is I do!

What is the deal with RFK Jr.? I'm watching a series on the Kennedys and the guy talks like someone half-inched his vocal chords! Is he sick or something? Every word seems to be a struggle. And this is the guy who thinks he might make it to the White House?


Oh yeah, forgot: this is America.  ::)

Quote from: Trollheart on Jun 05, 2024, 10:47 PMWhat is the deal with RFK Jr.? I'm watching a series on the Kennedys and the guy talks like someone half-inched his vocal chords! Is he sick or something? Every word seems to be a struggle. And this is the guy who thinks he might make it to the White House?


Oh yeah, forgot: this is America.  ::)

It's called 'abductor spasmodic dysphonia (https://theconversation.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reveals-why-he-has-a-raspy-voice-spasmodic-dysphonia-explained-227500)'. I agree, politically, I don't think you could ever win with that voice, never mind that a worm ate part of his brain. Feel bad for the guy, because it's not his fault, and without that voice issue, he could be a serious problem for both Trump and Biden given how much everyone dislikes both of them, but I think that after a lot people hear him for the first time they say: "Nah, I think I'll pick between Trump or Biden".  :laughing:

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jun 05, 2024, 10:45 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/44hzw0pL/Gavin-Newsom.jpg)

Biden aides, Dems blame 'MAGA Republicans' for brutal report on president's cognitive decline (https://nypost.com/2024/06/05/us-news/biden-aides-dems-blame-maga-republicans-for-brutal-report-on-presidents-cognitive-decline/)

Republicans say Biden completely cognitively depleted, comparing him to a walking corpse. Democrats say, behind closed doors, they struggle to keep up with Biden with all his energy and attention to detail. More news at 11.  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Jun 05, 2024, 11:10 PMIt's called 'abductor spasmodic dysphonia (https://theconversation.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-reveals-why-he-has-a-raspy-voice-spasmodic-dysphonia-explained-227500)'. I agree, politically, I don't think you could ever win with that voice, never mind that a worm ate part of his brain. Feel bad for the guy, because it's not his fault, and without that voice issue, he could be a serious problem for both Trump and Biden given how much everyone dislikes both of them, but I think that after a lot people hear him for the first time they say: "Nah, I think I'll pick between Trump or Biden".  :laughing:

Yeah, could you imagine inauguration day?

"I, Robert Francis Kennedy Junior do solemenly..."
"Sir, you need to speak up."
"I AM speaking up!"
"Nobody can hear you, Mister President."
"I, ROBERT FRANCIS KENN -"
"Nope. Still can't hear you. For everyone out there, sir."
"I, ROB-ERT FRAN-CIS KEN-"
"Perhaps this megaphone might help, sir."
"I, ROHHHH- BUUUURRRRTTT FRANNNCCCCCISSSSS-"
"Did anyone check the batteries in this thing?"

(I know it's not his fault and my bad for laughing at him, but the guy deserves it for his crazy stances and theories so sorry not sorry).

Quote from: Trollheart on Jun 05, 2024, 03:34 AMWhile I have, as usual, little of worth to add to this high-minded conversation, I would like to note two things:

1) The idea of all of the world's governments being controlled by AI seems to me, instead of Lisna and SGR praising their AI overlords, to be running a desperate, last-ditch resistance, the final hope of humanity, while also reading a lot and listening to, and sharing, some bitchin' music. Movie options scrawled on the back of a beermat...

2) Of no use whatever, but I thought you might like to know that before I found out what gerrymandering was, I used to picture a cute little green salamander called Gerry calling at people's doors asking who they intended to vote for.  :laughing:  :laughing:

That is all.

And now, I go back to whatever it is I do!

Ah, one of my political arch nemeses, Gerry Mandering. He's right up there with Philip Buster.

Oh yeah. And don't forget Republican Vito, and his Swiss friend L.X. Shunfraud.

Oh, and while we're at it, can someone tell the President of the United States that Executive Order does not mean six more gin and tonics at this table, please? Nor, indeed, does Secret Service entail suited goons in shades teaching him how to play tennis.

And no, Donald, you cannot sue the card game of bridge for copyright breach. They had trumps long before you rolled off the production assembly line.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 02, 2024, 11:34 PMI don't necessarily disagree. I honestly don't know which party breaks the rules and 'cheats' more. Regardless, I'm fairly certain they both do it to varying degrees. The Brookings article is interesting and was an enjoyable read, but I definitely did pick up on a liberal bias in how certain things were framed (e.g. "On January 6th, with President Trump's encouragement, his supporters stormed the Capitol", essentially implying that Trump directly encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol in protest, which isn't true).

First in bold :
Here's a super-long Wiki article about Voter Suppression which leaves little doubt, as far as I can see, that it is the Republicans who most consistently try to reduce voter turnout:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

On the related topics of not accepting election results, inventing a "steal" that didn't exist, and filing I don't know how many fake elector documents and giving them to Mike Pence, all that has been exclusively the work of the Republican party, afaik.
Gotta say I'm surprised that such a keen observer as yourself doesn't know which party cheats more.

Second in bold:
Actually, I think it is true, according to this article: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

It's from npr, which I rate as a fairly impartial source, and begins: "DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

QuoteThe New York Times describes them as 'a pillar of Washington's liberal establishment' (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/12/us/politics/john-allen-brookings-resigns.html), for whatever that's worth, but it doesn't mean they (they being Brookings) are wrong. Republicans could be doing more cheating and voter suppression than Democrats - but ultimately, I don't really care who's cheating more, I just want the issue (election security/integrity) to be corrected and improved enough so that we can stop having these questions and doubts about it.

^ Of course you are entitled to focus on whatever interests you more, but, as per my analogy about the plumbing in the house, the bigger prob for representative democracy in the US is in pre-election machinations like gerrymandering and voter suppresion.

QuoteThanks Lisna! It's at least a starting point I think. One thing I left off my bullet point list is that I think Presidential Election Day should be a National Holiday so that no one has any excuses for not turning out and making their voices heard. We should do everything, as a nation, to empower people to vote.

^That's an excellent suggestion that would immediately make the application of open elections much easier for everyone. Here in Mexico, election days are Sundays, which comes close to achieving the same effect.

QuoteAgain, I don't think it's just the GOP, though they're certainly part of the problem. Like I said, if Trump wins, whether it's by a small margin or a large margin in 2024, I expect the GOP will largely shut up about election vulnerabilities and problems. And Democrats will take up the mantle in questioning the problems with the obviously problematic election system we have. I don't care who takes up the mantle, I just want it fixed, which I don't think will happen until we're less polarized politically. Who knows how long that will take?

^ I'm sure you're right about the kind of partisan flip-flopping that surrounds the election-integrity issue: each side argues the case that suits them best at the moment.
But, returning to the thing about fake electors: Does that help improve confidence and accuracy in elections? Which political party uses it as a tactic? 

QuoteI've failed to ask, have you ever visited America before Lisna? I've never visited either the UK or Europe myself, but would love to someday. Who knows, by the time I do, maybe AI will be running all of our governments, and we could both praise our new AI overlords and the undoubted integrity and security of the election system it's put in place.

 :)  That's kind of you to ask, SGR: I've been to America twice, for all of two weeks and one day! I once had a two week vacation in the San Diego/ San Franscico area, and on a different occasion, a one-night stop-over within taxi distance of Miami Airport. That was quite weird for me: I still remember walking around some random leafy suburb in the dark, thinking "This is Miami! I'm in Miami!" but still failing to believe it. Then flying out the next day, making my night-time stroll feel even more like an isolated dream sequence.

Your question made me wonder about why I even care about US politics, and I think it's this: the USA's great cultural exports. It started with reading Superman comics as a child, then Mark Twain books, then Dylan's music, then HPLovecraft, then the Summer of Love, LSD and Tom Wolfe. There has been so much to admire about the US that it makes me angry to see what Trump, the current GOP and the Christian Nationalists are trying to do to the country.

And I have a question for you too, SGR (answer optional of course): are you a big-city, East Coast guy? Are you down in the hot and steamy Bible Belt?
Also, I have wondered during our debates here, irl are you surrounded by people who agree with you in political discussions, or do you find that you are regularly making a case that meets with opposition?     

RFK Jr. files new petition in Nevada amid legal battle over ballot access (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-files-new-petition-nevada-legal-battle-ballot-access/)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMFirst in bold :
Here's a super-long Wiki article about Voter Suppression which leaves little doubt, as far as I can see, that it is the Republicans who most consistently try to reduce voter turnout:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

Oh jeez, @Lisnaholic, I fear we may have opened up the election equivalent of Pandora's Box here.  :laughing:

Firstly, thus far we've primarily been talking about the more fundamental aspects of the election process (counting the ballots/fraud/'glitches'/software vulnerabilities/statistical irregularities), but not so much the part that happens before all that (pre-election machinations as you call them later in your post) - the voters actually turning out and voting. Could voter suppression be considered 'cheating?'. I think it could, but I also think discussions about this point back to concerns about how each state is allowed to conduct their elections independently. This has some benefits, but there's obviously (as we see here) serious flaws with this as well. I will agree that many of the recent examples in the wiki article (and those are the ones we really care about, i.e. voter suppression in the 1850s probably doesn't hold much direct use in guiding us to improve our systems today) do seem to show Republicans as the one's more responsible for voter suppression. That being said, some of the 'voter suppression' is up for debate in terms of the state's right to do it or even whether or not it's the right thing to do, and whether or not it should be done differently, e.g. felons voting:

QuoteAlabama boasts the 3rd highest rate of people barred from voting due to a felony conviction per 100,000 residents in each state across the US, according to a recent study.[141] This disproportionately affects African Americans.[141]

Arguments could be made (and I see compelling arguments on both sides) about whether or not felons should be able to vote, but I suppose in a technical sense, it is 'voter suppresion'. Maine and Vermont for example, allow felons to vote even while incarcerated.

Other examples though are blatantly illegal ones:

QuoteIn the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2010, the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that "the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression", in the form of having "African-American voters stay home."[102] To that end, the Republicans placed thousands of Election Day robocalls to Democratic voters, telling them that the Democratic candidate, Martin O'Malley, had won, although in fact the polls were still open for some two more hours.

Some are even in between, where a judge might say it disenfranchises voters even if it isn't technically illegal. So there is some murkiness here.

One other commonly cited example of voter suppression, and a rather controversial one, is the requirement of 'voter ID'. I think it's worth noting that there seems to be a philosophical difference between many Republicans and Democrats on what's better for a functioning democracy. Democrats would argue that universal participation is the highest value, and that everyone eligible should participate and no unnecessary barriers should be present that would hinder them from doing so. Republicans, on the other hand, would argue that something like voter ID would help in preventing fraud, and that if someone isn't informed enough or invested in the political process enough to cross that barrier, their lack of participation would be a net benefit for the results of the electoral system (I'm not defending this viewpoint, just trying to summarize it). Both parties suspect the other not of having a grounded philosophy and acting in good faith, but of vying for a strategic advantage. Democrats think that Republicans don't want a lower turnout because it might result in a more informed electorate, but because it favors their side, Republicans think that Democrats don't really value large civic engagement, but rather that higher turnout benefits their side (High voter turnout benefiting Democrats may not be true, at least in many cases (https://archive.ph/JIs3F)).

With all that being said, I think it's fair to say that Democrats do not, universally, support universal voter participation. I don't know exactly how it was decided which examples made it into that wiki article (maybe it was the amount of public awareness of each case, f.ex), but Democrats certainly are known to engage in their own voter suppression when it benefits them. Take this article from FiveThirtyEight for example (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/):

QuoteIn the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections like those taking place today, the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression.

The long and short of the article is that in off-cycle elections for (often) local positions, Democrats will vote against consolidated elections that would increase turn out because off-cycle elections ensure that the majority of voters will be Democrat-aligned interest groups (like Teachers Unions and Municipal Employees Organizations) who really care about the issue at hand, rather than the average Joe who might vote against it if it was on the ballot he'd normally vote on, but doesn't care enough about the issue to go out of his way for an off-cycle election:

QuoteConsolidation is popular, and during the decade-long period between 2001 and 2011 that Anzia studied, state legislatures across the country considered over 200 bills aimed at consolidating elections. About half, 102 bills, were focused specifically on moving school board election dates so that they would coincide with other elections. Only 25 became law.

The consolidation bills, which were generally sponsored by Republicans, typically failed because of Democratic opposition, according to Anzia. By her account, Democrats opposed the bills at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, namely teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

I don't remember seeing any mention of this in the wiki article, which just demonstrates that it's certainly not a comprehensive list. And I wouldn't hang my hat on it directing me to the right conclusion (as to which party 'cheats' more). There are local elections, state elections, national elections, etc. - both parties have their fingers in the pie.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMOn the related topics of not accepting election results, inventing a "steal" that didn't exist, and filing I don't know how many fake elector documents and giving them to Mike Pence, all that has been exclusively the work of the Republican party, afaik.

I think I've posted this before, but maybe it bears a repost if we're talking about denying election results (and I'm not saying the Democrats in this video are even wrong - they very well could be right, and I'd bet they are right about some of them- it's just that we as a country have a short memory, and denying/questioning election results is not some kind of partisan phenomenon):


The crux of my argument thus far has been that we don't have any way to positively verify that said 'steal' didn't exist. You can state that the 'steal' didn't exist insofar as it hasn't been proven, but we have no way to verify that holistically. That's the problem. Some Democrats (though not the same exact thing, or with the same tenacity, action, or conviction) were supporting faithless electors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election) in the electoral college in 2016. The Republicans did it a bit differently by filing some paperwork in a convoluted scheme that relied on Mike Pence. Ultimately, had both gone the way each respective party wanted (faithless electors voting opposite of their pledge, and enough of them to change the outcome of the election; fake electors being certified), both would have most likely been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMGotta say I'm surprised that such a keen observer as yourself doesn't know which party cheats more.

I'm flattered you consider me a 'keen observer'.  :laughing: But again, to reiterate, as someone who does pay some attention to this stuff, there's no real way to know (at this point in time) which party 'cheats' more. Cheating encompasses more than just suppressing voter turnout or gerrymandering. The election system is fallible and vulnerable, it's not completely auditable, the integrity of it is not beyond question as you yourself admit.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 02, 2024, 01:09 AMI took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.

I'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place

So yes, I don't know which party cheats more - and I'm not being dishonest or disingenuous about that fact. And again, at this point, it doesn't much matter to me which party does, if such an absolute conclusion could be reached. The system needs to be fixed regardless.

As a recap on 'which party cheats more in elections':

• How do we define 'election cheating'? Can something be considered 'election cheating' if it's not illegal?
• There are two boxes here (at least): election cheating that we know, and election cheating that we don't know (I think it's fair to say there's cheating that's happened/happening that we're not aware of)
• There are national elections, state elections, county elections, local elections, etc. It's safe to assume that in all of these types of elections, there has been/will be cheating by both parties
• If we were to try and measure which party 'cheats more', how would we go about doing that? Would it just be the volume of attempts at 'cheating'? Would it be the impact of the 'cheats' in question on voters (that itself would be difficult to measure)? Would we weigh the different kinds of cheating differently (illegal voter suppresion vs. manual manipulation of vote counts for example)? Would we weigh the same kind of cheating in local elections differently than we would a national election?
• When the best and brightest in software engineering graduate college, do you think they're more likely to go and get a job working on election software/security or do you think they're more likely to go and get a job working at Apple/Google/Microsoft?

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMSecond in bold:
Actually, I think it is true, according to this article: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

It's from npr, which I rate as a fairly impartial source, and begins: "DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

My original point was that the article you linked made it sound like Trump 'encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol' which I thought was an example of their liberal leaning (a leaning NY Times even pointed out). A district court judge in Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection is a separate matter from what Trump said to his supporters.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AM^ Of course you are entitled to focus on whatever interests you more, but, as per my analogy about the plumbing in the house, the bigger prob for representative democracy in the US is in pre-election machinations like gerrymandering and voter suppresion.

This could very well be the case. Gerrymandering and voter suppression though are more visible and difficult to hide. The inner workings, security, software, etc of our election system are not visible or transparent. If our election system was, hypothetically, 100% auditable, it might bear out your viewpoint. On the other hand, if we were able to completely audit past elections and find any and all cheating/manipulation that occurred, it might end up shocking you.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AM^That's an excellent suggestion that would immediately make the application of open elections much easier for everyone. Here in Mexico, election days are Sundays, which comes close to achieving the same effect.

That's a good way to do it! As that FiveThirtyEight link I sent you demonstrates, here in America, even the day elections take place are politicized for party interest advantages. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, off-cycle elections, insecure election software, the system in America is a complete mess. So much for 'American Exceptionalism' when we're looking to Mexico for ideas on how to improve our elections.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AM^ I'm sure you're right about the kind of partisan flip-flopping that surrounds the election-integrity issue: each side argues the case that suits them best at the moment.
But, returning to the thing about fake electors: Does that help improve confidence and accuracy in elections? Which political party uses it as a tactic? 

It certainly wouldn't have improved confidence or accuracy in elections if it worked!  :laughing:

But, to be fair, and to give some credit to the system we have, despite its many flaws, it did not work. It is, I think, worth pointing out that the scheme was both hatched by Republicans (or specifically, John Eastman, based on a fringe legal theory about the unilateral power of the VP to reject state certified electors) and ultimately snuffed out by Republicans (or specifically, Mike Pence). Had Mike Pence gone along with the scheme, I'm almost certain the issue would've ended up in the Supreme Court where they would've overturned it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AM:)  That's kind of you to ask, SGR: I've been to America twice, for all of two weeks and one day! I once had a two week vacation in the San Diego/ San Franscico area, and on a different occasion, a one-night stop-over within taxi distance of Miami Airport. That was quite weird for me: I still remember walking around some random leafy suburb in the dark, thinking "This is Miami! I'm in Miami!" but still failing to believe it. Then flying out the next day, making my night-time stroll feel even more like an isolated dream sequence.

That's awesome! I'd love to visit the west coast some day. The farthest west I've been was to Denver, which is a great city. I've got plans to go to Chicago for the first time this year, so that should be fun! I have been to Florida a few times (Orlando) and boy, does it get fucking hot down there. I think I would die if I had to live down there permanently, even with an AC!  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMYour question made me wonder about why I even care about US politics, and I think it's this: the USA's great cultural exports. It started with reading Superman comics as a child, then Mark Twain books, then Dylan's music, then HPLovecraft, then the Summer of Love, LSD and Tom Wolfe. There has been so much to admire about the US that it makes me angry to see what Trump, the current GOP and the Christian Nationalists are trying to do to the country.

The USA certainly is a cultural powerhouse and I can definitely see why others not native to the country would care so much about it!

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMAnd I have a question for you too, SGR (answer optional of course): are you a big-city, East Coast guy? Are you down in the hot and steamy Bible Belt?

I'm from the beautiful Granite State, New Hampshire! Northern New Hampshire, which is not the big city - I'm in what you could call 'small town America', not the big city, and not the boonies. Here's a picture of one of our highways to give you an idea of one of the common sights I see:

(https://sugarhillinn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/shutterstock_1195418290.jpg)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 08, 2024, 02:01 AMAlso, I have wondered during our debates here, irl are you surrounded by people who agree with you in political discussions, or do you find that you are regularly making a case that meets with opposition?     

That's an interesting question. New Hampshire, politically, is very diverse. I've talked and debated with people of all types of leanings. For example, I have, in the same day argued with a conservative co-worker who thought it should be a crime to burn the American flag and argued with a liberal co-worker about UBI. My father is a conservative (but does not identify as a Republican) and my mother is a Democrat. One of my uncles at a cookout (this was 2020) was burning a Joe Biden campaign sign in a barrel and at the same cookout my other uncle and his daughters were wearing masks and politely requesting social distancing. My family would often debate things at the dinner table politically while I was growing up, but it was usually respectful and never done with malice. When I was in college, I had three great friends. One was black, the other was asian, and the other was white. My black friend was liberal, my white friend was a conservative, and my asian friend was a misanthropic anarchist. We always had some of the most hilarious and insightful conversations. So yeah, throughout my 29 years on Earth (and counting), I've had the luxury of discussing political and philosophical issues with a very diverse cast of characters.  :laughing:

"Get ready! November! Pack it up! You're on a slow-boat to Chinaaaa!"

"If a guy pulled his dick out right now, would you even take a peak?"

"Depends, if he's in my line of sight, you can't help but peak"

"Come on man, Guyana is a sex country. Come on, America? Don't touch the women? Come on, what do you mean? No, you're supposed to touch them, you know why? You're a child of god!"

"If a motherfucker say he straight about Trump, he's something wrong with him. They raised him in the Ku Klux Klan!"

"I'm straight, am I the straightest guy? I don't know everybody out here, so I couldn't tell you that."

"I work hard, so you know, I had a beer, and what are you gonna do?"

"That's not even the right way to make a fucking swastika! Look at her, she doesn't even know what she's talking about! Fucking right, the swastika is not right! You're like scrambled eggs!"

"I don't know what it means, I'm french"

"Biden sucks, Kamala swallows, fuck Joe, and that hoe"

"I want to have sex with AOC"

"Fuck Donald Trump, and fuck Biden too! Fuck em all!"

Ryan's got the full spectrum of America on display in this video.  :laughing:

RFK Jr. Inching Closer to Qualifying for CNN's June 27 Presidential Debate (https://archive.ph/IdvPF)

(https://www.icegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/icegif-642.gif)

That's another long post, SGR ! I might respond to it in parts, if that's ok.

QuoteThat being said, some of the 'voter suppression' is up for debate in terms of the state's right to do it or even whether or not it's the right thing to do, and whether or not it should be done differently, e.g. felons voting:

^ Yep, as you mention at the outset, the topic of voter suppression is v complex, so I prefer to focus on calling out tactics that are obviously, blatantly, and unjustifiably unfair. I don't consider the issue of felons voting or not as falling into that category, and neither does wikipedia, as far as I can tell: I didn't see any mention of it in their article.

QuoteI don't remember seeing any mention of this in the wiki article, which just demonstrates that it's certainly not a comprehensive list. And I wouldn't hang my hat on it directing me to the right conclusion (as to which party 'cheats' more). There are local elections, state elections, national elections, etc. - both parties have their fingers in the pie.

^ The same applies to consolidation: also not mentioned by wiki, and not blatantly unfair repression, so I'm going to leave that topic alone too, if you don't mind, in hopes of keeping our discussion from sprawling too far from my initial point.
______________________________________________

QuoteI think I've posted this before, but maybe it bears a repost if we're talking about denying election results (and I'm not saying the Democrats in this video are even wrong - they very well could be right, and I'd bet they are right about some of them- it's just that we as a country have a short memory, and denying/questioning election results is not some kind of partisan phenomenon):

^ If you haven't posted this before, then Nimbly certainly posted something similar ages ago. No way I'm going to watch 23 mins of video clips like that, but I watched enough to be able to make these points:-
i) grumbling about election results (clearly a long-term habit among US politicians) is different from flat-out refusing to accept them, bullying governors to "just find votes", calling on people to "fight like hell", defaming election workers, etc. As far as I can see you and Nimbly both are not distinguishing between the guy who says, "I think my bank cheated me" and the guy who breaks th law and robs the bank. You're not comparing like with like.
ii) too many of those clips are without context. Many of the comments may have been made in  response to questions about the popular vote. To me it's fair enough to say, "Without winning the popular vote, the President could be regarded as being illegitimate" I bet that is how some of those comments arose.

QuoteThe crux of my argument thus far has been that we don't have any way to positively verify that said 'steal' didn't exist. You can state that the 'steal' didn't exist insofar as it hasn't been proven, but we have no way to verify that holistically.

^ Isn't commonly accepted that proving a negative is all but impossible ?? How can I prove that my neighbour isn't an extraterrestrial? I prefer to use Occam's razor, as I understand it: explain the observable facts with the simplest working hypothesis, cut away the unnecessary. In this case, as upheld by various courts, there was no steal: Trump lost.

QuoteMy original point was that the article you linked made it sound like Trump 'encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol' which I thought was an example of their liberal leaning (a leaning NY Times even pointed out). A district court judge in Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection is a separate matter from what Trump said to his supporters. 

Did Trump encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol" ? That's a semantic discussion to be had about phrases like "fight like hell". TBH I'm not inclined to engage in that debate and will concede that the Brookings article went too far, but in a discussion about trying to subvert election results, surely the Colorado ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection is the bottom line take away.
__________________________________________

Great photo of where you live ! Thanks.:thumb: You are very lucky, and I will quiz you later about how it feels to be surrounded by such wonderful scenery.   

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMThat's another long post, SGR ! I might respond to it in parts, if that's ok.

That's fine, take your time.  :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AM^ Yep, as you mention at the outset, the topic of voter suppression is v complex, so I prefer to focus on calling out tactics that are obviously, blatantly, and unjustifiably unfair. I don't consider the issue of felons voting or not as falling into that category, and neither does wikipedia, as far as I can tell: I didn't see any mention of it in their article.

Felons voting or being barred from voting was mentioned multiple times in the Wiki article you posted, the quote I included was from that Wiki article. But I'm fine putting it aside as an issue that isn't blatantly and unjustifiably unfair.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AM^ The same applies to consolidation: also not mentioned by wiki, and not blatantly unfair repression, so I'm going to leave that topic alone too, if you don't mind, in hopes of keeping our discussion from sprawling too far from my initial point.

I don't know whether I'd classify it as 'blatantly unfair repression' or not, but I'd put it in the same box as Republicans who move voting centers to more sparsely populated (and Republican-centric) areas. The goal is the same, to reduce turnout of the opposition and boost turnout of your respective party. Your initial point was that Republicans were more responsible for cheating in elections, as evidenced by recent examples included in the Wiki article. These practices of Democrats refusing to consolidate off-cycle elections are a valid counterexample of that, specifically because the wiki article doesn't mention it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AM^ If you haven't posted this before, then Nimbly certainly posted something similar ages ago. No way I'm going to watch 23 mins of video clips like that, but I watched enough to be able to make these points:-
i) grumbling about election results (clearly a long-term habit among US politicians) is different from flat-out refusing to accept them

How? The Democrats in that video weren't just 'grumbling' about the election results, they were flat-out refusing to accept them and denying them. 

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMbullying governors to "just find votes" 

This is a reference to Trump's phone call with Georgia Secretary of State (not governor) Brad Raffensperger. The optics of this don't look good for Trump, and it has become a central piece of one of his indictments, so we'll see how that plays out. We will probably both learn more.

But I'll offer this.

The Democrats view this incident as another example of Trump's malfeasance. They believe it to be proof-positive that Trump is a mafia boss wannabe: "Ya best 'find' those votes for me, capisce? If you don't, it sure would be unfortunate if something were to happen to you or ya family, ya hear?"

But, if we were to take Trump in good faith (I know, I know....bear with me), if he actually thought he did win the state - and he thought the only reason he could've lost could be due to untabulated votes or vote manipulation (and this seems to be unclear, there are reports claiming Trump knew he lost, and there are reports claiming the opposite), then 'find the votes' might be much more innocuous, along the lines of: "I know we won this state. There's votes for me that have not been counted, have been misplaced, etc". Given the unique nature of 2020, with it's outsized use of mail-in ballots, this isn't that far of a stretch to believe boxes could have been lost or misplaced - and stories we read, like the below, after the election show how a thin ~11,000 vote margin of victory could have teetered on human error and mishandling of votes:

How a computer issue kept 15,000 Henrico votes from getting counted on Election Day (https://www.wtvr.com/news/election-2020/15-000-missing-henrico-ballots-give-spanberger-lead-over-freitas-in-7th-congressional-house-race)

Here's what happened with a supposed 9,000+ vote error in DeKalb County's audit (https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/elections/dekalb-county-audit-issue-explained/85-789cf545-d54c-4912-950d-ab11f7380520)

So 'find the votes' could be interpreted as:

"We didn't win the election, but I want you to help me cheat and tip the scales"

or

"We won the election, and the result we have in this state can't be real, there must be votes that haven't been counted, and you need to find them"

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMcalling on people to "fight like hell"

This is a common refrain from the left to imply that Trump was encouraging or supported violence, when in reality it was just run of the mill political rhetoric. He was referring to filing lawsuits, presenting legal challenges and evidence, protesting, etc., but not violence. For more proof of the commonality of this kind of rhetoric, see the following:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMAs far as I can see you and Nimbly both are not distinguishing between the guy who says, "I think my bank cheated me" and the guy who breaks th law and robs the bank. You're not comparing like with like.

I think for this analogy to work, you'd have to say: "the guy who attempts to rob the bank", with the assumption that the bank did not cheat him. Gore filed plenty of paperwork requesting audits and recounts in the 2000 election, but unlike Trump, the paperwork filed didn't rely on a fringe legal theory. In neither Trump or Gore's case did the 'bank' ultimately get robbed. The security around the bank worked.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMii) too many of those clips are without context. Many of the comments may have been made in  response to questions about the popular vote. To me it's fair enough to say, "Without winning the popular vote, the President could be regarded as being illegitimate" I bet that is how some of those comments arose.

I don't think the popular vote was the crux of all of these questions (and some weren't even about a presidential election), but even for the ones that it was, you think it's fair to say that a president is 'illegitimate' if they didn't win the popular vote? Even though our system of electing a president is dependant on the electoral college and not the popular vote? It's not like Hillary Clinton (for example) campaigned in 2016 not understanding that it's the electoral college that wins her the presidency, instead of the popular vote. Maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign in Wisconsin (https://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/116/) (instead of taking it for granted), as Trump did, she might have won both the popular vote and the electoral college. If you want to make the case that the vote for president should be a popular vote, and the electoral college should be done away with, that's fine, but it's definitely a different discussion. As for the recent past and right now, both parties know what's needed to become president - and it's not the popular vote.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AM^ Isn't commonly accepted that proving a negative is all but impossible ?? How can I prove that my neighbour isn't an extraterrestrial? I prefer to use Occam's razor, as I understand it: explain the observable facts with the simplest working hypothesis, cut away the unnecessary. In this case, as upheld by various courts, there was no steal: Trump lost.

Trump lost, by all evidence and metrics we have, I agree. Joe Biden won the presidency.

But I feel we're talking in circles here - and maybe it's my fault, maybe I'm not making my case strongly enough. You are correct, proving a negative is nearly impossible. If I tell you I saw bigfoot yesterday on my way to work, how would you be able to prove I didn't? You couldn't prove I didn't.

But bigfoot and alien sightings are a lot different than our election systems. Our election systems are something we physicially engage with, that can be tracked, recorded, secured, audited, etc. Unlike bigfoot and alien sightings, it's something we have physical evidence of. I'll go back again to you conceding that the system is a mess and has obvious problems. I'm not saying that the system needs to be 100% secure or bulletproof, just that it needs to be much better than it is now and there are clear and obvious ways to do that, as we've already outlined. Doing so would be very beneficial in ensuring confidence in our elections and discrediting election deniers in the future - instead of saying: "Well, the guy from NPR said it was safe and secure", we could show them the audit trail of the votes or the blockchain ledger that recorded how every vote was cast.

As I've said before, the courts didn't investigate or audit the election in any real way. They, largely (if memory serves, the Republicans won two cases that didn't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome), rejected Republican filings based on standing (i.e. they weren't an 'injured party' in the case, so they couldn't bring the case, and it was summarily rejected).

I'm a software engineer, so maybe an analogy could better convey my perspective on this. Pretend I'm the court, my boss is the general public, and a junior developer working under me is the Republican Party.

Boss: "So I heard tell we might have some problems or errors with our codebase?"
Me: "Nope, we definitely don't"
Boss: "Oh really? The new junior developer was saying that he thought he identified several problems and possible failure vectors in the codebase"
Me: "Oh, yes, that. Well, I took it upon myself to briefly glance at those areas of the code, and he isn't responsible for any of them. They're completely outside his wheelhouse. If, in the completely unlikely chance there was a failure in those areas of code, it wouldn't be his responsibility nor would it affect him at all. In other words, there are no vulnerabilities or failure vectors in our codebase."
Boss: "Wow! Thank you! The execs are going to be very happy to hear this! I think you're due for a raise!"
Me: "Thanks! That's Occam's Razor for ya!"

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMDid Trump encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol" ? That's a semantic discussion to be had about phrases like "fight like hell". TBH I'm not inclined to engage in that debate and will concede that the Brookings article went too far, but in a discussion about trying to subvert election results, surely the Colorado ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection is the bottom line take away.

That's fine, as you say it is a semantics debate ultimately, and my only point was to tip off a possible area of bias.

I feel it's a little bit of 'moving the goalposts' to say that the bottom line takeaway is that Trump engaged in insurrection, when this particular discussion had nothing to do with that. If you'd like to chat about that we can, of course. I can start: I don't think some district court judge in Colorado is the end-all, be-all in determining whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. If Trump engaged in insurrection, why wasn't he indicted for insurrection? And to add, being indicted for election interference is not the same thing as being indicted for insurrection.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 12, 2024, 02:53 AMGreat photo of where you live ! Thanks.:thumb: You are very lucky, and I will quiz you later about how it feels to be surrounded by such wonderful scenery.   

I look forward to it! It's a beautiful place to live!  :)

Quote from: SGR on Jun 12, 2024, 06:02 AMThis is a common refrain from the left to imply that Trump was encouraging or supported violence, when in reality it was just run of the mill political rhetoric. He was referring to filing lawsuits, presenting legal challenges and evidence, protesting, etc., but not violence. For more proof of the commonality of this kind of rhetoric, see the following:

There is no way in hell you actually believe that. He knows that his simple minded cult like followers would take fight like hell to be violence and not anything else that you are attempting to claim. If he meant any of those things then he would say it. He incited them to take action.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 12, 2024, 03:28 PMThere is no way in hell you actually believe that. He knows that his simple minded cult like followers would take fight like hell to be violence and not anything else that you are attempting to claim. If he meant any of those things then he would say it. He incited them to take action.

The reason I posted that video was to demonstrate how common that kind of political rhetoric is, even among Democrats. If we look at the transcript of his January 6th speech (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial), we can see him repeatedly using 'fight' in obviously non-violent contexts:

QuoteThere's so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it's, it's incredible.

QuoteAnd you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.

QuoteThe American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument.

And in the same speech, he did talk about the other things I claimed:

QuoteOver the past several weeks, we've amassed overwhelming evidence about a fake election. This is the presidential election. Last night was a little bit better because of the fact that we had a lot of eyes watching one specific state, but they cheated like hell anyway.

QuoteBecause if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.

QuoteAnd not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified.

QuoteThey've rejected five separate appeals for an independent and comprehensive audit of signatures in Fulton County. Even without an audit, the number of fraudulent ballots that we've identified across the state is staggering.

In contrast to violence, he talked about how the protest at the Capitol would be peaceful and patriotic:

QuoteI know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

If we look at the timeline of January 6th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Attack_on_the_Capitol), we also see that the perimeter of the Capitol was already being breached when Trump was still giving his speech:

QuoteAt 12:53 p.m., nineteen minutes before Trump ended his speech, rioters overran the perimeter of the Capitol building, and at 2:06 p.m. they entered the building through the Columbus Doors.

So no, I don't find Trump saying "fight like hell" to be compelling evidence that he was calling for violence. I think a much more compelling case can be made that Trump did too little, and took too long to do what he did in attempts to quell the mob/riot once it was clear and obvious that the situation was getting out of control:

QuoteTrump's tweet requesting the crowd to "stay peaceful" is sent roughly half an hour later, at 2:38 p.m. However, at 2:44 p.m., a Capitol Police officer inside the Speaker's Lobby adjacent to the House chambers shot and fatally wounded rioter Ashli Babbitt as she climbed through a broken window of a barricaded door. Minutes later, Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam activated all available assets of the State of Virginia including the Virginia National Guard to aid the U.S. Capitol, although the Department of Defense still had not authorized it. By 3:15 p.m., assets from Virginia began rolling into D.C.

An hour later, at 4:17 p.m, a video of Trump was uploaded to Twitter in which he instructed "you have to go home now". Fifteen minutes later, Secretary Miller authorized the D.C. National Guard to actually deploy.

I think with the number of Trump supporters that showed up and the heated emotions of that moment in time, what happened was practically inevitable with the lack of security/police that the Capitol had at the time. I think Trump certainly deserves criticism and responsibility for the security breakdown at the Capitol on January 6th, but I think others deserve to be criticized as well. A video released recently even shows Nancy Pelosi taking some responsibility for the lack of security.


Pelosi, after the attack, called for then Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund to resign, which he did. In retrospect, it seems like he simply had to fall on his sword and be a sacraficial lamb, as Sund said the following after the attacks (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri):

QuoteThe former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

QuoteSund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 12, 2024, 06:02 AMI don't know whether I'd classify it as 'blatantly unfair repression' or not, but I'd put it in the same box as Republicans who move voting centers to more sparsely populated (and Republican-centric) areas. The goal is the same, to reduce turnout of the opposition and boost turnout of your respective party. Your initial point was that Republicans were more responsible for cheating in elections, as evidenced by recent examples included in the Wiki article. These practices of Democrats refusing to consolidate off-cycle elections are a valid counterexample of that, specifically because the wiki article doesn't mention it.

I wouldn't put these things in the same box at all!
"Republicans who move voting centers to more sparsely populated (and Republican-centric) areas." This is used to target specific voters and poor people relying on public transport. In fact, in Georgia I remember reading about a polling station that was relocated by Republicans, from an accessible location to something like 3 miles from the nearest bus route. :(
"...to reduce turnout of the opposition and boost turnout of your respective party." I'm not convinced that there's enough statistical evidence to show that Not Consolidating elections has this effect. That it mildly reduces voter numbers, I'd accept, but (i) the effect may be across the board and (ii) there may be legit admin reasons to have elections more frequently, instead of all bunched up together.

QuoteHow? The Democrats in that video weren't just 'grumbling' about the election results, they were flat-out refusing to accept them and denying them.

^ So where was the Dem version of "Stop the Steal", the Dem alternative to candidates like Kari Lake, running on campaigns that President Trump  isn't really the President ?

QuoteThis is a reference to Trump's phone call with Georgia Secretary of State (not governor) Brad Raffensperger. <Thanks for that correction!  The optics of this don't look good for Trump, and it has become a central piece of one of his indictments, so we'll see how that plays out. We will probably both learn more. < :thumb:

But I'll offer this.

The Democrats view this incident as another example of Trump's malfeasance. They believe it to be proof-positive that Trump is a mafia boss wannabe: "Ya best 'find' those votes for me, capisce? If you don't, it sure would be unfortunate if something were to happen to you or ya family, ya hear?"

But, if we were to take Trump in good faith (I know, I know....bear with me), if he actually thought he did win the state - and he thought the only reason he could've lost could be due to untabulated votes or vote manipulation (and this seems to be unclear, there are reports claiming Trump knew he lost, and there are reports claiming the opposite), then 'find the votes' might be much more innocuous, along the lines of: "I know we won this state. There's votes for me that have not been counted, have been misplaced, etc". Given the unique nature of 2020, with it's outsized use of mail-in ballots, this isn't that far of a stretch to believe boxes could have been lost or misplaced - and stories we read, like the below, after the election show how a thin ~11,000 vote margin of victory could have teetered on human error and mishandling of votes:

How a computer issue kept 15,000 Henrico votes from getting counted on Election Day (https://www.wtvr.com/news/election-2020/15-000-missing-henrico-ballots-give-spanberger-lead-over-freitas-in-7th-congressional-house-race)

Here's what happened with a supposed 9,000+ vote error in DeKalb County's audit (https://www.wltx.com/article/news/politics/elections/dekalb-county-audit-issue-explained/85-789cf545-d54c-4912-950d-ab11f7380520)

So 'find the votes' could be interpreted as:

"We didn't win the election, but I want you to help me cheat and tip the scales"

or

"We won the election, and the result we have in this state can't be real, there must be votes that haven't been counted, and you need to find them"

^ Firstly, I see no reason at all to take Trump in good faith, ever: he cheats on the golf course, cheats on his taxes, cheats on his wife, and lies more often than he tells the truth.
As I think we have both agreed, there were various inconsistencies with vote counting, etc, but nothing that has changed overall outcomes in any State. What your "innocent motive" apology for his conduct overlooks is this: he was the President of the US at the time, and because of the weight and power of that office, it was completely inappropriate for him to call Raffensperger and ask him to find more votes. For Trump to be calling him in the first place was a serious breach of protocol: Raffy knew that, which is why he taped the call.

QuoteThis is a common refrain from the left to imply that Trump was encouraging or supported violence, when in reality it was just run of the mill political rhetoric. He was referring to filing lawsuits, presenting legal challenges and evidence, protesting, etc., but not violence. For more proof of the commonality of this kind of rhetoric, see the following:

^ Firstly, I would contest the assertion in bold. Are you now reading Trump's mind in your search for an "innocent motive" ?!

I think I've already said that "fight like hell" is capable of two interpretations: metaphorical if you are talking to a roomful of lawyers, literal if you are talking to soldiers ready for battle. At that Jan 6 speech, Trump knew already that his audience were angry, and he had also tried to stop metal-detector scanning for weapons ("I don't effing care that they have weapons.Take the effing mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here"). Today, Trump is calling the Jan 6 rioters "warriors" - proof enough for me that he saw his audience then as an armed and potentially violent group whom he then directed to the Capital. It's disagreeable for me to agree with Mitch McConnell, but I'll overcome my aversion just this once:
 
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," McConnell said
"The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," he said, "and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth."

 

QuoteI think for this analogy to work, you'd have to say: "the guy who attempts to rob the bank", with the assumption that the bank did not cheat him. Gore filed plenty of paperwork requesting audits and recounts in the 2000 election, but unlike Trump, the paperwork filed didn't rely on a fringe legal theory. In neither Trump or Gore's case did the 'bank' ultimately get robbed. The security around the bank worked.

^ Yep, thanks for that refinement of my analogy.

QuoteI don't think the popular vote was the crux of all of these questions (and some weren't even about a presidential election), but even for the ones that it was, you think it's fair to say that a president is 'illegitimate' if they didn't win the popular vote? Even though our system of electing a president is dependant on the electoral college and not the popular vote? It's not like Hillary Clinton (for example) campaigned in 2016 not understanding that it's the electoral college that wins her the presidency, instead of the popular vote. Maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign in Wisconsin (https://ecommons.udayton.edu/pol_fac_pub/116/) (instead of taking it for granted), as Trump did, she might have won both the popular vote and the electoral college. If you want to make the case that the vote for president should be a popular vote, and the electoral college should be done away with, that's fine, but it's definitely a different discussion. As for the recent past and right now, both parties know what's needed to become president - and it's not the popular vote.

^ I take your point that it's unwise to say the Pres is illegitimate because he didn't win the popular vote, but again, a bit of sloppy rhetoric from some (not all) Dems is not on the same level as the whole Stop The Steal movement promoted by Trump and the GOP. 

QuoteTrump lost, by all evidence and metrics we have, I agree. Joe Biden won the presidency.

^ Hey ! We agree on something ! :banana:

QuoteAs I've said before, the courts didn't investigate or audit the election in any real way. They, largely (if memory serves, the Republicans won two cases that didn't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome), rejected Republican filings based on standing (i.e. they weren't an 'injured party' in the case, so they couldn't bring the case, and it was summarily rejected).

^ Plus 5 cases that played out in court and found zero evidence of fraud, plus various claims of fraud that were judge to be defamation, not the truth.   

QuoteI'm a software engineer, so maybe an analogy could better convey my perspective on this. Pretend I'm the court, my boss is the general public, and a junior developer working under me is the Republican Party.

^ Sorry, SGR but an analogy based on the arcane world of software engineering goes right over my head :(

QuoteI feel it's a little bit of 'moving the goalposts' to say that the bottom line takeaway is that Trump engaged in insurrection, when this particular discussion had nothing to do with that. If you'd like to chat about that we can, of course. I can start: I don't think some district court judge in Colorado is the end-all, be-all in determining whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. If Trump engaged in insurrection, why wasn't he indicted for insurrection? And to add, being indicted for election interference is not the same thing as being indicted for insurrection.

^ I take your point that it's almost a separate issue, but although it's just one Colorado district court judge, it still stands, uncontested as part of the judicial record. As for your question in bold:-
He's already been impeached for insurrection:-

QuoteFirst impeachment of Donald Trump, the 2019 impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.
Second impeachment of Donald Trump, the 2021 impeachment on a charge of incitement of insurrection.

... and with four seperate indictments lined up against him, my guess is that the DOJ felt that they had enough to be going on with for now.

Lastly, I put your photo of New Hampshire over in the secret forum, SGR: I hope that's ok. :)

Comparing similar political rhetoric at any not al moment to Trumps 'fight like hell' at that specific tense time makes no sense, because the foreseeable consequences are very different. If a democrat said something like that at a time where you can expect people to get violent as a result, I would condemn it just the same. And then we're not even considering the fact that trump had been spreading the voter fraud conspiracy around and actively trying to disrupt the elections, which led up to this.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 12, 2024, 05:29 PMThe reason I posted that video was to demonstrate how common that kind of political rhetoric is, even among Democrats. If we look at the transcript of his January 6th speech (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial), we can see him repeatedly using 'fight' in obviously non-violent contexts:

And in the same speech, he did talk about the other things I claimed:

In contrast to violence, he talked about how the protest at the Capitol would be peaceful and patriotic:

If we look at the timeline of January 6th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Attack_on_the_Capitol), we also see that the perimeter of the Capitol was already being breached when Trump was still giving his speech:

So no, I don't find Trump saying "fight like hell" to be compelling evidence that he was calling for violence. I think a much more compelling case can be made that Trump did too little, and took too long to do what he did in attempts to quell the mob/riot once it was clear and obvious that the situation was getting out of control:
 
I think with the number of Trump supporters that showed up and the heated emotions of that moment in time, what happened was practically inevitable with the lack of security/police that the Capitol had at the time. I think Trump certainly deserves criticism and responsibility for the security breakdown at the Capitol on January 6th, but I think others deserve to be criticized as well. A video released recently even shows Nancy Pelosi taking some responsibility for the lack of security.

Pelosi, after the attack, called for then Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund to resign, which he did. In retrospect, it seems like he simply had to fall on his sword and be a sacraficial lamb, as Sund said the following after the attacks (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri):

This is all semantics. Sure there isn't any specific calls for violence but...

One thing you are overlooking is the audience that he's speaking to. Everything that he says in the speech in incendiary when you are talking to a group that is already riled up.

From hugs to guillotines, Trump's fundraising emails are a roller coaster (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-fundraising-emails-hug-guilltone-rcna156038)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 14, 2024, 11:17 AMThis is all semantics. Sure there isn't any specific calls for violence but...

One thing you are overlooking is the audience that he's speaking to. Everything that he says in the speech in incendiary when you are talking to a group that is already riled up.

Yes, I think this is fair to say. And I think we're moving closer to causality here.

Particularly the bold - which would imply that you could remove Trump's 'fight like hell' stuff from his speech and we probably would have seen the same result play out. This is just a guess, but I'd be willing to wager that almost the same thing would've played out even if Trump hadn't given a speech there on that day at all (assuming everything else remained the same) because of, as you and others have pointed out, the group that was called to gather there was already riled up, pissed off and thought that the election was stolen from Trump (who himself bears a major amount of responsibility for why they thought this) - and because of the complete inadequacy of the Capitol police security. If you put a large number of intensely pissed off people (who are all pissed off about the same thing) in a tight area with completely inadequate police presence, the result is practically inevitable - theft, violence, property destruction, chaos, and mayhem.

But this brings it back to a point of mine that I've made in recent post(s), and a point that has in large part spurred the back-and-forth between @Lisnaholic and I - and that is the integrity, security, and reliability of the election system itself and our inability to effectively resolve questions about it. I posted maybe 20 different links about this a few pages back (post #234), but I'll include one specifically below, that Lisna has said made him sympathetic to calls for election reform - this article was written and published before the 2020 presidential election even happened, and it essentially predicted spot-on what the fallout would be:

One big flaw in how Americans run elections (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/one-big-flaw-in-how-americans-run-elections-433820)

QuoteThe truth is that two decades after the Florida 2000 election debacle created a rift in the country, and four years after Russian interference in the 2016 election profoundly deepened that divide, the U.S. lacks satisfactory, uniform mechanisms for resolving questions about elections and verifying results.

QuoteIn the absence of mechanisms that support election integrity, the U.S. has largely had to rely on "public trust ... and acceptance of the results," Carroll said. This has mostly worked out, until now.

QuoteBut this presidential election may be the one where that deficit finally catches up with us. With Trump proclaiming again that the election is "rigged" and raising concerns that he may not accept the outcome if he doesn't win, any unexplained or uninvestigated anomalies could leave millions of Americans distrusting the outcome, thereby deepening the divides that already exist and potentially inspiring violence.

Jon Stewart said something recently that I thought was rather poignant (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13511311/jon-stewart-trump-exposing-corporate-political-corruption.html) - and I think he frames it in a way that I find rather persuasive. I'll include a couple quotes below:

QuoteTrump's exploits have revealed the flaws and shady deals culture of US politics and business, Stewart said.

He said: 'In some ways, he is doing us a service in that he is like...you know how they employ a white hat hacker who will go into a system and find its vulnerabilities.'

Stewart argued that even if there are good, dedicated government workers, Trump has demonstrated 'vulnerabilities' in the system.

He then called for the system to be 'reverse engineered' given the issues Trump has demonstrated.

He said: 'Now he's not doing it for our benefit, he's doing it to exploit it. But what I'm saying is, what if we take the information that he's delivering us which is, here are the vulnerabilities in your system that I can exploit, can't we reverse engineer that?'

Stewart is not specifically talking about our election systems here, but you can certainly apply the same logic/observation to them (even if, admittedly, you have to laugh at the idea of comparing Trump to a white hat hacker  :laughing: ).

As Stewart said, Trump is not some noble and benevolent figure doing this for our collective benefit, he's doing it for selfish reasons - to exploit it for his gain. I think one can, at the same time, criticize Trump for how he conducted himself during the 2020 elections, call it irresponsible, and even criminal, but also recognize that Trump took the big steaming turd in the room that we call our election system and shoved it in our collective faces, whether we like it or not.

The question is whether we as a country will learn from this and use it as an opportunity to vastly improve our election systems and thus the public trust in their results (which is what I want), or we'll suffer through this election cycle with the same system we have now, then suffer through 4 more years of either Trump or Biden, and then bury our heads back in the sand, make no substantive improvements to the election system, and watch as each losing party, every four years, accuses the other of cheating (which is what I sadly predict).

So who's ready for the first of at least two Presidential Debates in less than two weeks (June 27th)?


Top comment had me laughing:

"Can't believe this is relevant again 4 years later. This planet is a prison."  :laughing:

And this one I think I like even better, despite the lack of Weird Al:


@Lisnaholic, I plan to respond to your post once I have a little bit more time.  :)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AMI wouldn't put these things in the same box at all!
"Republicans who move voting centers to more sparsely populated (and Republican-centric) areas." This is used to target specific voters and poor people relying on public transport. In fact, in Georgia I remember reading about a polling station that was relocated by Republicans, from an accessible location to something like 3 miles from the nearest bus route. :(
"...to reduce turnout of the opposition and boost turnout of your respective party." I'm not convinced that there's enough statistical evidence to show that Not Consolidating elections has this effect. That it mildly reduces voter numbers, I'd accept, but (i) the effect may be across the board and (ii) there may be legit admin reasons to have elections more frequently, instead of all bunched up together.

The demographic they target might be different, but the goal, as I stated, I believe to be the same. It's okay that you're not currently convinced that it has this effect, because you seemed to be rather confident in the idea that you knew which party 'cheated' more before. Which of course means there still might be a chance for me to persuade you to my camp of 'I don't know which party "cheats" more'. :)  Don't take it from me, take it from Boston College (https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/bc1/schools/mcas/polisci/pdf/pubs/off-cycle-and-out-of-sync-how-election-timing-influences-political-representation.pdf):

QuoteThe pervasive use of "off-cycle" elections has been shown to matter immensely: the day an election is held has the single greatest impact on the turnout and composition of the electorate (Anzia 2013). Yet the decision to hold on- versus off-cycle elections ultimately rests with political authorities in state government. As Figure 1 indicates, a majority of states have chosen not to consolidate their election calendars, instead opting to mandate or allow off-cycle elections (Anzia 2013).

Another source: Voter Turnout: On-Years v. Off-Years (https://www.noblepredictiveinsights.com/post/voter-turnout-on-years-v-off-years):

QuoteVoter turnout disparity between on- and off-year elections is worrisome, in part, because county and municipal elections tend to have a bigger impact on our everyday lives than national ones. These are the types of elections that decide which streets get repaved, how many police officers are patrolling your community, and when your trash gets collected.

And one more: Off Cycle, Out of Mind: Why School Board Elections Should Be Held With Statewide Elections (https://thefga.org/research/school-board-elections-should-be-held-with-statewide-elections/):

QuoteKEY FINDINGS
Most states hold some or all school board elections off cycle.
On-cycle elections have more than three times as many voters turn out on Election Day as off-cycle elections.
Off-cycle elections are decided by a small portion of the electorate and give special interest groups more power of America's education system.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Lawmakers should boost voter turnout by aligning school board election cycle with major statewide elections.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AM^ So where was the Dem version of "Stop the Steal", the Dem alternative to candidates like Kari Lake, running on campaigns that President Trump  isn't really the President ?

Oh, well that happened a long time ago, in 1861, except it wasn't President Trump, it was President Lincoln, and it resulted in a Civil War.

Sorry, Lisna, you set that one up for me too easily.  :laughing:

To be fair, in recent history, Trump's Stop the Steal campaign doesn't really have a Democrat equivalent, at least in terms of the seriousness and tenacity in which it was pursued, and the cultural/political fallout which it wrought.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AM^ Firstly, I see no reason at all to take Trump in good faith, ever: he cheats on the golf course, cheats on his taxes, cheats on his wife, and lies more often than he tells the truth.

Wait just a minute here, in which court case was it proven he cheats on the golf course?  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AMAs I think we have both agreed, there were various inconsistencies with vote counting, etc, but nothing that has changed overall outcomes in any State. What your "innocent motive" apology for his conduct overlooks is this: he was the President of the US at the time, and because of the weight and power of that office, it was completely inappropriate for him to call Raffensperger and ask him to find more votes. For Trump to be calling him in the first place was a serious breach of protocol: Raffy knew that, which is why he taped the call.

It's not so much an 'apology' for his conduct as it is simply an alternative explanation, which, as you explain, doesn't preclude that it was inappropriate or a breach of protocol. As I mentioned, there's an active criminal case about it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AM^ Firstly, I would contest the assertion in bold. Are you now reading Trump's mind in your search for an "innocent motive" ?!

 :laughing:

Yeah, I deserve that accusation, as that's exactly why I criticized your initial point, and I made the same mistake. No one can read Trump's mind (perhaps not even Trump himself).

What I should say is that I don't know what Trump thought in his mind as he said the words, but as my responses to @DJChameleon showcase, more often than not, his use of the term 'fight' was in non-violent contexts, and rather in the contexts that I listed, and due to that, in addition to how common the word is in political rhetoric, I personally did not view it as a him calling for violence - that's what I meant.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AMI think I've already said that "fight like hell" is capable of two interpretations: metaphorical if you are talking to a roomful of lawyers, literal if you are talking to soldiers ready for battle. At that Jan 6 speech, Trump knew already that his audience were angry, and he had also tried to stop metal-detector scanning for weapons ("I don't effing care that they have weapons.Take the effing mags [magnetometers] away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here").

This quote/story was from Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony to the Jan 6 committee. She was also the one who told the story of Trump reaching for the steering wheel of the vehicle driven by Secret Service after the Jan 6th speech because he wanted to go to the Capitol. The driver himself has refuted this story (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-report-trumps-jan-6-driver-contradicted-bombshell/story?id=108029352), so I don't put much, if any credibility into anything Hutchinson says:

QuoteAccording to the new report, the driver, who is not named, was interviewed by the previous Jan. 6 committee in November 2022 and "testified that he specifically refuted the version of events as recounted by Hutchinson."

The driver said he "did not see him reach [redacted]. [President Trump] never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn't see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all," the report states.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AMToday, Trump is calling the Jan 6 rioters "warriors" - proof enough for me that he saw his audience then as an armed and potentially violent group whom he then directed to the Capital.

I don't know that we can take what he's calling them now, today, as evidence of what he thought of them then before everything happened. He's also since called them 'martyrs' and 'hostages', for example. He distanced himself from them in the immediate aftermath (after likely realizing he overplayed his hand), and is only now referring to them more glowingly because he thinks it's politically advantageous among his base (if he thought of them as his 'warriors' back then, wouldn't he have issued a blanket pardon for them before leaving office instead of leaving them out to dry?)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 14, 2024, 05:25 AM^ I take your point that it's almost a separate issue, but although it's just one Colorado district court judge, it still stands, uncontested as part of the judicial record. As for your question in bold:-
He's already been impeached for insurrection:-

... and with four seperate indictments lined up against him, my guess is that the DOJ felt that they had enough to be going on with for now.

A Republican POTUS being impeached (by a Dem majority house) and then acquitted (by a GOP majority senate) is a political process, not a legal one. This process doesn't carry a very high-bar in terms of standards of truth. I'd offer an alternative guess that the DOJ didn't charge him with insurrection because it would not be a simple or easy case to prove.

(https://i.postimg.cc/htHQc6WT/GQCKTn5-Wc-AAh-Wd-Y.png)

RFK Jr. offers foreign policy views on Ukraine, Israel, vows to halve military spending (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-foreign-policy-views-ukraine-israel-military-spending/)

QuoteKennedy suggested that the U.S. take a page out of China's book. He said the country has emerged as a world superpower by using its budget more effectively, investing in infrastructure and businesses in places like Africa and South America, rather than beefing up its military presence.

"They spent $8 trillion on bridges, roads, airports and schools and hospitals," Kennedy said. "Our forever wars made us enemies across the globe — left us bankrupt at home. China's investments, in contrast, made friends across the globe and brought it influence in every corner of the Earth."

Correct about China.

Good luck going against the U.S. military-industrial-government-mainstream media complex.

The first debate is tomorrow night at 9pm! You should be able to watch it on CNN's Youtube channel if you didn't have cable - it's also available to stream on Hulu.

(https://i.imgflip.com/7uk0w5.jpg)

RFK Jr. to stream his own "real debate" during Trump-Biden debate (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-holding-own-debate-not-invited-to-trump-biden/)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jun 26, 2024, 09:53 PMRFK Jr. to stream his own "real debate" during Trump-Biden debate (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-holding-own-debate-not-invited-to-trump-biden/)

Wait, did I read this right? RFK Jr. is going to livestream the debate between Trump and Biden...and then what, pause the stream while he gives his thoughts on the questions and the answers? This sounds awfully goofy.  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Jun 26, 2024, 10:43 PMWait, did I read this right? RFK Jr. is going to livestream the debate between Trump and Biden...and then what, pause the stream while he gives his thoughts on the questions and the answers? This sounds awfully goofy.  :laughing:

At first, I thought he's going to have a live Q&A session with an audience at the same time as the Biden & Trump debate.

But it might be what you're describing which does seem silly.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 26, 2024, 10:43 PMWait, did I read this right? RFK Jr. is going to livestream the debate between Trump and Biden...and then what, pause the stream while he gives his thoughts on the questions and the answers? This sounds awfully goofy.  :laughing:

No it doesn't sound goofy. It sounds like he has the pulse of the youth. He's IRL streaming the debate similar to like Hasan commenting on the debate but without a live audience just chatters.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 27, 2024, 05:58 PMNo it doesn't sound goofy. It sounds like he has the pulse of the youth. He's IRL streaming the debate similar to like Hasan commenting on the debate but without a live audience just chatters.

That's a good point, and certainly one way to frame it.

I guess in my head, I'm just seeing it much differently than a streamer like Hasan livestreaming it and commenting on it between bites of his ramen. I'm picturing RFK Jr. in a suit and tie, up at some podium with the the debate being projected on the screen behind him - with frequent pauses for him to address the different points (with his vocal issue, the stream will literally need to be paused for him to have enough time to make his points, unlike streamers like Hasan who commentate while it's running live). Also, whereas Hasan would probably be more prone to aim the majority of his criticism at Trump (not to say he doesn't have plenty of criticisms of Biden too), I could see RFK Jr. criticizing and rebutting both candidates just about equally. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out, and who he actually has more criticism for (you'd think it would be Trump, but his party also basically cast him out).

@SGR


Did you watch RFK's version?

If they don't introduce a new candidate during DNC. Trump is winning in November.

ABC News: Biden falters in high-stakes debate, Trump spews falsehoods

Axios: Biden blunders dominate combative debate with Trump

BBC: Biden's incoherent debate performance heightens fears over his age

CBS News: Biden struggles early in presidential debate with hoarse voice

CNN: Biden's poor showing and Trump's repeated falsehoods

Daily Beast: Biden's Re-Election Is Doomed by Disastrous Debate

Drudge Report: Operation: Replace Biden — Debate Catastrophe

HuffPost: Biden Primetime Disaster — Full Dem Panic — Biden Replacement Talk

NBC News: A 'hoarse' Biden stumbles over his words during shaky performance

New York Post: Biden's candidacy in doubt after weak, frozen debate performance against Trump leaves Dems in 'aggressive panic'

New York Times: Biden Struggles as Trump Blusters

Politico: Biden Bombs, Trump Pounces

Washington Post: Biden struggles, Trump deflects questions

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 28, 2024, 05:44 AM@SGR


Did you watch RFK's version?

If they don't introduce a new candidate during DNC. Trump is winning in November.

I did not, I just watched the regular one.

Unless Biden has a complete bounceback from this performance in the next debate (assuming it happens), I'd tend to agree with your assessment. They're both old, but the visual contrast in the splitscreen, with Trump talking and getting through his points with about as much conciseness as you ever see Trump manage with Biden on the other side, appearing semi-frozen, his mouth hanging open, is a stark contrast indeed. Someone said, which I thought was hilarious, that Biden often appeared like a frog eyeing a fly.  :laughing:

I did not know which Trump or which Biden was going to show up at the debate last night. Would we see the energetic and fiery Biden from the State of the Union, or the more dour, and 'low-energy' Biden we see in many of his public appearances? We appeared to get the latter. Would we get the combative and aggressive Trump that is most commonly seen at his rallies or would we get the more restrained and 'low-energy' Trump? We got the latter. Based on reports, Biden's team was preparing for the possibilities of both Trumps.

In an ironic way, and I'm actually surprised by this, the rules that the Biden team dictated that Trump accepted (no audience, mic muting when it's not your turn to talk, etc) actually seemed to help Trump. Without mic muting, we saw in 2020 that Trump was happy to try and steamroll Biden (interrupt him, goad him constantly, interject quips), which just made Trump look like an obnoxious bully and made Biden appear more sympathetic. This debate, he seemed to be more focused than usual on getting his point across quickly without the fluff - and he very rarely appeared to bully Biden (he could've made more references than he did about how he didn't even understand what Biden was saying). Without the crowd there, it probably also helped Trump focus as with the crowd, he might've gone into rally mode and went off on a tangent about sharks, or tried to get quips in at Biden's expense to try and get applause, which he didn't really do.

Biden spent 7 days with 16 debate prep aides at Camp David, and I honestly think he was overprepared. He seemed to try to remember stats and figures from his notes and preparations and repeat them ("We have a thousand trillionaires....excuse me, billionaires in America"), but he repeatedly flubbed them and instead of moving on and rolling with what he said (which is what Trump often does when he makes mistakes), he started stuttering to correct himself so that what he said was true. It just looked bad optically. Whichever one of Biden's aides thought that rehearsing with Biden to repeat stats and figures was a good idea should be fired. The guy wasn't good at doing that four years ago, why would you think he'd be good at doing it now? They should've played to Biden's strengths in regards to Trump, and that would be appearing more empathetic. He should've had more lines, from the Bill Clinton school of debating, about 'feeling the pain of everyday working Americans'.

For Trump, who I think had an above average performance overall, he is still absolutely awful at rebutting the media hoaxes that Biden brought up against him. He did okay rebutting the "suckers and losers" story, but Biden decided to bring up the "very fine people on both sides hoax" again, and Trump was just terrible at rebutting that. He should have kept it simple and made reference to the fact that Snopes recently marked the story as false on their website (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/) if he wanted credibility with independents/liberals, otherwise, to the average viewer, it sounds like a "he said/she said" situation.

I'm fairly politically in tune (I consume a lot of politics), but Biden seemed worse than I expected in terms of his voice and energy. It wasn't just the fact that we didn't get the fiery "State of the Union" Biden, but his voice seemed really hoarse. It sounded like the guy was getting over a cold. If that's the case, talk about awful timing because it just made him look older.

While some on the right were decrying and warning that the moderators at CNN (Jake Tapper and Dana Bash) would be incredibly biased in the way they handled the debate, I don't think that was the case at all. I'd like to give them credit because I think they were, for the most part, very fair and solid.

One other thing that really surprised me was the way the political analysts on CNN were talking right after in their post debate analysis. They're a left leaning media company, but these analysts were putting Biden through the wringer. One said that the party has lied to us about Biden's physical and mental state, and another even raised the possibility of replacing Biden on the ticket. If the Dems were to do that, who knows how it would go down - it would probably be pretty messy. As far as I know, the delegates/superdelegates that are already pledged to Biden remain that way...unless perhaps he resigned. I'm not sure how that would work honestly, but I doubt they're actually thinking about replacing him - it just seems too late to do that. 

Yeah Biden would have to willingly give up the delegates and I don't think he will.

He was getting over a cold so that's why he was hoarse in the beginning. Whoever decided not to drug him up so that he was more alert like during the state of the union is the one that dropped the ball.

Trump's performance wasn't above average to me. All he did the whole time was lie and not answer questions. Only like once or twice did the moderators catch it and press him to answer the question and he still skirted around it.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 28, 2024, 06:30 PMYeah Biden would have to willingly give up the delegates and I don't think he will.

He was getting over a cold so that's why he was hoarse in the beginning. Whoever decided not to drug him up so that he was more alert like during the state of the union is the one that dropped the ball.

Trump's performance wasn't above average to me. All he did the whole time was lie and not answer questions. Only like once or twice did the moderators catch it and press him to answer the question and he still skirted around it.

Yeah, I'd agree with you. I don't see Biden willingly giving up the delegates either. But damn, awful fucking timing for a cold.

Trump, from what I remember, answered most of the questions except for the one about child care. He completely skirted that one. One thing he did do frequently though was use his 2 minute time after being asked a question to respond to what Biden previously said about the previous topic of debate, before then, giving a brief answer to the current question. Given the format of the debate, it seemed like a pretty effective strategy to me. In terms of lying, they both lied all night long, which is pretty standard fare in these debates. And unfortunately, I don't think these debates typically influence voter decisions that much, but for the influence they do have, it's more about optics and sound bites, rather than adherence to facts.

Trump could've done his usual thing of being petty and vindictive towards Biden, but he didn't do that. He remained uncharacteristically calm and poised and kept his tangential ramblings to mostly a minimum. That's why I found his performance to be above average (for his own standards, that is). If you would've told me before the debate that one of the candidates would say: "Let's not act like children", I would not have bet it would be Trump that said it:

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jun 28, 2024, 09:47 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/DZ3Bp4hC/P.png)

Biden says he doesn't debate as well as he used to but knows "how to tell the truth" (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-addresses-lackluster-debate-performance-age-debate-skills/)

So that appears to be the best recourse message that the Democrats have after that mess of a debate. 'Biden didn't debate well, but he told the truth.' Which isn't true, in the sense that he didn't lie (maybe he lied less than Trump, not sure), but it's worth a shot I guess.  :laughing:

You wanna see something funny? Listen to Joe Scarborough explain how this version of Biden we have now is the best version of Biden there's ever been. This was from only three months ago. :laughing:


If a Democrat largely paid attention to clowns like this guy, I'd understand why some of them were so shocked after watching the debate.

For all the thrashing Biden is getting for his debate performance, he did have some good moments. When he went after Trump for having sex with a porn star (Stormy Daniels) while his wife (Melania) was pregnant - and then he said the most old-timey thing I heard the whole debate: "You have the morals of an alley cat!"  :laughing:  :laughing:


Body language is key. Notice how Trump's head shakes in disagreement when he mentions having sex with the porn star (I'm sure he was prepared for that), but then notice how his head nods in a visual sign of agreement (yes) when he mentions he did it when Melania was pregnant. Trump then denies having sex with a porn star but doesn't address the Melania thing. My guess is when Biden said that about how Melania was pregnant at the time, Trump felt guilty and remorseful (which he obviously wouldn't verbalize in a debate). That's the body language reading I got, at least.

Your long post is a good appraisal of how last night's debate went, SGR, and there's little doubt that Biden was a fumbling disappointment. One big mistake of his was trying to muster statistics that he couldn't present in a commanding way: I got really bored with his various mumbled numbers. Conversely, with Trump, I got really sick of his glib, evidence-free superlatives about his own time in office, "The best this, the greatest that, etc."

Quote from: SGR on Jun 28, 2024, 10:58 PMSo that appears to be the best recourse message that the Democrats have after that mess of a debate. 'Biden didn't debate well, but he told the truth.' Which isn't true, in the sense that he didn't lie (maybe he lied less than Trump, not sure), but it's worth a shot I guess.  :laughing:

As far I can tell, it was business as usual regarding the honesty of the candidates: Trump flat-out lying over and over again, Biden ocassionally fudging figures and deliberately using quotes out of context. ( Again, the Charlottesville one, which you have educated me about SGR, ;) )

Here's a fact-check assessment of the debate:-  https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-election-debate-trump-biden-577507522762aa10f6ee5be3a0ced2bb

tldr ? This is their liars' list: Trump: 11 lies, Biden: 5.

QuoteYou wanna see something funny? Listen to Joe Scarborough explain how this version of Biden we have now is the best version of Biden there's ever been. This was from only three months ago. :laughing:

If a Democrat largely paid attention to clowns like this guy, I'd understand why some of them were so shocked after watching the debate.

Joe Scarborough spoils his own show by talking too much, incl talking over long-suffering co-presenter, Mika. It's a really dated, sexist performance imo. Nonetheless, as used to be said, "a week is a long time in politics" so perhaps it's unfair to ridicule an opinion from 3 months back - especially as Biden seems to have immediately bounced back from his ghastly debate performance. Here are (admittedly edited) highlights of the fiery, confident Joe, so sadly missing from the Presidential debate:-

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 29, 2024, 01:37 AMYour long post is a good appraisal of how last night's debate went, SGR, and there's little doubt that Biden was a fumbling disappointment. One big mistake of his was trying to muster statistics that he couldn't present in a commanding way: I got really bored with his various mumbled numbers. Conversely, with Trump, I got really sick of his glib, evidence-free superlatives about his own time in office, "The best this, the greatest that, etc."

As far I can tell, it was business as usual regarding the honesty of the candidates: Trump flat-out lying over and over again, Biden ocassionally fudging figures and deliberately using quotes out of context. ( Again, the Charlottesville one, which you have educated me about SGR, ;) )

Here's a fact-check assessment of the debate:-  https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-election-debate-trump-biden-577507522762aa10f6ee5be3a0ced2bb

tldr ? This is their liars' list: Trump: 11 lies, Biden: 5.

Joe Scarborough spoils his own show by talking too much, incl talking over long-suffering co-presenter, Mika. It's a really dated, sexist performance imo. Nonetheless, as used to be said, "a week is a long time in politics" so perhaps it's unfair to ridicule an opinion from 3 months back - especially as Biden seems to have immediately bounced back from his ghastly debate performance. Here are (admittedly edited) highlights of the fiery, confident Joe, so sadly missing from the Presidential debate:-

Thanks Lisna!

Suprisingly, there's very little here I'd disagree with you on.  :)

Trump's whole 'greatest this, best that' schtick is sort of on brand with him. Probably 90% of the time, whatever he is talking about is not the 'greatest this' or the 'best that', but he's a salesman in nature.

In terms of lies, yeah, we can agree that both candidates lied. I haven't gone through the transcript or anything myself yet to fact check everything (and I won't, I don't care that much lol), but I'm willing to bet Trump and Biden both lied more times than those AP figures. Here's one article from the Federalist that lists 20 lies Biden told for example (ignore #19, because Biden corrected himself immediately afterwards, in a quote I've already included earlier in this thread - counting this one as a lie is a complete cheap shot):

Here Are The 20 Biggest Whoppers Biden Told During His Debate With Trump (https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/28/here-are-the-20-biggest-whoppers-biden-told-during-his-debate-with-trump/)

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the real number of Trump lies is twice as much or even greater.

Agreed that a week is a long time in politics, by election time, perhaps this will be forgotten, especially if Biden has a much better debate performance next time (which is totally possible) but Biden has had many instances like this on less big of a stage, and longer ago than 3 months, so for Joe Scarborough to say something like 'this is the best version of Biden' we've ever had is completely dishonest. He himself must know it's not true. And just knowing it's possible that your president will have days like this (what we saw at the debate) is very, very concerning. It's like the USSR telling its citizens via Pravda that Brezhnev in his later years was perfectly mentally capable. It's just not true. And to be fair, if anyone claimed the version of Trump we have now is the 'best version of Trump' we've ever had mentally and physically, that would be just as untrue. They're both old, and with age comes inevitable decline. Truly, at their ages, they should both be disqualified from being president, but here we are.

To your point from his rally today, I did catch some of that, and I did think it was awfully strange the complete contrast between his rally presence and his debate presence - moreso than could be explained simply by him reading from a teleprompter at the rally. I don't know what kind of medication Joe is on these days, I won't stoop to say they're pumping him with anything crazy, but he's certainly taking some things and surely Trump is too. At their age, it's very possible Biden just had an 'off-night' last night, and it could be due to something as simple as him having a bad night of sleep.

Here we go folks!

Schmoyoho and Weird Al have officially launched the first official remix of the latest presidential debate. Props to these guys - no clue how they get it out so quick. Mind boggling really.


Look forward to the Remix Bros take on it next week.

Trump AND Biden lies fact checked (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-presidential-debate-2024-fact-check/)

Here is some fact checking in video form if you don't wanna read through the link.


Also Trump saying "let's not act like children" after acting like a child is just eye roll worthy.

It screams "I know you are but what am I?"


Kyle Clark should've been the moderator. He did extremely well during the Colorado one that happened a month ago.

^ :laughing: Yes, that Kyle Clark does a great job of putting the candidates on the spot with the kind of questions we would really like straight answers to.

An excellent point raised at the end of your fact-checking video clip is this: the pre-agreed policy that the debate moderators would not call out falsehoods led to a bunch of lies being uncontested and broadcast to 51 million viewers. As the journalist says, "The American people deserve to know when a presidential candidate is spreading falsehoods." I couldn't agree more, and wonder if, at the end of the debates, there should be a quick fact-check run down, like we've be doing here: "Ladies and gentlemen, you have just been lied to 16 times during this program..." :laughing:
 

Quote from: SGR on Jun 29, 2024, 04:35 AMThanks Lisna!

Suprisingly, there's very little here I'd disagree with you on.  :)

^ Thanks to you too, SGR: I see it as a good sign when we can come to an agreement. There's so much talk about the "far-right media bubble" and the "fake news" of the channels I usually watch, that it's reassuring that, sifting through all the bias, it's still possible to agree on some facts.

QuoteTrump's whole 'greatest this, best that' schtick is sort of on brand with him. Probably 90% of the time, whatever he is talking about is not the 'greatest this' or the 'best that', but he's a salesman in nature.

^ TBH my reaction to this comment was (i) does anyone want their country to be run by someone with a salesman mentality? (ii) you seem to have a much more forgiving, greater tolerence when it comes to lies-per-minute from Trump than I do. Using the AP figures I posted, and assuming Trump talked for half or the debate time, that would work out to a lie every four minutes. :( 

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 28, 2024, 05:44 AM@SGR


Did you watch RFK's version?

If they don't introduce a new candidate during DNC. Trump is winning in November.

RFK should have absolutely been at the debate imo. I don't even support him but there's no justification in keeping him off the stage when both of the main candidates are this weak.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 29, 2024, 05:56 PM^ Thanks to you too, SGR: I see it as a good sign when we can come to an agreement. There's so much talk about the "far-right media bubble" and the "fake news" of the channels I usually watch, that it's reassuring that, sifting through all the bias, it's still possible to agree on some facts.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 29, 2024, 05:56 PM^ TBH my reaction to this comment was (i) does anyone want their country to be run by someone with a salesman mentality? (ii) you seem to have a much more forgiving, greater tolerence when it comes to lies-per-minute from Trump than I do. Using the AP figures I posted, and assuming Trump talked for half or the debate time, that would work out to a lie every four minutes. :( 

The underlined is a thought-provoking question. I think it really depends on the big issues the president in question is tackling. There are certain issues that we might find benefit in having a president with a salesman mentality (international trade agreements, military defense agreements, certain foreign policy) and certain big issues that we'd find not benefit, but detriment in having a president with a salesman mentality (like COVID and the pandemic). It's sort of similar to a military president (one who has served in the military) and a career politician president would each have pros and cons depending on the issues you're tackling.

I didn't double check your math, but if Trump only lied once every four minutes of speaking time, I'd be greatly surprised.  :laughing: I'd expect the number to be much bigger.

But yeah, I suppose you could call it a 'tolerance', but I'd characterize it more as an 'understanding'. Not just with Trump, but also with Biden. These guys are politicians, and they will lie. Sometimes, not even purposely. What I mean is, any time Trump and Biden start talking numbers, there will probably be a 'lie', even if it wasn't intentional.

Biden just had an optics disaster at the debate. The Democrats, assuming they're going to stick with Biden (and I think they will), need to find some kind of message to counteract or blunt the effect of that optics mess. So saying "Biden had an awful debate, but Trump lied more" is a valid way to play it, but I just doubt it's going to be very persuasive to anyone who was on the fence about who to vote for - I have massive doubts there are any swing-voters out there who upon hearing that message will have a moment of revelation and say: "Wait, really? Trump lies more than Biden?!"  :laughing:

I would note though, if there was one new big lie by either candidate, that might make a difference, but looking through the AP link, the lies listed are essentially the same (or in the same ballpark of lies) they've both told many times over in the past.

This kinda goes back to a previous discussion you and I had which essentially boiled down to: do voters vote with their hearts or with their minds? I leaned towards heart, and you seemed to lean towards mind. I think people will largely vote on how a candidate makes them feel. Here's an interesting article on the subject (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2016/do-people-vote-with-their-hearts-or-their-minds/):

QuoteBringing this back to elections, results like ours — especially when they are combined with other research on the importance of the cultural underpinnings of preference — strongly suggest that the usual evaluative benefits of a side-by-side comparison virtually disappear when the options themselves invoke strong emotions. Wilson and I called this "value neglect." The emotional signals sent out by the alternatives themselves are so powerful that we neglect to consider the objective information that should help us to distinguish the pros and cons of the options in the first place.

This isn't good news from the standpoint of voters who claim they are voting for one candidate over another because of where each candidate stands on the issues. In reality, these voters are probably making their selection based in large part on the emotional connections they forge with the candidates themselves.

In other words, voters prefer Donald Trump — or Hillary Clinton, for that matter — because of the emotional connection they (or the parties they represent) have forged with the electorate. So, in a democracy where people are almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, it's hardly surprising that people don't take the time to look more closely at the issues. Put another way, when it comes to political ice cream flavours, people are either partial to Donald or Hillary; how much or — in Trump's case — how little they actually receive in their proverbial cup or cone barely registers. The best evidence for this is that, in spite of the key differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (not to mention between countless other candidates and initiatives that can be found further down the ballot), they find themselves uncomfortably close to one another in terms of the expected popular vote, where Clinton right now leads Trump by a flimsy 5-point margin.

So my argument essentially is that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, know that their optics and how they make the voters feel is more important to winning votes than any running fact-check/lie count between the candidates, and often times, even more important than specific policy differences between the candidates. It's why liberal media was ablaze after the debate, and even the New York Times has formally called on Biden to step down (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html). It's also why Trump, with the aforementioned 'salesman schtick' goes out and says he had 'the greatest economy in history', rather than 'the greatest economy since Clinton'. It's all about how it makes the voters feel.

Quote from: Jwb on Jun 29, 2024, 07:01 PMRFK should have absolutely been at the debate imo. I don't even support him but there's no justification in keeping him off the stage when both of the main candidates are this weak.

the justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 29, 2024, 09:30 PMthe justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

I'm pretty sure the polling threshold for independents to do general debates used to be much lower. Fact check me on it, but I'm pretty sure they raised it after Ross Perot in 92. It's the Democrats and Republicans colluding to ice out their competition.

And another.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 29, 2024, 09:30 PMthe justification is that he didn't get enough support to be up there

what were the specific criteria? He's polled well enough to at least give him a shot.   And he is doing so mainly as a reflection of how unsatisfied people are with the options on offer. So that's more of a reason to throw him in there. If not to give him an actual shot at winning, then at least use his presence to punish the existing candidates for putting us through another round of this cursed match up.

Quote from: Jwb on Jun 30, 2024, 04:13 AMwhat were the specific criteria? He's polled well enough to at least give him a shot.   And he is doing so mainly as a reflection of how unsatisfied people are with the options on offer. So that's more of a reason to throw him in there. If not to give him an actual shot at winning, then at least use his presence to punish the existing candidates for putting us through another round of this cursed match up.

He's not polling well enough though.

This is what I found.

QuoteUnder the 2024 Criteria, to receive an invitation to debate, a candidate must: (i) be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (ii) appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College; (iii) have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. The CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 29, 2024, 09:44 PMI'm pretty sure the polling threshold for independents to do general debates used to be much lower. Fact check me on it, but I'm pretty sure they raised it after Ross Perot in 92. It's the Democrats and Republicans colluding to ice out their competition.

Yeah Ross Perot only had 7 percent and attended all three debates. After him they rose the minimum to 15 percent.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 30, 2024, 05:39 AMYeah Ross Perot only had 7 percent and attended all three debates. After him they rose the minimum to 15 percent.

Sounds right. If RFK had qualified, they'd have raised it to 20% or 25% next year.

The rally he had the next day after the debate.

Quote from: SGR on Jun 29, 2024, 09:06 PMThe underlined is a thought-provoking question. I think it really depends on the big issues the president in question is tackling. There are certain issues that we might find benefit in having a president with a salesman mentality (international trade agreements, military defense agreements, certain foreign policy) and certain big issues that we'd find not benefit, but detriment in having a president with a salesman mentality (like COVID and the pandemic). It's sort of similar to a military president (one who has served in the military) and a career politician president would each have pros and cons depending on the issues you're tackling.

Yes, quite right that any President brings to the job character traits from previous jobs - but most of them don't just stay like that. A US President who is ex -military doesn't then run the country like a military junta. With Trump, there are two probs: (i) as you yourself said he can't shug off his salesman attitude and (ii) as Trump University and other scams have proven, he's more conman than salesman. I don't think many of the issues facing the US today are best resolved by having a conman choose the option that will work best for him (and eff the consequences to the people without power). Even negotiating on the international stage, where you might think a salesman's approach would strike a tough bargain, hasn't played out well for Trump: the Mexicans didn't pay for the wall, NATO survived his bullying about payments, etc. Trump's legacy has been to denegrate the standing of the US, while he profited from deals with shady Saudi leaders and blew through all the "emoluments" safeguards that prevented other presidents from blatantly declaring "President for sale here."

QuoteI didn't double check your math, but if Trump only lied once every four minutes of speaking time, I'd be greatly surprised.  :laughing: I'd expect the number to be much bigger.

^ :laughing: Yes, I just read another fact-checker who (instead of 11 lies), declared that Trump lied 30 times in the debate. If accurate, it's a pretty sad reflection that he's considered the winner. It's a triumph of style over content. :(

QuoteBut yeah, I suppose you could call it a 'tolerance', but I'd characterize it more as an 'understanding'. Not just with Trump, but also with Biden. These guys are politicians, and they will lie. Sometimes, not even purposely. What I mean is, any time Trump and Biden start talking numbers, there will probably be a 'lie', even if it wasn't intentional.

Biden just had an optics disaster at the debate. The Democrats, assuming they're going to stick with Biden (and I think they will), need to find some kind of message to counteract or blunt the effect of that optics mess. So saying "Biden had an awful debate, but Trump lied more" is a valid way to play it, but I just doubt it's going to be very persuasive to anyone who was on the fence about who to vote for - I have massive doubts there are any swing-voters out there who upon hearing that message will have a moment of revelation and say: "Wait, really? Trump lies more than Biden?!"  :laughing:

I would note though, if there was one new big lie by either candidate, that might make a difference, but looking through the AP link, the lies listed are essentially the same (or in the same ballpark of lies) they've both told many times over in the past.

This kinda goes back to a previous discussion you and I had which essentially boiled down to: do voters vote with their hearts or with their minds? I leaned towards heart, and you seemed to lean towards mind. I think people will largely vote on how a candidate makes them feel. Here's an interesting article on the subject (https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2016/do-people-vote-with-their-hearts-or-their-minds/):

So my argument essentially is that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, know that their optics and how they make the voters feel is more important to winning votes than any running fact-check/lie count between the candidates, and often times, even more important than specific policy differences between the candidates. It's why liberal media was ablaze after the debate, and even the New York Times has formally called on Biden to step down (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/opinion/biden-election-debate-trump.html). It's also why Trump, with the aforementioned 'salesman schtick' goes out and says he had 'the greatest economy in history', rather than 'the greatest economy since Clinton'. It's all about how it makes the voters feel.

^ You make some good points about the way the Dems can or should move on from the debate fiasco.

As you say, we've talked before about voters - are they governed by their hearts or heads? I suppose the reality is that at this stage, Biden are Trump are new to nobody: they've both been in the public eye for so long that they carry a whole bunch of associated baggage with them. Everyone has an opinion of them based on memories of past speeches, actions, rumours both true and false, video clips etc. It is as all the pundits declare: most of America is already firmly in one camp or the other.
To influence that small percentage of undecided voters, the optics are important, as you say. Luckily for the Dems, though, there isn't a very solid correlation between winning a Presidential debate and winning the election. So I think this talk of ditching Biden will blow over, (especially as there are real probs about changing a candidate at this stage, with no time, afaik, to go back and redo all the Dem Primaries.)

If I was Joe Biden, I think I'd get Gavin Newsom to be my running mate, then I could campaign on the slogan, "If I die in the Oval Office, Gavin will take over and do a decent job."
(*apologies to Kamala Harris*)

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 30, 2024, 05:38 AMHe's not polling well enough though.

This is what I found.

Nobody is going to be able to poll that well while being iced out by the two parties. So that's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. Biden would probably have less than that amount of support at this point if he didn't have entire weight of the democratic party. And like SGR said, I think they raised the criteria. 15% as a threshold sounds higher than I remember, iirc

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 30, 2024, 04:59 PMYes, quite right that any President brings to the job character traits from previous jobs - but most of them don't just stay like that. A US President who is ex -military doesn't then run the country like a military junta.

That's not really what I meant to convey. Not that a former general would run the country like a military junta and a salesman (like Trump) would run the country like a marketeer or anything, just that those different backgrounds would provide strengths and weaknesses as candidates depending on the country's situation and what problems it's primarily trying to solve (a former general might, for example, be a better president than a career politician or a salesman during wartime).

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 30, 2024, 04:59 PMWith Trump, there are two probs: (i) as you yourself said he can't shug off his salesman attitude and (ii) as Trump University and other scams have proven, he's more conman than salesman. I don't think many of the issues facing the US today are best resolved by having a conman choose the option that will work best for him (and eff the consequences to the people without power). Even negotiating on the international stage, where you might think a salesman's approach would strike a tough bargain, hasn't played out well for Trump: the Mexicans didn't pay for the wall, NATO survived his bullying about payments, etc. Trump's legacy has been to denegrate the standing of the US, while he profited from deals with shady Saudi leaders and blew through all the "emoluments" safeguards that prevented other presidents from blatantly declaring "President for sale here."

I won't argue with any of that. Ultimately, it's going to come down to US voters deciding which president they want. Trump is one of the most beatable candidates there's ever been, he's widely disliked for a number of reasons. But unfortunately for US voters, the only other real choice is an 81 year old who, based on his debate performance, looks like he might need to be in hospice care soon. For the average Democrat or Independent who isn't really tuned in to politics, doesn't pay close attention, etc. you'd have to think they were experiencing a mixture of shock and anger watching the debate. Republicans have been labeling Biden as demented, senile, etc since 2020. Democrats though, have up until now, largely downplayed, minimized, or outright denied these claims ("President Biden has always had a stutter..."). Independents and Democrats on debate night had to realize that the Republicans may have been closer to the truth than the Democrats were. And if we're being honest, it's not like the Democrats/White House insiders didn't know how bad Biden's gotten in terms of his physical and mental health. The Biden that we saw on that debate stage is something very familiar to them. If they were honest about that with the voters, they could've decided to have a real open primary to decide on a successor candidate to run against Trump - but they didn't, and now they're in a mess because of it that they're going to need to find a way to clean up. Even if Biden has some good public performances, people are going to be keyed in now watching for any 'senior moments' Biden has, and they'll think back to that debate performance. The guy is 81 unfortunately, he's not going to get better if you know what I mean, especially with a job as physically and mentally taxing as being POTUS.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 30, 2024, 04:59 PM^ :laughing: Yes, I just read another fact-checker who (instead of 11 lies), declared that Trump lied 30 times in the debate. If accurate, it's a pretty sad reflection that he's considered the winner. It's a triumph of style over content. :(

Yeah, that number sounds more accurate.  :laughing: If you told me Trump lied 11 times in his most recent public appearance, I'd have assumed it must have been a brief 15-minute press conference.  :laughing: But yeah, unfortunately the presidency is a kind of popularity contest, and optics are very important for that. For example, it hasn't been since the late 70s that we've had a president shorter than 6 feet in height.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 30, 2024, 04:59 PM^ You make some good points about the way the Dems can or should move on from the debate fiasco.

As you say, we've talked before about voters - are they governed by their hearts or heads? I suppose the reality is that at this stage, Biden are Trump are new to nobody: they've both been in the public eye for so long that they carry a whole bunch of associated baggage with them. Everyone has an opinion of them based on memories of past speeches, actions, rumours both true and false, video clips etc. It is as all the pundits declare: most of America is already firmly in one camp or the other.
To influence that small percentage of undecided voters, the optics are important, as you say. Luckily for the Dems, though, there isn't a very solid correlation between winning a Presidential debate and winning the election. So I think this talk of ditching Biden will blow over, (especially as there are real probs about changing a candidate at this stage, with no time, afaik, to go back and redo all the Dem Primaries.)

Yup, I don't think there is a correlation between winning debates and winning elections. Trump, most people agree, lost most of his debates to Hillary and went on to win. Obama lost his first 2012 debate to Romney and went on to win. But we might be in uncharted territory a little bit. It isn't just that Biden 'lost the debate', but rather that the gravity of his ailing physical and mental state was exposed to over 50 million Americans. It's not like Obama, who just had a bad debate performance, this was an 'emperor has no clothes' moment (https://www.axios.com/2024/06/30/top-aides-shielded-biden-white-house-debate), which I think is unprecedented in Presidential Debates. And as I've said, people know that at Biden's age, he's not going to get better...he's only going to get worse. That's why Democrats are so panicked. At first, I didn't think the Democrats would replace him. But my god, the backlash and outrage has been so massive (https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-post-debate-poll-whopping-72-of-americans-dont-think-biden-has-the-mental-and-cognitive-health-to-be-president/), they might actually do it.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jun 30, 2024, 04:59 PMIf I was Joe Biden, I think I'd get Gavin Newsom to be my running mate, then I could campaign on the slogan, "If I die in the Oval Office, Gavin will take over and do a decent job."
(*apologies to Kamala Harris*)

I don't see that one playing out well. Besides the fact that I doubt swapping Kamala with Gavin would provide any real boost for Biden, the reason Kamala was chosen to be VP, if we're being honest, was for optics. The Democrats, the party that celebrates diversity, needed something to counterbalance the fact that they were running a doddering, old-as-dirt white guy as their candidate. Kamala being a black woman fit the bill. I don't know how Democrats could sell replacing the first black female VP, who's next in line to the presidency, with another white dude. Again, another way Democrats have kinda shot themselves in the foot. It would be perfect if Kamala was charismatic and well liked, but unfortunately, her approval rating is even worse than Biden. And Biden, despite his advanced age, is still somehow more charismatic and disarming than the 59 year old Kamala Harris.

Kamala is already pissed that her name isn't the the mix for people to potentially replace the old man. Imagine how she would take being ousted from the ticket entirely? That would be hilarious lol.

I don't think Newsom has any intention of tying himself to this failing campaign either. He's certainly willing to provide the moral support of lecturing us all about how much we owe Biden our unwavering support after "all that he's done for us" though.  He says you don't turn on your candidate after one bad performance.

But it wasn't one bad performance. It's a consistent issue with him that has been one of the most used lines of attack against him, going back to 2020. He had his viral old man moments during the Dem primary debates back then too. Remember the fuckin record player speech?

It's been the elephant in the room for the last 4 years, and going into this debate it was even openly expressed by pundits that all Biden really had to do in this debate was show up and look alive. And that was before the debate. So the problem is that it's a persistent issue  that only seems to get worse and that naturally we would expect to continue to do so.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 01, 2024, 02:17 AMKamala is already pissed that her name isn't the the mix for people to potentially replace the old man. Imagine how she would take being ousted from the ticket entirely? That would be hilarious lol.

I don't think Newsom has any intention of tying himself to this failing campaign either. He's certainly willing to provide the moral support of lecturing us all about how much we owe Biden our unwavering support after "all that he's done for us" though.  He says you don't turn on your candidate after one bad performance.

But it wasn't one bad performance. It's a consistent issue with him that has been one of the most used lines of attack against him, going back to 2020. He had his viral old man moments during the Dem primary debates back then too. Remember the fuckin record player speech?

It's been the elephant in the room for the last 4 years, and going into this debate it was even openly expressed by pundits that all Biden really had to do in this debate was show up and look alive. And that was before the debate. So the problem is that it's a persistent issue  that only seems to get worse and that naturally we would expect to continue to do so.

Yup, totally agreed it has been a consistent issue for years now.

Democrats have largely ignored, downplayed, or denied it - which has now come to bite them in the ass. One thing I find interesting, in recent times, it seems like Republicans and Democrats are in the same theater, but they're always watching completely different movies. Whether it's about COVID, Russia/Ukraine, Israel, the border, Donald Trump's criminal charges, or Biden's health, if you ask a Republican and a Democrat about these things, you'll get two very different answers. Regarding Biden's health though, this debate felt like a merging of our collective alternate realities into one reality that we now all see and agree on.

Did you see how Jill talked to him after the debate? It seemed awfully patronizing and infantilizing to me. This man is your husband and the President of the United States. You shouldn't be talking to him like he earned an extra scoop of ice cream. It's sad, truly.

Man, I really wish @Rubber Soul was around to give me some feedback on this. I'm a fan of history, particularly US history, but there's no doubt I have plenty of blind spots.

I was wondering what the precedents were for a party being deceitful and hiding the health of the President, while the president continued to carry out his term (so no, James Garfield being bedridden after the assassination attempt doesn't count for me - Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison died so quickly after their ailment set in that I wouldn't count them, even if their party did downplay their health issues for a brief time). The immediate examples that popped up in my mind were mostly Democrats:

• Woodrow Wilson - had a stroke, which wasn't conveyed to the public - he was bedridden, and his wife Edith Wilson basically ran the country for a year or so in his second term; in some ways, you could consider her the first woman president
• FDR - he had polio so he needed to utilize a wheelchair - this didn't affect him mentally, but they didn't want the bad optics of a President in a wheelchair
• Biden

I can only think of one Republican offhand - Ronald Reagan - though I was born in '94 so I didn't get to witness this firsthand, but many believed he had alzheimer's during his second term, and it negatively affected his cognitive abilities.

Am I missing anyone?

Wasn't Reagan's mind turning to mush by the end of his reign?

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 01, 2024, 05:31 AMWasn't Reagan's mind turning to mush by the end of his reign?

Yes, I mentioned him. He was, from my understanding, the US version of Brezhnev. Those are the stories I've heard, but I haven't seen like, y'know, clips of him seeming mentally gone. Maybe they do exist and I just haven't seen them. Maybe they don't exist and Republicans were just good at covering it up and medicating him.

It's Over

Biden's media bloodbath: How the liberal media finally knifed the ailing president after shielding him for four years (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13585199/biden-liberal-media-criticism-election-2024-debate.html)

ANOTHER elected Democrat turns on Biden saying he's 'OK' with Trump winning (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13593903/democrat-jared-golden-turns-biden-trump-win.html)

Psy-Fi's aforementioned media bloodbath continues. I've got to wonder, are there warring factions within the Democrat party right now about what to do, because that's what it seems like. Conventional wisdom would say that replacing Biden on the ticket at this point would doom the Democrats chances...but maybe some Democrats believe it's so bad now that their chances sticking with Biden are even worse.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 02, 2024, 11:13 PMANOTHER elected Democrat turns on Biden saying he's 'OK' with Trump winning (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13593903/democrat-jared-golden-turns-biden-trump-win.html)

Psy-Fi's aforementioned media bloodbath continues. I've got to wonder, are there warring factions within the Democrat party right now about what to do, because that's what it seems like. Conventional wisdom would say that replacing Biden on the ticket at this point would doom the Democrats chances...but maybe some Democrats believe it's so bad now that their chances sticking with Biden are even worse.

Well this much is clear: a good number of periodicals have appeared in high profile papers calling for him to resign, but Biden's inner circle so far shows no signs that the president is going to do so, and are ultimately willing to  back him.

In all reality, it's Bidens choice. It's a high risk play in general to replace him, but even so if there's any hope of it going smoothly at this point it is going to require Biden stepping down voluntarily and then cooperating with the campaign of his replacement. They could wheel him out as the sympathetic elderly mascot rather than the nominee.

One thing is clear though, if they opt not to replace him, all of this internal panic the Dems have now broadcasted about his prospects or even fitness to serve certainly isn't going to make it any easier for him to win. If they are going to stick with Biden they really should be keeping their mouths shut. Only time will tell.

Judge in Trump's hush money trial delays sentencing following Supreme Court immunity ruling (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-trumps-hush-money-trial-delays-sentencing-supreme-court-immunity-rcna160028)

Biden considering dropping out

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/biden-withdraw-election-debate.html?smid=url-share

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 03, 2024, 07:43 PMBiden considering dropping out

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/03/us/politics/biden-withdraw-election-debate.html?smid=url-share

Well shit, this didn't age very well, did it?  :laughing:

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 03, 2024, 02:34 AMWell this much is clear: a good number of periodicals have appeared in high profile papers calling for him to resign, but Biden's inner circle so far shows no signs that the president is going to do so, and are ultimately willing to  back him.

In all reality, it's Bidens choice. It's a high risk play in general to replace him, but even so if there's any hope of it going smoothly at this point it is going to require Biden stepping down voluntarily and then cooperating with the campaign of his replacement. They could wheel him out as the sympathetic elderly mascot rather than the nominee.

One thing is clear though, if they opt not to replace him, all of this internal panic the Dems have now broadcasted about his prospects or even fitness to serve certainly isn't going to make it any easier for him to win. If they are going to stick with Biden they really should be keeping their mouths shut. Only time will tell.

If he stays in the race, he'll need to have a great debate performance against Trump. And more than that, he's going to need to go out and do town halls - anything unscripted to prove he's still capable of thinking on his feet.

^ Yeah, and that's an uphill climb, trying to disprove what people are saying about you.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 03, 2024, 09:54 PMWell shit, this didn't age very well, did it? :laughing:

^ :laughing: Now why didn't that Joe Biden turn up on debate night ?!?

Biden and the Dems have a real dilemma on their hands, but here on SCD we thrashed it all out some time ago in this thread, didn't we :-

for god's sake can we please primary biden: https://scd.community/index.php?topic=254.0

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 04, 2024, 01:44 AM^ Yeah, and that's an uphill climb, trying to disprove what people are saying about you.

Yes, once an impression has been set upon the public, it's extremely difficult to shake off that impression.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 04, 2024, 01:44 AM^ :laughing: Now why didn't that Joe Biden turn up on debate night ?!?

Probably because that Joe Biden took 5 edited jump-cuts in a 14 second clip to make.  :laughing:

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 04, 2024, 01:44 AMBiden and the Dems have a real dilemma on their hands, but here on SCD we thrashed it all out some time ago in this thread, didn't we :-

for god's sake can we please primary biden: https://scd.community/index.php?topic=254.0

Oh yes we did. I'd like to take this moment to brag that I basically predicted how the debate would go over a year ago.  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Apr 27, 2023, 04:47 AMI wonder what the debates will be like if it's Trump and Biden again? You'd think that Trump wouldn't make the mistake of talking over Biden for the whole debate again, would you? That to me seemed like a huge miscalculation from the first debate. If Trump and his team believed Biden truly wasn't cognitively all there, wouldn't the best strategy be to give him as much time to try and explain his positions as possible and let him sink himself? Trump legit did all the work for him in the debates (at least the first one, I honestly don't even remember the second one). Trump's best moments in his debates with Hillary were when he came back with a sharp rebuttal to something Hillary said (e.g. Hillary said he doesn't pay his taxes, Trump shoots back that he just works with the laws as they're given, and that she had the chance to change those laws but didn't because it would mean her friends and donors would have to pay more money)

One thing I've also noticed in the last 3 years is that Biden rarely if ever takes questions from the press. I remember Trump doing it all the time. Almost to the point where he liked the attention (yeah, he probably did) and sought out environments like that. I do remember a few instances where Biden would try to start answering questions and then his team would shoo the press people out of the room. But it almost makes you wonder, if Biden's cognitive faculties had declined in any significant way since 2020, would we even know?

Happy Independence Day everyone (even you filthy non-Yankees)!

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExaXBicHlkMmE1Y3d1a21zZW00M3d5dmNnNnpnaWljYzgzcXl1cGN0diZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/lPFZyhkUv7X7wFXwih/giphy.webp)

Have some burgers, dogs, and chug a beer for me! That's the American way.

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYXF5anlnNWk4N2tsbDUwdzJqZmhqZG15ZnhqeTZ5dGdoaGY4ZWJqOCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/14B1JWOH17oJlscPGK/giphy.webp)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 04, 2024, 01:44 AM^ :laughing: Now why didn't that Joe Biden turn up on debate night ?!?

This was filmed between the hours of 10am to 4pm that's why.  :laughing:

Y'know, I've been thinking about this, and I think we're so polarized as a country that we need a ticket to really unify us and bring America back together again. We know some people want Trump, and some people want Biden. So here's what we do as a compromise: we convince Trump and Hunter Biden to run together as POTUS/VPOTUS. We get the Trump and Biden that both parties want. Trump doesn't seem to have major cognitive decline yet, but if he develops it, Hunter will be there as insurance, so we solve that issue. Since they're both on the same ticket, their families can come together and discuss policy issues, and when they're feeling chippy, Trump and Biden can playfully argue about who's better at golf, and then on the weekend, they can go out and prove it ("Damn it Joe, they gave me a bad club, they rigged the club! You just wait until next weekend...listen, jack, the courts agree your club wasn't rigged, let's do pushups, you think you can do it?").

Some Democrats have concerns about Trump being a convicted felon, but if both candidates on the ticket are convicted felons and represent different parties, well we solve that issue as well. After all, who better to lead the criminal enterprise of America than two convicted felons? And with Trump and Hunter, you know White House parties will be more fun than they've ever been - hookers, porn stars, cocaine, etc. People will be BEGGING to be invited to these parties - the donations will be crazy to get in their good graces! Trump and Hunter both seem to love guns, so no conflicts there. Trump and Hunter have both been married and divorced with multiple women, in fact - they both have five children in total with three different women each. These two are guys who could really get along and bring the parties together (political parties and regular parties!).

And when Trump and Hunter Biden make threats against Russia or China their leaders will take it seriously: "Fuck, these two are convicted, drug-using felons! We better make peace in Ukraine in accordance to their demands! We best not invade Taiwan! These two are unhinged and unpredictable!"

I say we put Nixon's "Madman Theory" to the ultimate test. Come on America, who's with me?!  It's a love story in the making!  :laughing:

(https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media2.salon.com/2023/06/hunter_biden_donald_trump_520783562_1497493180.jpg)

Biden Tells Governors He Needs to Sleep More and Work Less at Night (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/us/politics/biden-governors.html)

Jesus, playing directly into Trump's long stated nickname for you ("Sleepy Joe") is not a winning strategy.

Everyone in the media seems to have their knives out for Biden right now, but it's worth remembering that age and cognitive decline will become a reality for all of us eventually. Biden obviously hasn't always been this way. Here is an example of Biden in '95, when the US approved troop deployment to Bosnia. This is the fiery, rambunctious Biden that endeared himself to so many people. If you pay close attention to his speeches today, you can still see glimmers of that angry young Irishman ready to burst out, even if it doesn't come off the same way.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 05, 2024, 11:49 PMEveryone in the media seems to have their knives out for Biden right now, but it's worth remembering that age and cognitive decline will become a reality for all of us eventually. Biden obviously hasn't always been this way.

It seems odd to me that cognitive decline doesn't seem to make any difference in the ability of a politician to shamelessly lie in public. 

That part of the brain must be impervious to deterioration. ;)

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jul 06, 2024, 01:57 PMIt seems odd to me that cognitive decline doesn't seem to make any difference in the ability of a politician to shamelessly lie in public. 

That part of the brain must be impervious to deterioration. ;)

It's a reflex.

INTERVIEW: Biden's brain has turned to soup

Quote from: Shhon on Jul 08, 2024, 09:17 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/R0PyJh43/taytay-1-shhon.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXv8YzgT/taytay-2-shhon.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N5hNDRR/taytay-3-shhon.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2Hfd47H/taytay-4-shhon.jpg)

No, no, no, and NO!

I need her cheering at Chiefs games! I need that Taylor Swift magic to get my Chiefs the threepeat!  :laughing:

She can be president in 2028!

Quote from: SGR on Jul 08, 2024, 10:54 PMNo, no, no, and NO!

I need her cheering at Chiefs games! I need that Taylor Swift magic to get my Chiefs the threepeat!  :laughing:

She can be president in 2028!

She's not old enough to be president this year anyways.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 09, 2024, 04:33 AMShe's not old enough to be president this year anyways.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically, I think it only matters if you're 35 years old by inauguration time, which she would be (similar to AOC, though in her case, she'd actually be 35 by the time the election happens). I don't think you need to be 35 to run, you just need to be 35 by the time you're sworn in as president.

Love that Jon Stewart is back with the Daily Show, even if he's not there for every episode.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 09, 2024, 04:55 AMCorrect me if I'm wrong, but technically, I think it only matters if you're 35 years old by inauguration time, which she would be (similar to AOC, though in her case, she'd actually be 35 by the time the election happens). I don't think you need to be 35 to run, you just need to be 35 by the time you're sworn in as president.

Idk tbh I even looked it up real quick and it doesn't specifically say whether it is election date or time of inauguration.

I did notice something it does claim you have to have had significant time in a public role but Trump skirted that exception. When I think public role I think of like being in a public office position prior but because of Trump he set a new precedent. He didn't have a public role.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 09, 2024, 02:46 PMIdk tbh I even looked it up real quick and it doesn't specifically say whether it is election date or time of inauguration.

I did notice something it does claim you have to have had significant time in a public role but Trump skirted that exception. When I think public role I think of like being in a public office position prior but because of Trump he set a new precedent. He didn't have a public role.

I'm not certain either. It's very confusing because the language used in couching the requirements is often similar to 'to run for president' or 'a presidential candidate must be...', which would imply those are the requirements to even enter the race, rather than 'to be sworn in as president'. So I'm not 100% confident either.

I've never heard the 'significant time in a public role' requirement before. As far as I know, constitutionally, the requirements are:

• Natural born US citizen
• At least 14 years spent as a resident of the US
• At least 35 years old

Quote from: SGR on Jul 09, 2024, 04:26 PMI'm not certain either. It's very confusing because the language used in couching the requirements is often similar to 'to run for president' or 'a presidential candidate must be...', which would imply those are the requirements to even enter the race, rather than 'to be sworn in as president'. So I'm not 100% confident either.

I've never heard the 'significant time in a public role' requirement before. As far as I know, constitutionally, the requirements are:

• Natural born US citizen
• At least 14 years spent as a resident of the US
• At least 35 years old

QuoteLike the age requirements for membership in the House of Representatives2 and the Senate,3 the age requirement for the presidency set forth at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ensures that persons holding the office of President will have the necessary maturity for the position as well as sufficient time in a public role for the electorate to be able to assess the merits of a presidential candidate.4 In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story stated: Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age.

this is the wordy language from the constitution.

Source: Sauce (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/)

see it talks about the time in public role

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 09, 2024, 08:59 PMthis is the wordy language from the constitution.

Source: Sauce (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/)

see it talks about the time in public role

That's interesting - but from the wording, it sounds like the 'age requirement [....] ensures the persons holding the office of President will have the necessary maturity for the position as well as sufficient time in a public role for the electorate to be able to assess the merits of a presidential candidate' is a descriptive reason for the age requirement rather than a requirement in and of itself.

There's also some ambiguity, as you hinted to, of what 'public role' really means. Does that mean employment in a publicly funded position (like government or military) or does it simply mean that it needs to be a role that is open and obvious for all to see (like Trump's ventures in media and TV)?

Regardless, contrary to the days of the Constitution, these days anyone running for president is going to be given 1 - 2 years of media coverage and scrutiny for all to see.

Federal judge rules protesters can't march through Republican National Convention security zone (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-rules-protesters-cant-march-through-republican-national-convention-security-zone/)

Biden support slips in deep blue New York: 'We're a battleground state now' (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/10/biden-new-york-trouble-00167198)

Anyone got any predictions for Trump's VP pick?

Here's a link if anyone wants to see Biden's 'big boy' press conference - he's already called Zelensky 'President Putin' before the conference so....not a great start.

I'm not saying that Trump isn't going to win, what I'm saying is that we're utterly fucked if he does

Quote from: SGR on Jul 12, 2024, 12:39 AMHere's a link if anyone wants to see Biden's 'big boy' press conference - he's already called Zelensky 'President Putin' before the conference so....not a great start.

Which genius on his PR team decided that it would be a good idea to call it a "Big Boy" press conference?

Sounds like a term for a child who just successfully completed his potty training.  :poop:

Quote from: SGR on Jul 10, 2024, 11:32 PMAnyone got any predictions for Trump's VP pick?

My guess is that he'll choose a servile crook. Even Trump isn't bothering with his "all the best people" lie this time round: everyone knows that Trump prefers people who are prepared to follow his orders, even if it lands them in jail: -

(https://external-preview.redd.it/msnbcs-ari-melber-lays-out-trumps-sprawling-web-of-v0-YXqwJtWAJuTP9euhAQ7JPiORrgCSA2sXaKrhMD2gchw.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7066ec649a294b6d88b5f2e5e6fec205943f5eb4)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 12, 2024, 04:31 AMMy guess is that he'll choose a servile crook. Even Trump isn't bothering with his "all the best people" lie this time round: everyone knows that Trump prefers people who are prepared to follow his orders, even if it lands them in jail: -

(https://external-preview.redd.it/msnbcs-ari-melber-lays-out-trumps-sprawling-web-of-v0-YXqwJtWAJuTP9euhAQ7JPiORrgCSA2sXaKrhMD2gchw.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7066ec649a294b6d88b5f2e5e6fec205943f5eb4)

A 'servile crook'? So basically, any Republican currently in the betting markets?  :laughing:

Come on @Lisnaholic, where's your bravery? Give me a name!  :laughing:

Your framing did remind me of this recent article from The Atlantic (https://archive.ph/bZ39c), which I genuinely found to be an interesting insight into the inner workings of Trump's campaign, even though it's a bit of a long read.

It reminded me of it because Trump's campaign directors seem to believe that, if they lose, there's a very real chance that the state will send them to jail. Now if that's not high-stakes, I don't know what is:

QuoteAs Blair and I stood up to leave the conference room, he stopped me. The smirk was gone. He wanted to make something clear: He takes these decisions very seriously. "Because if we lose," he said, "I think there's a pretty good chance they're going to throw us in jail."
It was a startling moment. I'd heard campaign aides make offhand remarks before about expecting to end up incarcerated for helping Trump. But this was more direct, more paranoid. Blair was telling me that, in a second Biden administration, he expected deep-state flunkies to arrest him for the crime of opposing the president. And he wasn't alone. Brian Hughes, a campaign spokesperson known for his extensive government work and generally affable demeanor, nodded in agreement as Blair spoke. "I think we all feel that way," Hughes said.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jul 12, 2024, 02:16 AMWhich genius on his PR team decided that it would be a good idea to call it a "Big Boy" press conference?

Sounds like a term for a child who just successfully completed his potty training.  :poop:

Probably the same genius who thought that speaking to Joe like Jill did after the debate was a good idea

Speaking of Biden's press conference, he mixed up his Vice President with Donald Trump saying:

"Look, I wouldn't have picked Trump to be my vice president unless I thought she could win."

I know, I know. You all think this is silly. And yet...you still wonder what Trump would look like if he was Biden's VP...so I graciously present it to you - for those who are brave enough to click through the spoiler.

"GYATT"

(https://media.patriots.win/post/67zLKiKm59CI.jpeg)

[close]

I'm not saying Biden isn't a basket case, he clearly is and I hope he steps down. But I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Trump.

Hopefully this will convince Biden to step down

Quote from: SGR on Jul 12, 2024, 04:44 AMA 'servile crook'? So basically, any Republican currently in the betting markets?  :laughing:

Come on @Lisnaholic, where's your bravery? Give me a name!  :laughing:

^ :laughing:
Sorry, SGR, but I don't have much incentive to explore the potential guys in advance: why make myself angry, when in due course the media will do that for me. At least by then, it'll just be one VP guy to be disgusted about.
But how about you: do you have a "favourite" in the race?

QuoteYour framing did remind me of this recent article from The Atlantic (https://archive.ph/bZ39c), which I genuinely found to be an interesting insight into the inner workings of Trump's campaign, even though it's a bit of a long read.

It reminded me of it because Trump's campaign directors seem to believe that, if they lose, there's a very real chance that the state will send them to jail. Now if that's not high-stakes, I don't know what is

^ That's a very interesting quote, SGR, and furthur indication of what an all-or-nothing contest this is. If Republicans fear that losing the election could lead to criminal charges for their conduct, well, the Dems have similar worries about the implementation of Project 2025 and the total weaponisation of the DOJ, controlled by a President with a lust for vengence and complete immunity.
At one level, I see it like this: a vote for Dems = criminals will face accountability. A vote for GOP = innocent people will be targeted for prosecution, not for suspected crimes, but because of their political affiliation.
 (That scenario is easy enough to imagine because we've already seen how it looks with all those Gym Jordan investigative committees. Also corrupt Attorney General Bill Barr flying to Italy to ferret around for some non-existent conspiracy because he knew that was what Trump wanted. Let's not forget what a betrayal of the supposed impartiality of his office that was!) 

I didn't read the whole Atlantic article, but I was certainly creeped out by that photo at the top!

Quote from: SGR on Jul 12, 2024, 04:55 AM...you still wonder what Trump would look like if he was Biden's VP...so I graciously present it to you - for those who are brave enough to click through the spoiler.

"GYATT"

(https://media.patriots.win/post/67zLKiKm59CI.jpeg)

[close]

^ :yikes: Remind me NEVER AGAIN to look at something you've put in a spoiler !
_________________________________

Like the Dems, I'm also vacillating about Biden stepping down or not. Have you noticed how the Biden press conference was labeled a "crucial opportunity" to prove his competence? The fact is that every public event from now on is going to scrutinized for blunders in the same way. That's why I'm leaning more towards him handing the batton to Kamala Harris - and perhaps being VP himself. I think that'd be an unorthodox move, but has these advantages: They could present themselves as a team, promoting the same agenda. As a younger woman of colour, KH ticks plenty of demographic boxes and could punch hard at Trump as being the too-old-to-be-Pres guy.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 12, 2024, 05:11 PM^ :laughing:
Sorry, SGR, but I don't have much incentive to explore the potential guys in advance: why make myself angry, when in due course the media will do that for me. At least by then, it'll just be one VP guy to be disgusted about.
But how about you: do you have a "favourite" in the race?

I was mostly just giving you a hard time  ;)

Personally, I'd like a President Rand Paul, so it would make sense I'd like him as VP, but he's not even in consideration as far as I know. I think most politicians are either corrupt or have a lot of baggage to unearth, but I think Rand Paul probably has less than others due to my (perhaps naive) view of him as a good and decent man.

Another one I'd view as a good and decent man is Ben Carson. Despite some of the crazier things he's said, and his wacky religious views, I think at his core he's a good man. Problem is, some of the stuff he's said is so wacky and out of pocket (as is almost inevitable with hardcore Christians), I think he might turn out to be a political liability in a VP role. 

Tulsi Gabbard would be an interesting pick - though I'm not sure how she'd go down with Trump's base, given that she used to be a Democrat, is an independent now, and has said things before that are fairly anti-2A. She might help Trump among suburban women. But if the quotes from Trump's campaign heads in that Atlantic article are to be believed, Trump's campaign is not trying to increase turnout/support from suburban women, but rather they're targeting young men. Despite this, out of all the feasible possibilities, I think Tulsi might be my favored pick for Trump. She'd soften his image, and she, like Trump, seems to be rather anti-war/anti-intervention. Of course, the fact that she's quite attractive is a big plus (and, as far as we know, she's never killed a dog).

Ultimately, Trump will probably pick someone boring who he doesn't think will outshine him and someone who doesn't truly have ambitions to be President themselves (like Mike Pence). So Doug Burgum might make sense, but with a pick like him, I don't see what he adds to the campaign. Apparently, JD Vance leads the odds to be Trump's VP now. I don't reallly know much about the guy except that he's young and he wrote some book. I personally think he's too inexperienced to be VP.

Quote^ That's a very interesting quote, SGR, and furthur indication of what an all-or-nothing contest this is. If Republicans fear that losing the election could lead to criminal charges for their conduct, well, the Dems have similar worries about the implementation of Project 2025 and the total weaponisation of the DOJ, controlled by a President with a lust for vengence and complete immunity.
At one level, I see it like this: a vote for Dems = criminals will face accountability. A vote for GOP = innocent people will be targeted for prosecution, not for suspected crimes, but because of their political affiliation.

I don't quite see it the same way that you do. There's a quote often attributed to Stalin's secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria that goes: "Give me the man, and I will find you the crime. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him)". I think there's truth to this, in the sense that if a justice system is motivated enough, they can probably find a crime for almost anyone with a team of overzealous prosecutors, especially politicians/government actors. Fareed Zakaria, who has a show on CNN, said this in relation to the hush money case against Trump for example (https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/02/opinions/donald-trump-indictment-gps-fareed-zakaria/index.html):

QuoteAnd yet this case is not simply one of the law in all its impartial majesty holding someone to account. The prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, is an elected district attorney who ran a campaign for that office boasting that he had helped sue Donald Trump "more than a hundred times." Even so, once elected and after looking over the evidence, he is reported to have put the case on the back burner, which triggered a storm of criticism from his Democratic base. He then reversed course and decided to pursue the case on a new basis, if reported accounts are correct, which goes like this: Trump's offense is to have violated New York state law by falsifying business records, but the statute of limitations for that misdemeanor has expired.

So Bragg's office will argue that the misdemeanor is actually tied to a felony because it violates federal election laws. But that violation is one that the Justice Department under both Trump and President Joe Biden looked at and decided against prosecution. That is, as many experts have pointed out, a novel legal theory. I should note that Trump denies any wrongdoing.

Given the circumstances, this case has the feel of zealous prosecutors minutely examining all possibilities to find some violation of the law. This upends the notion in Anglo-Saxon law that you first have a crime and then search for the criminal, rather than first looking at the person and searching to see if he or she has committed a crime.

Former Democrat Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo said this of Trump's hush money case (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4734858-andrew-cuomo-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-new-york/):

QuoteCuomo, in an interview Friday on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," argued that the case should have "never" been brought forward.

"If his name was not Donald Trump and if he wasn't running for president ... I'm the former AG of in New York, [and] I'm telling you that case would've never been brought."

"That's what is offensive to people, and it should be because if there's anything left, it's belief in the justice system," he added.

[...]

"And you want to talk about a threat to democracy: When you have this country believing you're playing politics with the justice system and you're trying to put people in jail or convict them for political reasons, then we have a real problem," Cuomo said Friday.

When you have notable people on the left coming out and saying stuff like this, you can see why Republicans might be dubious about the other cases. And that's kind of a problem, because when you're trying Trump for the much more serious crime of trying to overturn an election at the same time you're trying him on a case that's centered around how a legal payment was made, but the reimbursement of that payment was not marked correctly in Trump's accounts, it delegitimazes the other cases, even if it was technically a crime. It doesn't come off for many people as a blind and impartial application of the law, but rather smacks of a case brought for a political advantage (i.e. keeping Trump off the campaign trail, and tied up in court with all the associated legal fees).

Continuing with the idea of measured prosecutorial discretion being exercised, you also have, which is pretty unprecedented, former senior Republican White House officials being jailed over defying congressional subpoenas (contempt of Congress). Specifically, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, who are now both in jail on their 4 month sentence. In their defiance of the subpoenas, both tried to make the claim of 'executive privilege' (since they worked directly in the highest levels of the executive branch of the government), but that claim, which is typically respected by the DOJ, was not respected here. Former AG Eric Holder defied congressional subpoenas (https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/holder-contempt/index.html) (during the Fast and Furious scandal investigation), but charges were declined from the DOJ because of executive privilege:

QuoteLegal experts noted this week in the runup to Thursday's House vote that President Barack Obama's assertion of executive privilege in the case would prevent a criminal prosecution under a practice dating to the Reagan administration.

The House also cited Holder for civil contempt to give it the option of filing a lawsuit compelling Holder to turn over documents sought by Oversight Committee investigators linked to the failed Operation Fast and Furious weapons crackdown. Such a case was expected to take years to complete.

A letter Friday from the Justice Department to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who led the investigation that brought the contempt charge against Holder, explained that "across administrations of both political parties, the longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute" in such a circumstance.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General," concluded the letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the same thing Friday, saying "it is an established principle, dating back to the administration of President Ronald Reagan, that the Justice Department does not pursue prosecution in a contempt case when the president has asserted executive privilege."

In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner, was found in contempt of congress for defying a congressional subpoena and refusing to testify, invoking her fifth amendment rights, was also not proscuted by the DOJ (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/lois-lerner-no-contempt-charges-justice-department-116577).

Some more recent examples - Hunter Biden had defied a congressional subpoena from House Republicans for months (https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-congress-contempt-subpoena-c40ee502ad85fdfa6a11ec17683c294a), but instead of charging him with contempt of Congress, they held off and negotiated with his attorneys. And the most unsurprising one, the House held current AG Merrick Garland in contempt for defying a subpoena to release the audio of Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hurr - the vote to charge him over it failed and the DOJ (which Garland is the head of) declined to prosecute him over it, citing, once again, executive privilege.

All this to say that both parties are and have been flouting conventions, flouting unstated agreements with each other. Both parties have now played their role in taking the genie out of the bottle, and where this goes in the future can't be certain.

I agree with you that if Trump wins, and the Republicans have congressional majorities, they will go after Democrats for their political affiliation. But I disagree that the people they go after will be 'innocent' in a technical sense. Because Republicans will 'find the crimes' to charge them with. They'll pull out that big fat book of laws, and they'll find something. And I believe the Democrats, should they win, will do the same thing to Republicans. That's why I think Trump's campaign team heads fear jail sentences if they lose. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden's campaign team heads have similar fears. It is easy to foresee, if Trump wins, the Republicans issuing subpoenas to Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas defies the subpoenas, claiming executive privilege. Trump's DOJ doesn't respect that privilege and decides to throw him in jail for four months. Because that's exactly what happened to Peter Navarro.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that appears to be the direction we're heading. And it's all thanks to continued deepening of political polarization in America.

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 12, 2024, 05:11 PMI didn't read the whole Atlantic article, but I was certainly creeped out by that photo at the top!

I thought the same thing about the picture!  :laughing:

It honestly reminded me of those old Soviet propaganda posters of Stalin:

(https://a.1stdibscdn.com/unknown-prints-works-on-paper-original-vintage-poster-the-enemy-will-be-destroyed-stalin-wwii-ussr-victory-for-sale/a_436/1639498525508/PP1961_master.JPG)

(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/RW3707/azerbaijan-1934-planned-economy-joseph-stalin-poster-soviet-propaganda-1934-RW3707.jpg)

Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jul 12, 2024, 05:11 PMLike the Dems, I'm also vacillating about Biden stepping down or not. Have you noticed how the Biden press conference was labeled a "crucial opportunity" to prove his competence? The fact is that every public event from now on is going to scrutinized for blunders in the same way. That's why I'm leaning more towards him handing the batton to Kamala Harris - and perhaps being VP himself. I think that'd be an unorthodox move, but has these advantages: They could present themselves as a team, promoting the same agenda. As a younger woman of colour, KH ticks plenty of demographic boxes and could punch hard at Trump as being the too-old-to-be-Pres guy.

I think switching the ticket that way would be a huge mess. VPs are supposed to be a 'backup plan'. I don't think you want your 'backup plan' to be an 81-year old that poeple are having questions about cognitively right now. I think you're on the right track though, but instead of actually switching up the ticket, keep the ticket the same, and change the messaging. Probably the easiest play, if Biden doesn't step down, is for the Democrats to say something like: "Look, we know he's old, but he's done a great job and he's proven he can beat Trump. One way or another, who you're really voting for here is Kamala Harris. Joe Biden will just help us get across the finish line." Like it or not, I'm not convinced there's any Democrat who could lead the ticket at this point and be a net benefit over Biden in defeating Trump. At the very least, the polls don't bear this out in my opinion.

All that being said, this media scrutiny of Biden does not feel natural to me. If it was one or two days of bad press after the debate, I'd buy that it was natural. But it's been the persistent media narrative for weeks now. Instead of the party bigwigs coming out in defense of Biden, they are instead casting doubt on Biden. Pelosi recently waffled in her support and wouldn't say directly if she supported Biden to continue or not. Then that George Clooney piece comes out about how he's calling for Biden to step down. Then we learn that Clooney checked with Obama about it, and Obama didn't even try to stop him from releasing it. Clooney is not just an actor, he's a big Democrat donor.

Barack Obama Knew George Clooney Was Going to Shiv Joe Biden, Didn't Try to Stop It: Report (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/obama-knew-george-clooney-was-going-to-shiv-biden-report)

It seems like there's a very big and powerful growing faction within the Democrat party that wants Biden out. My best bet at this point is that Biden and his team are looking for what you could call a 'severance package' if he is to step down. So negotiations are being had. Perhaps it will be a big investment from someone into one of Hunter Biden's business entities, something like that. The thing is, Biden has a lot of leverage within the party. He's been in politics for 50 years - he knows where all the bodies are buried. What happens next will undoubtedly be interesting, regardless of how it goes. Regardless, if the Democrats want to beat Trump, they need to get their shit together soon, make a decision, and shame those who choose to continue bucking the party line.

At this point someone needs to invoke the 25th amendment. I don't even think he's stable enough to even finish out the rest of his term. They need to pivot heavy to Harris imo.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 12, 2024, 10:20 PMAt this point someone needs to invoke the 25th amendment. I don't even think he's stable enough to even finish out the rest of his term. They need to pivot heavy to Harris imo.

I understand the sentiment, but don't you think the optics of that would be really bad for Democrats? Invoking the 25th to remove their own sitting president? I mean, from a functional point of view, that's why the 25th amendment is there, but it becomes more complicated when the president you're attempting to remove is currently your presumptive nominee in the midst of an election cycle. Then I suppose there's the question of whether they'd be able to get enough Republican support to remove him, or if Republicans would play politics and vote against the motion out of spite.

If the Dem leadership is dead-set on removing Biden, I think they'd be much better off optically making some moves to get Biden to go out gracefully - on the appearance that it's his decision, and his decision alone. And that he's doing it for the betterment of the people and the country.

Quote from: Paul Smeenus on Jul 12, 2024, 06:19 AMHopefully this will convince Biden to step down

Nice to see you're tuned into alternative media! I'm a big Kyle Kulinski fan as well. I became a Krystal Ball fan back when she did Rising with Saagar Enjeti. They had a lot of really insightful conversations together with different political viewpoints. It was weird to see her and Kyle get together and do their own web series, but they put on good shows too.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 12, 2024, 09:05 PMPersonally, I'd like a President Rand Paul, so it would make sense I'd like him as VP, but he's not even in consideration as far as I know. I think most politicians are either corrupt or have a lot of baggage to unearth, but I think Rand Paul probably has less than others due to my (perhaps naive) view of him as a good and decent man.

To me, he's a beligerent doctor who votes to block gun control and who is proof of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Remember how he spent so much time brow-beating Dr. Fauci, even though RP was way out of his area of medical expertise ? I remember that episode as being a partisan attempt to undermine Dr. F, at a time when Dr.F's advice was needed to help reduce the impact of covid. 

QuoteAnother one I'd view as a good and decent man is Ben Carson. Despite some of the crazier things he's said, and his wacky religious views, I think at his core he's a good man. Problem is, some of the stuff he's said is so wacky and out of pocket (as is almost inevitable with hardcore Christians), I think he might turn out to be a political liability in a VP role.

At least you put some "despites" for Ben Carson, though you forgot this one: "Despite spending $31,000 of public money on a dining table and when caught out, using that classy Republican go-to excuse, "Oh, my wife is to blame"."

QuoteI don't quite see it the same way that you do. There's a quote often attributed to Stalin's secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria that goes: "Give me the man, and I will find you the crime. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him)". I think there's truth to this, in the sense that if a justice system is motivated enough, they can probably find a crime for almost anyone with a team of overzealous prosecutors, especially politicians/government actors. Fareed Zakaria, who has a show on CNN, said this in relation to the hush money case against Trump for example (https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/02/opinions/donald-trump-indictment-gps-fareed-zakaria/index.html):

Former Democrat Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo said this of Trump's hush money case (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4734858-andrew-cuomo-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-hush-money-case-new-york/):

When you have notable people on the left coming out and saying stuff like this, you can see why Republicans might be dubious about the other cases. And that's kind of a problem, because when you're trying Trump for the much more serious crime of trying to overturn an election at the same time you're trying him on a case that's centered around how a legal payment was made, but the reimbursement of that payment was not marked correctly in Trump's accounts, it delegitimazes the other cases, even if it was technically a crime. It doesn't come off for many people as a blind and impartial application of the law, but rather smacks of a case brought for a political advantage (i.e. keeping Trump off the campaign trail, and tied up in court with all the associated legal fees).

That's a great Beria quote ! I read your other quotes as well, especially as I enjoy listening to Fareed's Take. On this occasion, this sentence of his caught my eye:
"But that violation (the one ultimately brought by A Bragg) is one that the Justice Department under both Trump and President Joe Biden looked at and decided against prosecution."
Two quick points: (i) that a Trump Justice Dept declined to prosecute a Trump crime is hardly a surprise
(ii) Bragg's initial decision to NOT prosecute was so controvertial that a couple of career prosecutors involved in the case resigned: those guys thought the case was strong and serious enough.

Which leads to your Cuomo quote; just another opinion about the value of taking up a prosecution for which there is plenty of evidence of wrong-doing. If I'm reading your post right, both you and Cuomo are not mentioning the detail about the hush money payments being linked to misused campaign funds and an attempt to conceal the conduct of a Presidential candidate from the American people in the run-up to an election. That's what makes the case serious.

QuoteContinuing with the idea of measured prosecutorial discretion being exercised, you also have, which is pretty unprecedented, former senior Republican White House officials being jailed over defying congressional subpoenas (contempt of Congress). Specifically, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, who are now both in jail on their 4 month sentence. In their defiance of the subpoenas, both tried to make the claim of 'executive privilege' (since they worked directly in the highest levels of the executive branch of the government), but that claim, which is typically respected by the DOJ, was not respected here.

^ A pertinent fact that you fail to mention is that there was, demonstrably, no executive privilege to be applied in either of those cases. To say it "wasn't respected" is very deceptive way to describe something that didn't exist.

QuoteFormer AG Eric Holder defied congressional subpoenas (https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/holder-contempt/index.html) (during the Fast and Furious scandal investigation), but charges were declined from the DOJ because of executive privilege:

In 2013, IRS official Lois Lerner, was found in contempt of congress for defying a congressional subpoena and refusing to testify, invoking her fifth amendment rights, was also not proscuted by the DOJ (https://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/lois-lerner-no-contempt-charges-justice-department-116577).

^ I don't know about these cases, so I'll assume you're right.

QuoteSome more recent examples - Hunter Biden had defied a congressional subpoena from House Republicans for months (https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden-congress-contempt-subpoena-c40ee502ad85fdfa6a11ec17683c294a), but instead of charging him with contempt of Congress, they held off and negotiated with his attorneys.

^ Hunter B has never run for public office, and the negotiated deal you mention was surely blown apart in court, after which HB was prosecuted over a gun application form "only because his last name is Biden".

QuoteAnd the most unsurprising one, the House held current AG Merrick Garland in contempt for defying a subpoena to release the audio of Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hurr - the vote to charge him over it failed and the DOJ (which Garland is the head of) declined to prosecute him over it, citing, once again, executive privilege.

Yes, not every contempt case for defying a supoena ends up with a charge: a fact that Gym Jordan must be daily thankful for.

QuoteAll this to say that both parties are and have been flouting conventions, flouting unstated agreements with each other. Both parties have now played their role in taking the genie out of the bottle, and where this goes in the future can't be certain.

I agree with you that if Trump wins, and the Republicans have congressional majorities, they will go after Democrats for their political affiliation. But I disagree that the people they go after will be 'innocent' in a technical sense. Because Republicans will 'find the crimes' to charge them with. They'll pull out that big fat book of laws, and they'll find something. And I believe the Democrats, should they win, will do the same thing to Republicans. That's why I think Trump's campaign team heads fear jail sentences if they lose. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden's campaign team heads have similar fears. It is easy to foresee, if Trump wins, the Republicans issuing subpoenas to Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas defies the subpoenas, claiming executive privilege. Trump's DOJ doesn't respect that privilege and decides to throw him in jail for four months. Because that's exactly what happened to Peter Navarro.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that appears to be the direction we're heading. And it's all thanks to continued deepening of political polarization in America.

It's impossible to call either political party innocent, of course, but once again, imo, the degree of manipulation on the part of the Republican party far outweighs anything the Dems have done. There is no Dem alternative on the scale of Comer's explorations of HB, with that fiasco of calling witnesses who were paid double-agents, or who (in a rare moment of honesty) said, "No, there is no evidence here".

Ditto, the conduct of Bill Barr over the Durham Investigation: a blatantly thumb-on-the-scales AG, the full weight of the DOJ, and lots of public money spent trying to prove a non-existant conspiracy theory.

Biden is respecting the outcome of his son's prosecution. There are two degrees of separation between Biden, AG Merrick Garland and special council Jack Smith. If the American public are losing faith in the impartiality of the application of justice, they should notice how one party is by-and-large still adhering to judicial norms and should vote accordingly come November.

Trump shot on side of the head in apparent assassination attempt at Pa. rally (https://nypost.com/2024/07/13/us-news/trump-rushed-offstage-after-sounds-of-gunfire-erupt-at-rally/)

Assholes missed so mad.

That's such a bad move. Had they killed him, fine. But we all know an assassination attempt only gives a president or candidate for president a bump in support. Also, now his supporters can of course blame it on the Dem-run Deep State. Whoever botched that attack may have handed Trump the White House.

And I TOLD the fucker to take careful aim...
 :laughing:

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 14, 2024, 02:25 AMThat's such a bad move. Had they killed him, fine. But we all know an assassination attempt only gives a president or candidate for president a bump in support. Also, now his supporters can of course blame it on the Dem-run Deep State. Whoever botched that attack may have handed Trump the White House.

And I TOLD the fucker to take careful aim...
 :laughing:

Yup. I think the shooter just won Trump the election. This picture is going to be in history books. The only thing it's missing is an eagle soaring in the sky.

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/republican-presidential-candidate-former-85410996.jpg?resize=2048,1365&quality=75&strip=all)

Bro the libs calling this a false flag and making jokes about "why couldn't they have aimed better" are making me sick with rage.

Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jul 14, 2024, 03:24 AMBro the libs calling this a false flag and making jokes about "why couldn't they have aimed better" are making me sick with rage.

Same really. Truly a mask-off moment. These are the same people who'd mock and criticize Alex Jones for similar conspiracy shit. The woman behind Trump who you see fall after the shot was apparently killed. Even if you don't like Trump, it's not really something to joke about. If the guy hadn't missed, our country would be tearing itself apart right now.

Correction: I don't think it was the woman behind Trump who was killed, it was a woman in the stands to the left of Trump (from the point of the viewer), based on what I'm learning about where the bullet came from - it came from Trump's right (from the point of the viewer), where I was thinking it came from in front of him initially.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 02:41 AMYup. I think the shooter just won Trump the election. This picture is going to be in history books. The only thing it's missing is an eagle soaring in the sky.

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/republican-presidential-candidate-former-85410996.jpg?resize=2048,1365&quality=75&strip=all)

Being shot didn't help George Wallace in 1972.  It won't help Trump now. The picture of Trump doing a "thumbs up" with Hungary's dictator will cancel it out. As will the text of Project 2025.  And the child rapes Trump committed (some of which settlements were paid for on Trump's behalf) as outlined in the Epstein grand jury transcripts. And the senile "batteries and sharks" remarks. And much more.

No. No they won't. You're giving people too much credit. As SGR says, all people will remember come polling day will be Trump looking heroic and unbowed after thwarting an assassin sent by the Deep State. Trump could, literally, kill someone now and he would still be elected. It's over, man. It's all over. Stupid fuck, whoever they were.

And also, as mentioned, condolences to the woman who was colatteral damage and who, no doubt - and whether her family has any say in it or not - will become a Trump martyr.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5cea8d.jpg)

Look, Reagan got a huge boost when Hinckley tried to take him down. Thatcher was floundering till the Falklands. Bush was dead till 9/11. People have short, very simple memories and everything else will be forgiven and forgotten or else compared to this. ANY criticism of Trump will now be met with "you're talking about a man who was almost killed for his beliefs".

[/election]
#FourMoreYearsGodDamnIt
#AmericasEnd

(https://i.imgflip.com/5mpkpx.gif)

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 14, 2024, 04:09 AMNo. No they won't. You're giving people too much credit. As SGR says, all people will remember come polling day will be Trump looking heroic and unbowed after thwarting an assassin sent by the Deep State. Trump could, literally, kill someone now and he would still be elected. It's over, man. It's all over. Stupid fuck, whoever they were.

And also, as mentioned, condolences to the woman who was colatteral damage and who, no doubt - and whether her family has any say in it or not - will become a Trump martyr.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5cea8d.jpg)

Look, Reagan got a huge boost when Hinckley tried to take him down. Thatcher was floundering till the Falklands. Bush was dead till 9/11. People have short, very simple memories and everything else will be forgiven and forgotten or else compared to this. ANY criticism of Trump will now be met with "you're talking about a man who was almost killed for his beliefs".

[/election]
#FourMoreYearsGodDamnIt
#AmericasEnd

(https://i.imgflip.com/5mpkpx.gif)

We don't know at this time anything about the shooter, who might not have had any politcal motive. He might have been some John Hinckley-type nutter,  who shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Regardless, no one was saying around the time of the 1984 election "I must vote for Reagan because he was shot, poor man."  Gerald Ford was almost shot by one of Charles Manson's insane followers.  Carter still beat him. So that's way overrated. And while I agree in general that the Amercian public in general has the attention span of a gnat and reacts mostly to shiny objects, I see some signs that Biden and the Democrats are starting to get their act together and pound on Trump's many negatives, particularly Project 2025. In all previous US POTUS elections, none of the candidates (the major ones, at least) had a specific, written plan to destroy American democracy. You can tell the GOP is nervous by Trump lying (as usual) about it, saying he knows nothing about it, and immediately following that up by saying there are parts of it he disagrees with, and his underlings lying about him not going along with it. So a Trump victory isn't inevitable, contrary to what the "liberal" media wants you to think.

Quote from: Drjohnrock on Jul 14, 2024, 05:02 AMWe don't know at this time anything about the shooter, who might not have had any politcal motive. He might have been some John Hinckley-type nutter,  who shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Regardless, no one was saying around the time of the 1984 election "I must vote for Reagan because he was shot, poor man."  Gerald Ford was almost shot by one of Charles Manson's insane followers.  Carter still beat him. So that's way overrated. And while I agree in general that the Amercian public in general has the attention span of a gnat and reacts mostly to shiny objects, I see some signs that Biden and the Democrats are starting to get their act together and pound on Trump's many negatives, particularly Project 2025. In all previous US POTUS elections, none of the candidates (the major ones, at least) had a specific, written plan to destroy American democracy. You can tell the GOP is nervous by Trump lying (as usual) about it, saying he knows nothing about it, and immediately following that up by saying there are parts of it he disagrees with, and his underlings lying about him not going along with it. So a Trump victory isn't inevitable, contrary to what the "liberal" media wants you to think.

There are a few things you're overlooking I think, or in some sense looking at them in a vacuum. Neither of the two attempts on Ford's life resulted in his injury or the death of anyone. In one case, the gun failed to fire, in the other case, the shots completely missed Ford (and hit a taxi driver in the groin, he did survive though).

Regarding Reagan, I don't think you know for a fact what people were thinking regarding his assassination attempt. This article might make you think twice about what effect it had.

What changed after the Reagan shooting
By John P. Avlon, CNN Contributor (https://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/30/avlon.reagan.shooting/index.html)

QuoteIn the wake of the assassination attempt, Reagan's approval ratings jumped -- providing a new baseline that propelled his legislative agenda forward and helped translate to his broad-based re-election. By the 100th day of his administration, 51% of Democrats supported him and 70% of independents in addition to 92% of Republicans.

When Reagan came back to the Capitol on April 28 to push for his Economic Recovery Tax Act, he was greeted by a hero's welcome and a three-minute standing ovation. He leveraged his political capital to help pass his agenda. Before the end of the summer, the Reagan tax cuts had passed the House of Representatives, led by Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, and the Republican-controlled Senate, reducing top tax rates from a confiscatory 70% and unleashing an entrepreneurial era. "That guy," one House Democrat said of Reagan, "is damned formidable. Even the Democrats back home want him to succeed."

In 1984, Reagan won an historic 49 states and 59% of the popular vote.

When it comes to Trump, we'll have to see what effects it has on the polls, if any, in a week or so. I can guarantee though the donations to his campaign will spike.

Another thing you're overlooking is that in both Reagan, Ford, and Wallace's case, our access to information, the speed at which it travels, and the overall media landscape was much, much more primitive compared to today with the internet, which 95% of US adults have access to, and smartphones, which 90% of US adults have (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/#:~:text=In%20a%20far%20cry%20from,5%2C%202023.). By the time a couple hours had passed from this event, a large, large percentage of Americans probably read the news, and saw the photos/videos. The ones that haven't yet seen them will see them soon.

Speaking of photos/videos, for better or worse, electoral politics are now a very visual and optics driven field (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-debate-that-changed-the-world-of-politics). Trump's 'threat to Democracy' and Project 2025 are 1) difficult to explain to your average voter 2) difficult for them to wrap their brains around and understand. You know some things that aren't difficult to explain to voters or for them to understand?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg)

and

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/republican-presidential-candidate-former-85410996.jpg?resize=2048,1365&quality=75&strip=all)

If you could explain all of Project 2025 to your average voter, which is nearly impossible given that it's a 920 page set of policy proposals, do you really expect people to believe that just because a conservative think-tank released their wishlist to 'Santa Trump', that Trump is planning to implement all of its proposals? You think, for example, the guy who banged a porn star while cheating on his wife is going to lead the charge to criminalize pornography, which would doom Republican chances of electoral success for the foreseeable future (Democrats would get a serious enrollment boost from typically non-participatory Americans registering as Democrats to decriminalize their porn)? Not to mention the myriad of other policy proposals that would doom their chances of electoral success?

The other rub for Democrats, is that they're arguing internally right now about whether or not to replace the guy who's currently leading their ticket, who probably would struggle communicating to voters even a brief summary of what Project 2025 even is (without a teleprompter at least), nevermind the possible ramifications of it in a way that would back Trump into a corner and put him on defense regarding the subject.

Maybe showing my age but I was around at the time of the 1984 election.  There was no talk of the assassination attempt, which didn't happen close to the 1984 election.

Of course Trump is planning to implement Project 2025.  His own blathering  about what he plans closely mirrors many of Project 2025's main goals, and the plan's main architect has ridiculed Trump's attempts to distance himself from it.  One hundred twenty people who have or are currently working with Trunp are involved with Project 2025. The plan is built around Trump, who is repeatedly mentioned in it.  And the main authoritarian goals can be easily summarized without Americans reading all of the plan.  Sorry to disappoint you, but Trump getting back into the White House isn't a foregone conclusion.

This all seems so staged. Saw the video of the counter snipers flinching before shooting. 🙄

I need Make America Aim Again shirt.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 06:38 AMThis all seems so staged. Saw the video of the counter snipers flinching before shooting. 🙄

I need Make America Aim Again shirt.

Biden's remarks (https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/08/congress/defiant-biden-tells-donors-were-done-with-the-debate-00166834) from a few days ago appear prescient in that regard - maybe his team will release one for you?:

Quote"I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump. I'm absolutely certain I'm the best person to be able to do that. So, we're done talking about the debate, it's time to put Trump in a bullseye," Biden said.

Time for some levity, and sorry Euro brothers and sisters, but more than likely, only Americans will understand this one.

"Leaked photo of Trump's shooter"

(https://i.redd.it/721ciu6hqdcd1.jpeg)

Similar joke going round on UK Twitter. Different sport being used though.

Can't believe this has happened. I am glad the likes of Obama and Bernie Sanders have condemned it.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jul 14, 2024, 07:51 AMSimilar joke going round on UK Twitter. Different sport being used though.

Can't believe this has happened. I am glad the likes of Obama and Bernie Sanders have condemned it.

Biden himself has also condemned it (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13632099/Biden-calls-Trumps-assassination-attempt-sick-kind-violence-President-thanks-Secret-Service-tried-speak-Republican-hospital.html), to give credit where it is due - and apparently Biden even gave Trump a personal call. I truly hope this is the nadir of this election cycle, and both Biden and Trump remain healthy and safe for the rest of the election cycle. No matter how this election goes, I want the person who doesn't win to be able to walk off into the sunset and enjoy the rest of their life with their family and their children.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 12, 2024, 09:05 PMI was mostly just giving you a hard time  ;)

Personally, I'd like a President Rand Paul, so it would make sense I'd like him as VP, but he's not even in consideration as far as I know. I think most politicians are either corrupt or have a lot of baggage to unearth, but I think Rand Paul probably has less than others due to my (perhaps naive) view of him as a good and decent man.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 07:55 AMBiden himself has also condemned it (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13632099/Biden-calls-Trumps-assassination-attempt-sick-kind-violence-President-thanks-Secret-Service-tried-speak-Republican-hospital.html), to give credit where it is due - and apparently Biden even gave Trump a personal call. I truly hope this is the nadir of this election cycle, and both Biden and Trump remain healthy and safe for the rest of the election cycle. No matter how this election goes, I want the person who doesn't win to be able to walk off into the sunset and enjoy the rest of their life with their family and their children.

i hope they both die before the election

But honestly i feel like Trump team staged the shooting. The way he immediately jumped up with the closed fist seemed a bit on the nose lol. Is hard to believe after being shot at, his first instinct is to play to the crowd. Well, second instinct tbf. His first instinct was to find his shoes.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 14, 2024, 07:57 AM

Absolutely classic 2016 Trump moment.  :laughing:

And for what it's worth, the guy who went after the 'size of Trump's manhood' (Marco Rubio) is currently third in betting odds for VP, so no love lost you could say over those debates.  :laughing:

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 14, 2024, 08:01 AMi hope they both die soon

Define "soon".

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 14, 2024, 08:01 AMi hope they both die before the election

But honestly i feel like Trump team staged the shooting. The way he immediately jumped up with the closed fist seemed a bit on the nose lol. Is hard to believe after being shot at, his first instinct is to play to the crowd. Well, second instinct tbf. His first instinct was to find his shoes.

"Immediately jumped up" - it took about a full minute from the time Trump went down after shots were fired and when Secret Service brought him back up. Here's the raw video:


Trump, given his knowledge and participation in professional wrestling events, probably understands the optical advantages and benefits of blading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blading_(professional_wrestling)). He realized he was bleeding and saw an opportunity in terms of photo ops. He knew the cameras were going to be everywhere and likely provide him an optical advantage. The idea though that he'd pursue this path after experiencing an apparent assassination attempt undoubtedly draws some scrutiny. 2016 proved, if nothing else, that he knows full well how to play the media game.

While the left will claim it was staged, or it was a false flag, all drawn up to give Trump a big optical win, you'd have to wonder if this was the case: "Why now?", given that the Democrats are in turmoil and Biden has had a really rough few weeks and the media has been all but completely focused on him and his shortcomings. If they were to stage something like this, wouldn't it make more sense to stage it closer to Election Day rather than before the RNC has even happened?

On the other side, Republicans will point to the report of the guy who claimed he reported seeing the shooter 'bear crawling' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13632175/Witnesses-say-man-rifle-bear-crawled-roof-near-Trumps-rally-shots-rang-cops-say-fired-hundreds-yards-away.html) on the roof with a rifle to police and Secret Service and was ignored, and point to that badly timed (and phrased) quote from Biden about Trump being 'in the bullseye', and spin their own deep-state conspiracies.

The battle lines are being drawn. But we still need more info.

I wasn't being serious that I think it was staged by the Trump team. I'm sure it was some retard who thought he was saving democracy.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 14, 2024, 08:35 AMI wasn't being serious that I think it was staged by the Trump team. I'm sure it was some retard who thought he was saving democracy.

Sorry bro. It's almost impossible to tell these days between what's serious and what isn't. It'll be interesting to see the drip-feed of info from our always 'reliable' intelligence agencies about this dude.

I'm sure he'll be a 'lone wolf', and he'll of course, surprise, surprise, be someone who was, prior to the shooting, 'known to the FBI'.

Guy's name was 'Thomas Matthew Crooks' - and below, you can see a photo capture of him after he was killed:

"Blood on dead body"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaSKYkWwAAczBQ?format=jpg&name=medium)

[close]

If Trump's team doesn't capitalize on this assassination attempt by making reference to Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield's fight where Tyson bit Holyfield's ear, that's a complete missed opportunity

Tyson is a Trump fan - make something original and funny out of it.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 08:54 AMSorry bro. It's almost impossible to tell these days between what's serious and what isn't. It'll be interesting to see the drip-feed of info from our always 'reliable' intelligence agencies about this dude.

I'm sure he'll be a 'lone wolf', and he'll of course, surprise, surprise, be someone who was, prior to the shooting, 'known to the FBI'.

Guy's name was 'Thomas Matthew Crooks' - and below, you can see a photo capture of him after he was killed:

"Blood on dead body"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaSKYkWwAAczBQ?format=jpg&name=medium)

[close]

Yeah I guess he was a registered Republican. Of course he's gonna get pushed under the rug as a lone wolf.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 08:54 AMSorry bro. It's almost impossible to tell these days between what's serious and what isn't. It'll be interesting to see the drip-feed of info from our always 'reliable' intelligence agencies about this dude.

I'm sure he'll be a 'lone wolf', and he'll of course, surprise, surprise, be someone who was, prior to the shooting, 'known to the FBI'.

Guy's name was 'Thomas Matthew Crooks' - and below, you can see a photo capture of him after he was killed:

"Blood on dead body"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaSKYkWwAAczBQ?format=jpg&name=medium)

[close]

Can't believe you'd posted that pic  :laughing:

Like something from Liveleak.

The only way to counter this is for Biden to stage his car that he's getting in to get blown up.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 11:11 AMThe only way to counter this is for Biden to stage his car that he's getting in to get blown up.

I don't wish the bullet had killed him, I understand how that would only cause more chaos. But most of the people I see making posts wishing that are terrified queer people trying their best to process the impending inevitability of the widespread suffering they will be experiencing under Trump 2, and I'm not going to get on a moral high horse about them venting that, considering, for example, Trump supporters have spent the last 2 years wishing death upon trans people every single day. They're out on twitter in full force right now, making the most hateful, inhuman comments imaginable.

I don't think we need to play nice for people who laugh and celebrate when trans people are murdered.

You know how many innocent Afghanistan civilians Trump has killed with drones?

Yeah, I don't pearl clutch at people wishing these politicians dead.

Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jul 14, 2024, 07:51 AMCan't believe this has happened.

I'm not surprised that it happened. If anything, I thought someone would've tried it before this.

The one thing that I can't believe, is that the Secret Service didn't secure the roof of that building across from the stage where Trump was located. That building should've been one of the first spots that they thoroughly inspected and stationed agents in and on top of before the event started.

The person in charge of security should be fired if they haven't been already.

Major fuck up by USSS. Just goes to show job complacency and incompetence exists at every level.


Imagine being so intellectually smol that you are unable to condemn political violence smdh. Rise above motherfuckers or at least shut up and do some quiet self reflection. Your edgy takes are identical to my liberal auntie's on Facebook. Congrats.

Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jul 14, 2024, 01:05 PM

With the Democrats recent run of luck, I was thinking a Dem staged car bombing would go more like this, and Biden would uncharacteristically (at this point in his life) have a moment of deep intuition, and he wouldn't end up even getting near the car.  :laughing:

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 08:54 AMSorry bro. It's almost impossible to tell these days between what's serious and what isn't. It'll be interesting to see the drip-feed of info from our always 'reliable' intelligence agencies about this dude.

I'm sure he'll be a 'lone wolf', and he'll of course, surprise, surprise, be someone who was, prior to the shooting, 'known to the FBI'.

Guy's name was 'Thomas Matthew Crooks' - and below, you can see a photo capture of him after he was killed:

"Blood on dead body"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSaSKYkWwAAczBQ?format=jpg&name=medium)

[close]

I think realistically the lone wolf angle is most likely but it's not like you can't very easily spin that back onto the media lol. Anyone who watches MSNBC for long enough will eventually come to the same conclusion as the shooter did. If Trump is going to destroy democracy with project 2025 then why is this a bad move?

As fans of The Fall know, the band once had a guitarist named Tommy Crooks.  I hope he doesn't receive too many comments along the lines of "Hey, are you related to/the father of that Yank who shot Trump?  Ha ha ha!"

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 14, 2024, 05:38 PMI think realistically the lone wolf angle is most likely but it's not like you can't very easily spin that back onto the media lol. Anyone who watches MSNBC for long enough will eventually come to the same conclusion as the shooter did. If Trump is going to destroy democracy with project 2025 then why is this a bad move?

Yeah, who in the world could have seen this coming? And who could have foreseen liberals making excuses for it or justifying it?  :laughing:

(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/screen_shot_2017-05-30_at_1.47.48_pm_-_h_2017.jpg?w=1296&h=730&crop=1)

(https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/5zIAAOSw5uFmSj7x/s-l1200.jpg)

(https://content.khou.com/photo/2017/03/15/34y5s46htg_1489584223423_8974714_ver1.0.JPG)

It's like, if the media paints someone as 'Hitler' long enough, someone will eventually go out and try to kill 'Hitler'. Truly shocking stuff!

To your last point, this is something I've considered recently: Liberals claim Trump and Project 2025 are going to be the end of democracy, and they hold up democracy as something sacred and valuable. If, in the event that Trump wins via democracy, how valuable is democracy really? If democracy results in Trump and all he entails, is democracy truly that sacred?

The grass is greenest where you water it. If we weren't so obsessed with the theatrics it wouldn't all be so theatrical. If we didn't love the drama it wouldn't be so dramatic. If we wanted an actual democracy we would have to actually want democracy. We don't. We couldn't. We never will.

Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jul 14, 2024, 06:34 PMThe grass is greenest where you water it. If we weren't so obsessed with the theatrics it wouldn't all be so theatrical. If we didn't love the drama it wouldn't be so dramatic. If we wanted an actual democracy we would have to actually want democracy. We don't. We couldn't. We never will.

The illusion of it is 'good enough' for most, and the illusion provides legitimacy to our elected leaders in the minds of the drooling public.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 06:26 PMYeah, who in the world could have seen this coming? And who could have foreseen liberals making excuses for it or justifying it?  :laughing:

(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/screen_shot_2017-05-30_at_1.47.48_pm_-_h_2017.jpg?w=1296&h=730&crop=1)

(https://i.ebayimg.com/thumbs/images/g/5zIAAOSw5uFmSj7x/s-l1200.jpg)

(https://content.khou.com/photo/2017/03/15/34y5s46htg_1489584223423_8974714_ver1.0.JPG)

It's like, if the media paints someone as 'Hitler' long enough, someone will eventually go out and try to kill 'Hitler'. Truly shocking stuff!

To your last point, this is something I've considered recently: Liberals claim Trump and Project 2025 are going to be the end of democracy, and they hold up democracy as something sacred and valuable. If, in the event that Trump wins via democracy, how valuable is democracy really? If democracy results in Trump and all he entails, is democracy truly that sacred?

It's funny how you can bring this up but when Trump gets accused of inciting on January 6th you do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend him because he didn't "technically" say a specific word.

I don't get all the climbing on high horses to pretend like America isn't a violent country when it was founded on violence and we have so many mass shootings. Now we have to pretend like we are above political violence fuck outta here. We have gone into so many countries to fund coups and currently funding Israel having a field day on their enemies but we are big brain for condemning political violence. Shut up it is the height of being disingenuous.

Another point about how this will/won't result in a (sorry)  bump for Trump: DJRock is comparing apples to Kalashnikovs. Back in '84 America, while certainly still divided, was not the hotbed of conspiracy theory and self-diagnosing politics that it is now. We had no online talking heads, no blogs, no twitter (fuck X, I'll always know it as Twitter) and no real mass-media news delivery system. Most people who heard of the Reagan shooting probably did so via the six-o'clock news, or whatever variety America has. Now, within moments of something happening it's out there: people video and take pictures and upload streams to the internet, so it's all immediate. The news happens as the event happens. It's much different.

Also, back then, while Republicans hated Dems and so forth, you'd have to say there was a kind of general grudging respect, as in, if a Republican won the presidency it wasn't queried, or at least not called a fake election, and the same vice versa. Now, people are creating thier own truths and looking for any excuse to challenge the America they don't like, so the narrative around this (false flag or not) will be that the dems were behind it, the Deep State hate Trump and are so scared of him coming to power that they tried to kill him etc. You would not, I agree, have got this reaction in 1984: remember "Mister President, today we're all Republicans!"? Can you see that happening if Joe got taken down? But it's different today, which is why this will play directly into the hands of those who want to have Trump in the White House again.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 06:46 PMIt's funny how you can bring this up but when Trump gets accused of inciting on January 6th you do all kinds of mental gymnastics to defend him because he didn't "technically" say a specific word.

It's not 'mental gymnastics' - it was providing direct quotes. You yourself initially claimed he intended his words to be a call for violence and claimed if he instead was saying he wanted legal challenges, investigations into the election results, and peaceful protesting, he 'would've said that'

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 12, 2024, 03:28 PMThere is no way in hell you actually believe that. He knows that his simple minded cult like followers would take fight like hell to be violence and not anything else that you are attempting to claim. If he meant any of those things then he would say it. He incited them to take action.

I then provided you the quotes of him saying just that, and calling for a peaceful protest. You then countered that it was all 'semantics' (which is exactly what the claim that Trump's 'fight like hell' quote meant 'violence' was based on) and you conceded there were no specific calls for violence from Trump, and then we ended up discussing the integrity and the ability to audit the election again:

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jun 14, 2024, 11:17 AMThis is all semantics. Sure there isn't any specific calls for violence but...

It's not a high horse when your messaging is consistent. I have always been anti. Didn't tolerate it against Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden.

Condemning violent rhetoric in no way denies our violent reality. That's small brain shit.

Not my fault people speak in half truths. I mean what I say and say what I mean.

.

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 14, 2024, 06:59 PMAnother point about how this will/won't result in a (sorry)  bump for Trump: DJRock is comparing apples to Kalashnikovs. Back in '84 America, while certainly still divided, was not the hotbed of conspiracy theory and self-diagnosing politics that it is now. We had no online talking heads, no blogs, no twitter (fuck X, I'll always know it as Twitter) and no real mass-media news delivery system. Most people who heard of the Reagan shooting probably did so via the six-o'clock news, or whatever variety America has. Now, within moments of something happening it's out there: people video and take pictures and upload streams to the internet, so it's all immediate. The news happens as the event happens. It's much different.

Totally agree, I pointed out something similar in my response to @Drjohnrock

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 05:43 AMAnother thing you're overlooking is that in both Reagan, Ford, and Wallace's case, our access to information, the speed at which it travels, and the overall media landscape was much, much more primitive compared to today with the internet, which 95% of US adults have access to, and smartphones, which 90% of US adults have (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/01/31/americans-use-of-mobile-technology-and-home-broadband/#:~:text=In%20a%20far%20cry%20from,5%2C%202023.). By the time a couple hours had passed from this event, a large, large percentage of Americans probably read the news, and saw the photos/videos. The ones that haven't yet seen them will see them soon.

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 14, 2024, 06:59 PMAlso, back then, while Republicans hated Dems and so forth, you'd have to say there was a kind of general grudging respect, as in, if a Republican won the presidency it wasn't queried, or at least not called a fake election, and the same vice versa. Now, people are creating thier own truths and looking for any excuse to challenge the America they don't like, so the narrative around this (false flag or not) will be that the dems were behind it, the Deep State hate Trump and are so scared of him coming to power that they tried to kill him etc. You would not, I agree, have got this reaction in 1984: remember "Mister President, today we're all Republicans!"? Can you see that happening if Joe got taken down? But it's different today, which is why this will play directly into the hands of those who want to have Trump in the White House again.

Very true. And to complete this circle, I believe it's the mass-media, social media, and 'clicks for money' system we have that has completely accelerated and deepened the divide and polarization of our country. Fact-based reporting does not sell like highly-charged opinion pieces, fluff-pieces, and flat out lies do and that goes for both sides. And not even alternative, independent media is immune from it. A couple recent examples:

At the D-Day event recently, Biden went to go sit down just a little bit too early, and since he's on the older side, he held his position for a few seconds (knowing he was about to sit down), instead of immediately standing back up which resulted in an awkward image:

(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_691,w_1228,x_6,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1717691699/Screenshot_Capture_-_2024-06-06_-_11-28-29_d0jwzh)

Some Republican-aligned outlets spread the image, and an edited version of the clip (which cuts off before they all sit down), claiming Biden pooped his pants. Is that true? Nope! But it gets clicks, and it gets money.

A few months prior, Trump was talking about the automanufacturing industry, and our policies surrounding it - and a possibility of a trade war with China, which he claimed, if we weren't aggressive enough, China would dominate us in the automanufacturing field and there'd be an economic 'bloodbath' if Biden's policies remained. Some Democrat-aligned media were quick to share edited clips (without context) to make it sound like Trump was referring to political violence, and they also dotted the headlines (without context) to mislead about what he meant:

Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-bloodbath-loses-election-2024-rcna143746)

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 07:05 PMIt's not 'mental gymnastics' - it was providing direct quotes. You yourself initially claimed he intended his words to be a call for violence and claimed if he instead was saying he wanted legal challenges, investigations into the election results, and peaceful protesting, he 'would've said that'

I then provided you the quotes of him saying just that, and calling for a peaceful protest. You then countered that it was all 'semantics' (which is exactly what the claim that Trump's 'fight like hell' quote meant 'violence' was based on) and you conceded there were no specific calls for violence from Trump, and then we ended up discussing the integrity and the ability to audit the election again:

So you don't see any parallels between the imagery you just posted and the consistent rhetoric that Trump speaks from his mouth on a daily basis. There you are with the mental gymnastics again.

All the politicians coming out on X to condemn political violence in our society does in fact belittle and minimize all the violence that is occurring on behalf of the system that's currently in place.

lol what else are they going to do?

The shooter was just a screwed-up 20 year old punk kid

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 08:03 PMSo you don't see any parallels between the imagery you just posted and the consistent rhetoric that Trump speaks from his mouth on a daily basis. There you are with the mental gymnastics again.

Okay, so we're moving the goalpost now from what he said on January 6th to just his rhetoric in general? Rather than accusing me of 'mental gymnastics', why don't you give me some specific examples of Trump's 'consistent rhetoric' that you believe to be analagous to imagery like this, insofar as imagery can be analagous to rhetoric, and we can discuss it:

(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/screen_shot_2017-05-30_at_1.47.48_pm_-_h_2017.jpg?w=1296&h=730&crop=1)

Yeah. Puts it all in perspective, doesn't it? RIP man.


Firefighter Corey Comperatore was killed during the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said Sunday.

"Corey was a girl dad. Corey was a firefighter. Corey went to church every Sunday. Cory loved his community. Most especially, Cory loved his family," Shapiro said.

"Corey dove on his family to protect them last night at this rally."

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 08:30 PMOkay, so we're moving the goalpost now from what he said on January 6th to just his rhetoric in general? Rather than accusing me of 'mental gymnastics', why don't you give me some specific examples of Trump's 'consistent rhetoric' that you believe to be analagous to imagery like this, insofar as imagery can be analgous to rhetoric, and we can discuss it:

(https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/screen_shot_2017-05-30_at_1.47.48_pm_-_h_2017.jpg?w=1296&h=730&crop=1)

Are you really gonna pretend like Donald Trump of all people doesn't consistently say wild incendiary language during his speeches that are on the same level as that?

Did you conviently forgot about how he talked about immigrants poisoning the blood of our country?

He constantly riles up his base with conspiracies and you know it, linking Biden mishandling the border to overthrowing the USA and using the influx of new immigrants to be able to vote for him which isn't even factual.

I'm not moving goalposts. I'm telling you to look at the similarities between his general rethoric to all these examples you just posted.

No clue why you are trying to die on this flakey hill that Donald Trump is some misunderstood individual that doesn't rile up his base with lies and incendiary language.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 08:43 PMAre you really gonna pretend like Donald Trump of all people doesn't consistently say wild incendiary language during his speeches that are on the same level as that?

Did you conviently forgot about how he talked about immigrants poisoning the blood of our country?

He constantly riles up his base with conspiracies and you know it, linking Biden mishandling the border to overthrowing the USA and using the influx of new immigrants to be able to vote for him which isn't even factual.

I'm not moving goalposts. I'm telling you to look at the similarities between his general rethoric to all these examples you just posted.

No clue why you are trying to die on this flakey hill that Donald Trump is some misunderstood individual that doesn't rile up his base with lies and incendiary language.

The initial post I made stated that it was obvious that the media painting someone as Hitler for 8 years would inevitably result in someone trying to kill this new 'Hitler'. I think you'd agree with that, right?

Hitler became a Dictator after becoming Chancellor, started WW2 and killed 6 million Jews in systematic extermination camps, and killed many millions more, including millions of his own people by sending them into a meat grinder. Do you think it was fair or reasonable for the media to paint him as Hitler for 8 years because of some controversial rhetoric about immigrants [and other controversial rhetoric of course]? (I will agree that the 'poisoning the blood of our country' quote was an awful choice of words)

We've already seen Trump in office for four years. What was the most 'Hitler-like' thing he did with those four years? Actions speak louder than words.

I think perceptions of him on both sides of the political aisle are overblown. To the right, he's not some God-annointed savior figure that's going 'destroy the deep state' and save America. To the left, he's not some Hitler-like dictator that's going to destroy democracy and cancel future elections.

Can you hear the sound of fading hoofbeats and the banging of a barn door in the wind?  ::)


The head of the Secret Service has been directed to review all security measures ahead of the Republican National Convention, which begins tomorrow in Wisconsin, Joe Biden has said.

The US President said he has also asked for a review of what happened at the Trump rally to be carried out and he will share the results of that review.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 14, 2024, 09:02 PMWe've already seen Trump in office for four years. What was the most 'Hitler-like' thing he did with those four years? Actions speak louder than words.

His actions are causing ripples way outside of his 4 year presidency. I feel just because you happen to be a white male. You are just ignoring all of the awful things that are happening to different groups based off of Trump's actions. The ripple effects of ROE v Wade being overturned and how it affects women's health. All the decisions that have happened in the past few weeks from the Supreme Court Justice. Trump always brags at his rallies about being able to force in three court justices and their effects are extreme and long lasting.

Being homeless is a ticketable offense if the city decides they want to start doing it. Which doesn't even make sense to me because if someone is homeless how are they going to even pay said tickets without a job/hoke. I do realize there are homeless people that DO have jobs but still I'm talking about the majority.

I'd have to side with DJ on this one. Apart from the inexorable rise of the right, which can be directly attributed to Trump's courting of them, you have the reversal of women's and transgender rights, the refusal to believe Covid was real, resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans who should not have had to die, the turning back almost of civil rights, the stepping back from Kyoto and almost indeed NATO, the open support for another dictator (two actually), all culiminating in the surely Hitlerian putsch attempt of Jan 6. Honestly, how much more Hitler do you need? About the only thing he didn't do was open concentration camps and declare war on Western Europe!

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 09:19 PMHis actions are causing ripples way outside of his 4 year presidency. I feel just because you happen to be a white male. You are just ignoring all of the awful things that are happening to different groups based off of Trump's actions. The ripple effects of ROE v Wade being overturned and how it affects women's health. All the decisions that have happened in the past few weeks from the Supreme Court Justice. Trump always brags at his rallies about being able to force in three court justices and their effects are extreme and long lasting.

Being homeless is a ticketable offense if the city decides they want to start doing it. Which doesn't even make sense to me because if someone is homeless how are they going to even pay said tickets without a job/hoke. I do realize there are homeless people that DO have jobs but still I'm talking about the majority.

Yeah. And just speaking for me personally, if the republicans enact everything they've talked about (both Trump himself and the Christian nationalist billionaires behind Project 2025 who are propping him up), I will have my legal protections and recognition of my gender eliminated, I be forced off my HRT, my marriage will be invalid as we are both AMAB, which will result in my losing the health insurance I get through my husband's company. Them making very real threats to ruin my life because of who I am is a threat of political violence, and one that will be legally enshrined and likely upheld by the right wing stooges in the Supreme Court.

I just don't see how, if I made jokes about the shooter missing Trump, they would be me stooping anywhere close to the level of hateful and violent rhetoric the right espouses and threatens.

Okay. I don't know if this is a deliberate error or just us thick Irish getting it wrong again, but the headline on the RTE article states that: 'Important we stand united', says a defiant Trump. It's not true though: It was BIDEN who said this. Not the sort of thing you'd expect Trump to say of course. Unless he also said it? Seems a glaring error to me anyway.

Living in Utopia time: wouldn't it be amazing if this event, instead of further polarising America (and what, I may ask, is wrong with Polar Bears anyway?) brought everyone together in a spirit of true, united friendship and brotherho - sorry, just almost got knocked over by a low-flying pig!

I don't understand why there seems to be a dichotomy between condemning Trump and also denouncing this incident/believing in upholding some standard of civility in the discourse, i.e. not vocalizing your wishes for violence against political figures.

No one is saying that "too bad he didn't die" is at the same level of having political power and using it to oppress the population ffs. It's about integrity I guess.

But that's just me I guess.
Some shit just cringeworthy.
It ain't even gotta be deep I guess. 

I think, as I said already, what's getting lost in the haze here is the fact that one man died in the act of trying to protect his family, and that two more have been hospitalised. The kid who made the attempt got his father's gun and the FBI are now calling it a "domestic terror incident". We don't know the would-be assassin's intentions, but it's possible he just chose Trump and could have as easily gone after Biden - cops say he had "no specific ideology", so it's not as if he was a Trump-hater or fanatic Dem supporter or anything. White guy I think, so no racist motive there.

But yes, as Steph says, the grinning and nudging about "pity he wasn't a better shot" is beneath us, and I have my own guilty part in that. Anyone getting shot is nothing to laugh at, and I accept my role in trivialising it. In the event, a man died and we should respect that, and a public figure - and former and possible/probable futuer president - was attacked, and that shouldn't be laughed at. Apologies for my own poorly-chosen remarks, that's all I can do.

I do wonder, though, what the NRA and gun lobby will have to say about this, now that one of their biggest supporters and advocates has been targeted?

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 14, 2024, 11:03 PMI do wonder, though, what the NRA and gun lobby will have to say about this, now that one of their biggest supporters and advocates has been targeted?

They'll say that we need more guns.

(https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly7kdtlSjw1r6mr02o1_r1_500.gif)

The part of my post about stooping low was in reference to the "rise above" comment which I took to mean that being the bigger person means shutting up and being polite. As someone who spent the better part of two years being called a satanic pedophile groomer who should become a statistic by Trump stans I'm not going to judge the morality of people who find some catharsis in posting jokes about the poor aim thing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm just saying I see a lot less value in politeness when it's clear to me that the Trump camp doesn't value it one bit themselves.

I'll start taking the "condemning political violence" seriously when that same energy is shown for Palestine or Afghanistan instead of people that are responsible for atrocious amounts of political violence.

Because if not, it's just vapid virtue signaling.

Deep down we all know we condone political violence when it's for a cause we support.

I just refuse to hypocritically pretend to condemn it. That would be a lie. And if I were just trying to be edgy I'd be happy that a supporter died, or the Republican that did it died, but I'm not. A mentally ill person taken advantage of by political radicalism lost their life and an innocent supporter lost their life while the guy that raped a 13 year old survived. Damn shame.

Also, there is something ironic about saying we should be more civil about not wishing harm on a pedo while quoting a song that wishes harm on a pedo.

all this but-what-about-this or what-about-that is just completely irrelevant. Using fascist means to try to get rid of a fascist is simply a bad and dumb thing, it's as simple as that

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jul 15, 2024, 12:23 AMAlso, there is something ironic about saying we should be more civil about not wishing harm on a pedo while quoting a song that wishes harm on a pedo.

Uh, what song?

When I said that the media has been consistently putting out the apocalyptic sort of messaging that Trump represents a threat to democracy and that given that setting, a shooting like this makes perfect sense, I was not necessarily presuming that the media is wrong in their analysis of Trump. The fact is that at the very least it's not exactly clear that this claim is overblown.

I believe as I said before that he attempted to use fake electors to steal the election in 2020, and that is basically a coup attempt. The extent to which he wanted violence in the capitol is actually somewhat beside the point, from my pov. The demonstrators were not there to violently seize power directly. They were meant to put pressure on the people inside the capitol to derail the process of electing Joe Biden.

So does that make him Hitler? Well no. But Americans have no historical frame of reference. Hitler is literally the only dictator everyone knows about. So he always gets used to assert that one's political opponents are authoritarian. It was used against both Obama and Bush before Trump. So that's also imo somewhat less relevant.

What we didn't see during the Obama and Bush years was consistent claims that democracy was on the ballot. Because the authoritarianism they represented was merely the expansion of the executive branch which was a bipartisan establishment trend that didn't in any way threaten the basic liberal status quo.  Trump represents someone who not only seems to revel in the aesthetics of a strong man with admiration for the various dictators of the world and seeming contempt for many of his supposed western liberal allies, he also rose to political power on the back of a right wing populist wave with overt nativist sympathies. So naturally the analogy seems to grow stronger, especially in the minds of people whose historical knowledge is centered around ww2. But even then it's fair to say it's a hyperbolic comparison .

But what's not clearly hyperbolic is the idea that we could find ourselves sliding into a more authoritarian state. Whether it happens directly under Trump or not, the American right is being reshaped in his image and whoever the next iteration is, "democracy is on the ballot" isn't going away. Until there's no more ballot.

The interesting thing to actually consider is what the fall out could have been if the shooter killed Trump. I don't think it's hyperbolic at all to think that could have sparked a wave of retaliatory episodes of political violence that bring you closer and closer to open civil conflict. The bullet grazed Trump's ear. We were literally inches away from potentially entering a drastically different world from the one we're in right now.

Edit: also feel like I should throw a disclaimer in there and say that I have no idea what the shooter's actual motives are. It's possible it has nothing to do with anything I just said. But regardless of his motives, that wouldn't have really affected the fallout if Trump had been killed, imo.

Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jul 15, 2024, 12:19 AMI'll start taking the "condemning political violence" seriously when that same energy is shown for Palestine or Afghanistan instead of people that are responsible for atrocious amounts of political violence.

Because if not, it's just vapid virtue signaling.

Deep down we all know we condone political violence when it's for a cause we support.

I just refuse to hypocritically pretend to condemn it. That would be a lie. And if I were just trying to be edgy I'd be happy that a supporter died, or the Republican that did it died, but I'm not. A mentally ill person taken advantage of by political radicalism lost their life and an innocent supporter lost their life while the guy that raped a 13 year old survived. Damn shame.

so what is it that you anticipate would have happened next, had Trump been killed?

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 14, 2024, 09:19 PMHis actions are causing ripples way outside of his 4 year presidency. I feel just because you happen to be a white male. You are just ignoring all of the awful things that are happening to different groups based off of Trump's actions. The ripple effects of ROE v Wade being overturned and how it affects women's health. All the decisions that have happened in the past few weeks from the Supreme Court Justice. Trump always brags at his rallies about being able to force in three court justices and their effects are extreme and long lasting.

Being homeless is a ticketable offense if the city decides they want to start doing it. Which doesn't even make sense to me because if someone is homeless how are they going to even pay said tickets without a job/hoke. I do realize there are homeless people that DO have jobs but still I'm talking about the majority.

That's totally fair man. I'm not saying Trump's policies are even good. My main point when we started discussing was simply one that jwb has reiterated. Painting Trump as Hitler for 8 years would inevitably result in something like we just saw. It is, in a sense, a call for violence. Because if you believe Trump is as bad as Hitler, and if it appears he might not be beaten at the ballot box (peacefully), then what's the next step?

I don't think he's even close to as bad as Hitler, and I think the strongest case for comparing him to Hitler are 'what he might do with another four years'. Unfortunately, it's a difficult case to make to some swing/independent voters because they've already seen what he's done with four years, and before he had those four years, they heard many of the same fearful prophecies that did not come true (like: "He's gonna start World War 3").

In essence, I don't think Democrats are going to persuade swing voters, but rather turn them off, if they make excuses for, or try to justify an attempted assassination of Donald Trump (beyond the fact that most would view doing so as morally questionable, if not morally wrong). If Trump had spent his first four years throwing illegal immigrants into gas chambers, I think you'd have a rock solid case for assassination.

Something @Jwb just mentioned was the creeping expansion of executive authority since Obama and Bush. I'd say it's been expanding since at least the LBJ years when he escalated the Vietnam conflict without congressional approval. As far as I know, our Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. Feckless congresses don't see value in opposing these military ventures. NPR had an interesting article about it (https://www.npr.org/2020/01/12/795661019/how-presidents-wage-war-without-congress). Unfortunately, I don't think any candidate in our two-party system could gain traction and popularity running on a platform of reducing the powers of the executive branch. Just imagine, hypothetically, if we could take a democratic vote on whether or not we should continue supporting Israel with aid in their war efforts against Hamas? I bet you we'd vote against it. Same with Ukraine.

Also, I wasn't aware of the 'ticketing the homeless' thing. That sounds ridiculously silly. You got any links on that? I'd agree - how are they gonna pay their tickets? Would the government throw them in jail for not paying the ticket in time and being a bad panhandler?

Um, stupid Irish guy here. Surely congress had to approve the Iraq War, the War on Terror and so on? Or am I just being Stupid Irish Guy? Can a President declare war on his own?

@SGR

To be clear, I've been precise in my wording. Threat to democracy was the phrase I used, not Hitler. Because I think that is what is sincerely being said by the mainstream media and what you should contend with. Does Trump represent a threat to democracy?

Quote from: Trollheart on Jul 15, 2024, 04:42 AMUm, stupid Irish guy here. Surely congress had to approve the Iraq War, the War on Terror and so on? Or am I just being Stupid Irish Guy? Can a President declare war on his own?

They gave approval in a sense (at least with the Iraq War/War on Terror), but approval that's been abused. In 2001, in response to 9/11, Congress passed a use of force authorization (AUMF) that basically gives carte blanche to engage in war without requiring Congress to declare it each time - and it's something that's been used (and abused) by presidents after Bush. Here's an article (https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror) that goes into more detail:

QuoteWithin days after al-Qaeda attacked the United States on 11 September 2001, the U.S. Congress enacted the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enabling President George W. Bush to use military force against the operation's planners and those who aided and harboured them. But, over time, that law became more than just the basis for waging war upon al-Qaeda and the Taliban. As the U.S. expanded operations against jihadists from the Philippines to Niger, successive presidents chose not to seek additional authority from Congress, relying instead on increasingly strained interpretations of the AUMF. These interpretations allowed the executive branch to determine the war's scope outside the full set of checks and balances that Congress is supposed to supply. This practice should stop. The Biden administration should work with Congress to update the AUMF by replacing it with a statute that promotes transparency and accountability, and that narrows the war down to those efforts necessary to meet a genuine threat.

Quote from: SGR on Jul 15, 2024, 04:23 AMAlso, I wasn't aware of the 'ticketing the homeless' thing. That sounds ridiculously silly. You got any links on that? I'd agree - how are they gonna pay their tickets? Would the government throw them in jail for not paying the ticket in time and being a bad panhandler?

QuoteThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banning homeless people from sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The case originated after Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southwest Oregon, began issuing fines of more than $200 to people sleeping on the streets.

Source (https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-on-homeless-people-may-put-cities-on-the-spot#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,to%20cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishment.&text=The%20case%20originated%20after%20Grants,people%20sleeping%20on%20the%20streets.)


I love that idea about being able to vote on big issues like funding to different countries. I've been having conversations lately about what it would take for communism to take hold in modern America. The guy that I have been having these discussions with thinks that we just need to organize around it but I'm of the extreme mindset that it would take so much more for that type of change to happen. There would have to be violence and great loss of life. No way would corporations that control congress would just easily let our current system die and be placed in the hands of the workers.

Quote from: Jwb on Jul 15, 2024, 04:54 AM@SGR

To be clear, I've been precise in my wording. Threat to democracy was the phrase I used, not Hitler. Because I think that is what is sincerely being said by the mainstream media and what you should contend with. Does Trump represent a threat to democracy?

@Jwb, my bad man, I'm getting my conversations mixed up here and you're right, 'threat to democracy' is the phrase you used.

To be frank, 'democracy' is a very broad word that means a lot of things to different people. I suppose we'd probably have to agree on a definition of 'democracy' before we could have a meaningful conversation where we're not speaking past each other.

Merriam-Webster defines 'democracy' as (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy):

"government by the people
especially : rule of the majority"

I don't believe we have that in America, since a candidate can win without the popular vote thanks to the electoral college.

Oxford Dictionary (which I tend to like better) defines democracy (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095709688#:~:text=A%20political%20system%20that%20allows,elect%20representatives%20to%20government%20bodies.) as:

"A political system that allows the citizens to participate in political decision‐making, or to elect representatives to government bodies."

Oxford's definition is a little more broad, and I think much closer to what we have in America and what most would consider our 'democracy' to be. So we can run with that definition, if you've no objections.

This is a multi-faceted question (mostly because of how loaded the word 'democracy' is) with many different angles to look at and assess - inevitably, I won't be able to cover all angles with this post, so please feel free to bring up the angles that I fail to.

If we consider the amount of barriers to voting to be a core facet of democracy, as many Democrats do - e.g. where the ballot drop boxes are placed, the public bus transportation routes to the polls, the possibility Trump/Republicans might introduce voter ID laws, etc. [essentially, what one could consider to be, depending on how it's done, voter suppression] - then I'd say that Trump could be described as a threat to democracy, but yet still, even these things wouldn't violate the definition provided by Oxford, so there's also a case that could be made against this. Democrats, in many cases, (Lisnaholic and I actually had an interesting discussion about this pages back - wherein we discussed how Democrats seem to enjoy success with on-cycle elections with maximum turnout [regular federal November elections], but they also enjoy success in off-cycle elections (the timing of which is determined by state authorities) for local positions like school boards, because it reduces turnout resulting in higher turnout representation of special interest groups like teachers unions - read more about that here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/)), praise maximum voter turnout as an ideal. And still, many Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on certain total barriers to voting being in place - like being a convicted felon (an amusing aside: Trump can't vote in his home state of Florida, but he can run for President of the country) or being under 18. Some Democrats want to reduce these barriers further (like lowering the voting age to 16), while some Republicans want to reinforce these barriers further (like requiring voter ID). Ultimately, either way, I think you still have what Oxford describes as a democracy, you just have either slightly more barriers, or slightly less. You could have Nikki Haley instead of Trump right now, and I think you'd face the same threat of more barriers to voting.

Another aside:

We have two primary private organizations that hold mass influence over the politicians we vote for in our 'democracy'. The DNC and the RNC. And we've seen how both of them can exert their influence and power to push their thumbs on the scales, recent examples being Bernie Sanders for the DNC and Ron Paul for the RNC. Even Trump received, if people remember, immense pushback from establishment GOP politicians and RNC members when he ran in 2016. I think the only reason Trump survived that is because he was both independently wealthy and famous and the public back then all knew who he was. Even Hillary's team was pushing for Trump to succeed as the nominee because they believed he'd be the easiest candidate to beat out of the field.

And in this election cycle, we see how the RNC and the DNC iced out RFK Jr., providing him many barriers to even appear on ballots, nevermind appearing on the debate stage - and we all know neither Trump/Republicans or Biden/Democrats wanted RFK Jr. on that debate stage. Given all this, my point is: the idea that we have a completely healthy and functioning democracy even now seems spurious to me at best, given that most of the time, two private organizations put thumbs on the scales and court corporate donations to preferred candidates which ultimately results in them providing you two people to vote for - and inevitably, those two people seem evil and corrupt to the American public in a 50/50 split - but they implore you to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. That's our 'democracy'.

Back on topic. If we were to consider more extreme fears of Trump becoming a dictator, or cancelling future elections - this would absolutely qualify as being a serious threat to democracy, by the Oxford definition - but I don't think this will happen, despite the fears. I know people are concerned with the recent ruling on presidential immunity for 'official acts', but based on what I've seen other presidents do, I think this was mostly codifying something that was somewhat implicit as part of the package of being POTUS anyways. And also, to clarify, I don't begrudge Democrats for using these fears as a strategy to win the election. Nothing motivates voters quite like fear does, and you could certainly imagine some awful things presidents might try to get away with under this new ruling, but ultimately, if it were to be stress-tested, I think it would end up in the Supreme Court who'd make another ruling to clarify this most recent one, or it would simply be a ruling on a case brought up from a lower court on whether the actions in question were part of the president's 'official capacity'. Also, the same goes for Project 2025. Conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation release this big fat set of policy proposals, a large majority of which are completely fucking stupid, and if implemented, would guarantee Republicans will continue to lose elections for a generation. Republicans brought this criticism on themselves. Why would you, in the run-up to an election, release something like this, when you know that opposition will take it and use it as a weapon against you? Totally stupid, and a completely unforced error. And again, Democrats are correctly using this to stoke fear, which again, is a cogent and effective strategy to motivate voters to vote against them.

There's another aspect to this too, I believe. We officially have three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. They're supposed to be checks and balances on each other, and those checks, as we've pointed out, have somewhat eroded over the last 50 years or so. But we also have what I'd dub two more 'unofficial' branches of government. One being the 'Fourth Estate' (or rather, our news media), and the other being our intelligence agencies filled to the brim with unelected bureaucrats. We saw how both approached Trump in his first term, and in totality, it wasn't good for Trump - and it was a large part, I believe, of why he lost his 2020 bid for re-election. In regards to the intelligence agencies, don't take it from me, take it from Chuck Schumer, who I believe is afraid of them himself:

 

So, I guess, to answer your question - I personally don't think Trump really serves much of a threat to democracy, insofar as Oxford has defined it, despite valid concerns of how he (no more so than your standard Republican at least who) might institute or support laws that ultimately result in some mild level of increased voter suppression. Ultimately, if he is re-elected, I think the most likely outcome will be similar to his first term - he'll be hamstrung by the press (and let's be real, despite their biases and stated positions, execs at CNN and MSNBC would probably love Trump back in office, because those dollar signs will be ca-chinging for them with every wild Trump story they publish), the intelligence agencies, and the courts - and if the Democrats somehow lost both the senate and the house (I think this is unlikely), they'd regain a majority after two years of Trump - and then he'd be even more hamstrung. After four years, Trump will be out, probably achieving little, and possibly exhibiting more severe signs of cognitive decline that we see in Biden now, and we'll continue to vote in whatever variety of democracy we have (if you can call it a democracy), voting for the lesser of two evils (hopefully, both evils are younger in 2028) graciously presented to us by the RNC and DNC, and we'll continue bitching and moaning about it and nothing will fundamentally change. Because our government requires an illusion of legitimacy to function, if Trump were to attempt to dispel that illusion or actually threaten it...well...watch the Zapruder film.

Quote from: DJChameleon on Jul 15, 2024, 06:28 AMSource (https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-on-homeless-people-may-put-cities-on-the-spot#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled,to%20cruel%20and%20unusual%20punishment.&text=The%20case%20originated%20after%20Grants,people%20sleeping%20on%20the%20streets.)


I love that idea about being able to vote on big issues like funding to different countries. I've been having conversations lately about what it would take for communism to take hold in modern America. The guy that I have been having these discussions with thinks that we just need to organize around it but I'm of the extreme mindset that it would take so much more for that type of change to happen. There would have to be violence and great loss of life. No way would corporations that control congress would just easily let our current system die and be placed in the hands of the workers.

Jesus, that's wild. I don't think these penalties will be met with much success. Thanks for sharing. The link was stuck behind a paywall, but based on the headline, I was able to get the gist of it from other articles.

Like you, I too am enamored with the idea of us voting on funding to different countries, though I don't know how realistic it is when we account for geopolitical alliances. Our allies may not want agreements of alliance that hinge on a 'maybe we'll fund you and support you depending on our voters' kind of deal, but it is an idea that is attractive. Because damn dude, there's a shit ton of wars and war-aid that I'd take the day off from work to vote against.

When it comes to communism, that's going to be a hard sell in America. Many communist revolutions did require violence, but if you add enough time to the equation, and consider a geopolitical climate (just hypothetically) where communism was rampant and those countries were thriving economically, you could imagine a scenario where America would adopt communism democratically. Again, it seems incredibly unlikely today, but with enough time, I suppose it could be possible (though I doubt it would be a strict 'by the Marxian books' type of communism, as it very rarely is - you'd need certain concessions on the ideology to get certain power players to come aboard in support).