╌>

A big misstep for Harris

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 months ago  •  231 comments

A big misstep for Harris
You better thank a union member for the five-day work week," Harris told the crowd with a noticeable shift in her dialect. "You better thank a union member for sick leave. You better thank a union member for paid leave. You better thank a union member for vacation time."

Link to quote: Kamala Harris goes viral with 'cringe' new accent at Detroit rally, sparks 'Foghorn Leghorn' comparisons | Fox News


Even with a script in front of her Kamala Harris can't seem to help herself, this time with a fake accent:




That is the second big difference between her and Trump. Trump is always authentic. Kamala is trying to be what her audience wants her to be. Women might regard her as a man's type of women.

Get it ladies?

My favorite part of that speech was when she said: “Unburdened by what has been!.”

That couldn't have been in the script.


The big story of the week is that Hamas executed 6 hostages, who were about to be rescued by the IDF.

Hamas has instructed its soldiers holding hostages to execute them if the Israeli army closes in on them.

Abu Obeida, a spokesman for the group, said the move follows what he called the “Nusseirat incident” in June, in which Israeli special forces rescued four hostages from two apartments in Gaza.

He said “new instructions were issued” on how to “deal with” hostages in the event of the Israeli army approaching their location.

Hamas told to execute Israeli hostages if they fear IDF are closing in (yahoo.com)


In other news:

Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to maintain the conditions for a cease-fire in Gaza.

Biden, when asked whether Netanyahu was doing enough to secure a deal to free the hostages, said No.

Britain announced that it would suspend the export of some weapons to Israel.

The U.S. seized an airplane owned by Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro. It was bought in violation of US sanctions according to the DOJ.

Off duty Marines were accosted in Turkey.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago


Good morning.

Thousands gathered in Jerusalem for the funeral of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose parents were among the most outspoken of the hostage families.

03themorning-nl-hershfuneral-jumbo.jpg
The funeral of Hersh Goldberg-Polin.  Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times

One of 6 murdered hostages.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 months ago
Women might regard her as a man's type of women. Get it ladies?

wtf?

laying down the macho foundation might not be too advisable just prior to the maga coward ducking the debate ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

'trump is always authentic'  

An authentic what?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    3 months ago

traitor.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    3 months ago

Truth.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

Most women know a fake when they see one. I'm counting on them.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    3 months ago

You're counting on women to vote for an unqualified, serial rapist over a highly qualified female candidate.

You really don't know anything about women do you?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.6  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @1.1.5    3 months ago

How did she get her first gig in the SF scene again?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.1.7  George  replied to  bugsy @1.1.6    3 months ago

I keep hearing the term “qualified” exactly what has Harris done that would give someone the impression she was qualified?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.1.5    3 months ago

That's quite obvious

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.1.6    3 months ago
How did she get her first gig in the SF scene again?

nobody can top how melania got her first lady gig ...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.10  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    3 months ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.11  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.1.10    3 months ago

true or false?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    3 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    3 months ago

We're not infatuated with the turd.  Like all sane people, we wish it would just go the fuck away, we don't give a fuck how - just go away.

Do you think a 'golden' shower was part of the deal?

Also, jealous?  of Melania?   For what?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.13    3 months ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.13    3 months ago
Do you think a 'golden' shower was part of the deal?

Only in the most vivid imaginations of the most gullible.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

Question of the day:

Not long ago: 

Asked about the issue of reparations by Black publication The Root Harris threw her support behind the concept of measures aimed to atone for the United State's legacy of slavery and discrimination against African Americans.

"I think there has to be some form of reparations and we could discuss what that is, but look, we're looking at more than 200 years of slavery," she said. "We're looking at almost 100 years of Jim Crow. We're looking at legalized segregation and in fact segregation on so many levels that exist today based on race and there has not been any kind of intervention done understanding the harm and the damage that occurred to correct [the] course. And so we are seeing the effects of all those years play out still today."

What Kamala Harris Has Said About Reparations for Black People (msn.com)

Does anyone think she changed her mind on that?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 months ago

I doubt if she has changed her views on anything, and there is no indication that she will be moderate, considering her past record.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    3 months ago

If she sticks with her position on fracking, she loses PA. Thus, she is now for it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 months ago

Yeah, right. Her values have changed but her positions have not? Will she ever bother to explain why her values have changed yet she maintains the same positions? Doubtful.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @2.2    3 months ago

It is called political expediency.

Example: There is an election, so therefore Harris changes her mind on fracking, which is all important in PA. Adding that her values haven't changed is a signal to all those green energy crazies that if she wins, she'll end fracking.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    3 months ago

Like Trump flip-flopping on abortion?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @2.2.2    3 months ago

He's been saying "It's up to the states" since it's been up to the states.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 months ago

No more so than a leopard changes it's spots!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.3    3 months ago

She now favors border security.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.1    3 months ago

Yeah, but has anybody seen her come anywhere near the actual physical border where I and others in Cochise County in SE Arizona live? I sure have not. She and her minion handlers know she would not be welcome when she got confronted with the truthful reality of conditions on the US side of the border.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.3.2    3 months ago

As she says: "I haven't been to Europe either."

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    3 months ago

Slavery inly happened on United States soil for 90 years. Only biased racists would look at what happened prior to that and not take their grief to the British. 
Much easier to take it to Uncle ‘sugar daddy’ Sam

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @2.4    3 months ago

The left only sees bad when it looks at the US.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.1    3 months ago
The left only sees bad when it looks at the US.

Do you ignore all the crap that comes from Trump's mouth?    Trump at the GOP convention:

Harris speaking positively about the future at the D convention:

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.3  CB  replied to  bugsy @2.4    3 months ago

90 years too long it can certainly be argued. It should not have continued one day. And then we get to the hatred of disputing RECONSTRUCTION and it's close kin: Jim Crow. And a denial of any Civil Rights by some conservatives who want to be known for the good they do, but take no 'credit' for the failures in equality for all in our country by their continued stonewalling and backward planning for this nation's future!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.4.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.4.3    3 months ago

Please list some of these civil rights some conservatives have managed to take from you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.5  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.4.4    3 months ago

If some conservatives don't know about 'The struggles continues" I suggest the collective "you" do some home-study!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.4.5    3 months ago
If some conservatives don't know about 'The struggles continues" I suggest the collective "you" do some home-study!

If some liberals want to claim things, they (the collective you) should be able to back it up instead of merely inventing scenarios not happening. It would certainly go a long way forward to credibility.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.7  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.4.6    3 months ago

Liberals have little to prove to trumpists. It would be an undignified wasted effort for liberals to seek trumpists validation.  Donald carries his own 'world' around in his head as a 'north star' for his supporters-to date it is impenetrable. You get the last word on this one if you wish. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.4.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.4.7    3 months ago
Liberals have little to prove to trumpists. It would be an undignified wasted effort for liberals to seek trumpists validation.

Since I am certainly no Trumpist, your words must be meant for someone else.

But in the future, a very simple "No, I don't have anything to validate my claims" will suffice nicely.

It is a very weak argument to claim something nefarious and be totally unable to back it up.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.9  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.4.8    3 months ago
If some conservatives don't know about 'The struggles continues" I suggest the collective "you" do some home-study!

Liberals and progressives defeated slavery, reconstruction, jim crow laws (but not attitudes), voter literacy tests, lynchings, blood, sweat, and tears spilt on 'bloody Sunday' in Selma, Alabama, being fire-hosed, gunned down by state troopers, tear-gassed, gerry-mander counties and states which put minorities out of power and influence while still holding on to an impotent vote. Finally - currently, we face a conservative tyranny of the minority supported by a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court (hand-picked by the Federalist Society and Donald for the purposes of farther undermining and removing ('gutting') civil rights for al)l in favor of a conservative ideology!

I have decided to waste several comments on this issue (if need be) with trumpists, even though it won't help move the discussion forward in any respectable way, in my opinion.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.10  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.2    3 months ago

The problem is Harris can’t even talk a good game. Her history since her first encounter with Willie all the way up to being Joe’s DEI pick shows she will be a mitigating disaster for this country if she is elected.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.11  bugsy  replied to  CB @2.4.5    3 months ago

So what struggles are they? What are you not afforded as a US citizen as every other citizen is afforded. 
Now, we know this administration cares more about illegals than they do citizens, but that is for a different discussion. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.12  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.4.10    3 months ago

Do you have anything other than feeble partisan claims?    No argument.    No facts (even ignoring facts).   Just predictable negative partisan bullshit.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.13  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.12    3 months ago

Just predictable negative partisan bullshit’

The irony is glaringly amazing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.4.14  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.12    3 months ago

Do you think Harris would be your nominee today if your party’s elite allowed for a fair and open primary that democrats can choose on their own?

Does your party elites not trust who they would pick?

Are they afraid they would totally ignore Harris with a mid 30s approval rating, like they did in 2019, and pick someone who is predictably more popular and , well, intelligent, like Mark Kelly?

Are you backing the Harris ticket simply because Walz, whom you have gloated over for months, is part of the ticket? Would you still support her if he was not?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.15  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.4.14    3 months ago
Do you think Harris would be your nominee today if your party’s elite allowed for a fair and open primary that democrats can choose on their own?
Does your party elites not trust who they would pick?
Are they afraid they would totally ignore Harris with a mid 30s approval rating, like they did in 2019, and pick someone who is predictably more popular and , well, intelligent, like Mark Kelly?

I do not have a party.    If you want a thoughtful answer to the above then ask a question that is not a taunt.

Are you backing the Harris ticket simply because Walz, whom you have gloated over for months, is part of the ticket? Would you still support her if he was not?

I would vote for Harris regardless of who she chose for V.P. (out of those in contention) because either she or Trump will be PotUS and Trump should never be allowed access to public power — much less that of the presidency.    The choice of Walz was great, IMO, and thus I am actually happy to vote for Harris-Walz.   That is, by the way, after acceptance that she might support many positions that I will not agree with.

( Look up the meaning of 'gloat' because your use of it was entirely wrong. )

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.4.16  CB  replied to  bugsy @2.4.11    3 months ago

Join the 'discussion' at 2.4.9 please.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  CB @2.4.5    3 months ago

There is more than one book with that title. Are you referring to the one by David Coltart about Zimbabwe, or the one by Nelson Mandela?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

BIDEN : " Remember all the talk — Biden got elected ... we're gonna collapse, and there's gonna be all this caving in, interest rates are gonna go through the ceiling? C'mon, man!"

GWgc2D8WIAAJDa8?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

 Kamala Harris: "Sixty-fo daze. How bout dat?”

That from a woman who went to middle school and high school in Canada, lived in a wealthy neighborhood, and was raised by two PhDs

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    3 months ago

I thought just HIgh School.  She lived in Montreal, so maybe she was trying to imitate a French-Canadian speaking English.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5  Hallux    3 months ago

Someone needs to have their senses checked, this reeks of desperation to reelect the 'Weaver'.

So, a question  ... is Donald channeling Madame DeFarge?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5    3 months ago
is Donald channeling Madame DeFarge?

Wrong city.  More like Thomas Jefferson.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 months ago

You're into twisting everything this morning, twist this:

“You know, I do the weave,” he said. “You know what the weave is? I’ll talk about like nine different things, and they all come back brilliantly together, and it’s like, friends of mine that are, like, English professors, they say, ‘It’s the most brilliant thing I’ve ever seen.’”

DJT

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    3 months ago

You have a good point, but on the other hand Trump supporters like we see here actually agree with Trump that he is brilliant. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    3 months ago

Those imaginary friends of his.....English professors and the like ....lol

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    3 months ago

Try this one:

Kamala Harris wrongly says freedom of speech is a privilege when it’s actually a right clearly defined in the First Amendment.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    3 months ago

We all know that her and her loon leftist followers believe speech is free until you say something they don’t like, then it is viiiiiiiiiioooolence. 
Then usually commence in a violent act to protest that ‘violence’

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @5.1.5    3 months ago

The very people who claim to be about saving democracy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bugsy @5.1.5    3 months ago

She is part of the administration that, as we found out last week, repeatedly pressured social media companies to censor the people.  

Keeping that in mind, she's stated during her CNN "interview" “my values haven’t changed.” 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.7    3 months ago

At least that is one thing she has not flipped flopped on. Her values have always been in the toilet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    3 months ago
That is the second big difference between her and Trump. Trump is always authentic. Kamala is trying to be what her audience wants her to be. Women might regard her as a man's type of women.

Trump is always an authentic pathological liar.   It is major league spin to cast this as a good thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6    3 months ago

Always authentic.

She can try to imitate his rallies, but she can never relate to real people.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 months ago

A chickenshit complaint.   Now you complain that Harris behaves like a normal politician during a campaign.

Trump is always an authentic pathological liar.   It is major league spin to cast this as a good thing.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.1    3 months ago

No, Harris is acting nothing like a normal politician, she's just pretending to be one.

Ms. Cackles is about as phony as a candidate can get, and she is really weird, coming up with all this fake accents.

The dems really picked a losing combination with these two socialist clowns

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.1    3 months ago

I have no complaints about Harris. I'm glad that Pelosi anointed her as the nominee.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    3 months ago
I'm glad that Pelosi anointed her as the nominee.

Do you think making silly claims like this accomplishes anything of value?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    3 months ago

That is not a silly claim.

A silly claim would be the one that Tim Walz just made about Trump implementing "child labor."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    3 months ago
I'm glad that Pelosi anointed her as the nominee.

Well, Nancy and the big-money donors to the Democratic Party.

Those donors now own Harris.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.6    3 months ago

They are the elite and they just can't overcome their hatred of one man.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.7    3 months ago
They are the elite and they just can't overcome their hatred of one man.

Funny how a few still cling desperately to the notion that the Democratic Party is 'for the little guy".

The "big guys" just forced the man the "little guys" voted for out of politics.

I wonder how that will help the little guys? Maybe the little guys are just too stupid to recognize that Harris is "the better candidate".

They just need someone to tell them who to vote for, and the reasons why really don't matter.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.9  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.7    3 months ago

Wow. Elon Musk is an 'elite.' And yet, Donald and trumpists don't mock him for his status and support! It's shameless what Donald has done in accepting Elon's bribes and excesses (through 'Pacs R us').

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  CB @6.1.9    3 months ago
Wow. Elon Musk is an 'elite.' And yet, Donald and trumpists don't mock him for his status and support! It's shameless what Donald has done in accepting Elon's bribes and excesses.

Elon does not act like your typical elite. He would need to become a staunch democrat supporter for that. That, I am sure, played a big part in his move from California to Texas.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.1.9    3 months ago
Elon Musk

Let's not get ahead of tomorrow's column.

It will be interesting.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.12  CB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.10    3 months ago

Yeah,. . .and there it is! The well-tuned  "selective" speech trumpists are commonly spouting these days. An elite is an 'elite-lite' when 'putting out' for Donald. (Chuckles.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.1.9    3 months ago
It's shameless what Donald has done in accepting Elon's bribes and excesses (through 'Pacs R us').

You should file a formal complaint with the FEC.

But they MAY ask for evidence--oopsy!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.14  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    3 months ago

The collective "we" will just know in our hearts what we know about transactional Donald. No love being shared or lost between the two men. Donald may not be able to pay Elon back in 2025. Watch this space, nevertheless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.10    3 months ago
Elon does not act like your typical elite. He would need to become a staunch democrat supporter for that. That, I am sure, played a big part in his move from California to Texas.

Yeah, looks like he has some common sense.

California has only itself to blame for his departure from there. 

I bet it is just going to eat some liberals up no end that the feds are asking Musk's company to retrieve some astronauts!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.16  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    3 months ago

Got 'columns' stacked up, eh. Interesting and disturbing!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.17  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    3 months ago
California has only itself to blame for his departure from there. 

Elon only has himself to blame for 'partnering' with a liar, cheater, and thief!  California will do fine. BTW, Elon's plant is still in California. . .unless he wants to pack it up and take it to Texas too. California will do fine. There are other companies that wish to be here (and will work out their business relationships accordingly). "Plenty good room" . . .the saying goes! :)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    3 months ago
she can never relate to real people

By the way, fuck the self-righteous self-appointed "real Americans" and "real people" who apparently think their shit doesn't stink and that dirty Donald is an "authentic" anything other than pathologically lying narcissist. I'm frankly sick and tired of many right-wing conservative Christians believing themselves the only "real Americans" as if the tens of millions of liberals, progressives and lgtbq Americans aren't "real people" deserving of the same rights and protections afforded EVRY American under the constitution. Apparently, those supposedly "real American" right wing Christian conservatives have forgotten or chosen to ignore the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do to you. Treat other Americans as somehow "lesser" than yourselves and look down on them and you're just asking others to treat you the same.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.19  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.18    3 months ago

Hatemongers, Inc. is still a thriving business in our country. It's gets even sadder when so-called religious folks can not be bothered to talk about religion or their faith in mixed company as it relates to their politics, because their religious 'vibe' might condemn them before the discussion gets deep. I know I am a real "American' - got all my 'cerificates' and 'validators' to boot! What I am not is a trumpist!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.1.17    3 months ago

Exactly the attitude towards business in general that has led to the exodus of some businesses.

It seems smart to antagonize, tax excessively, legislate senseless laws harming businesses and regulate them senselessly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.21  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.20    3 months ago

"Some" is the operative word, as in "some" new businesses will replace 'em. It's seems to be a matter of businesses migrating across and throughout the country doing what businesses do. . . seek advantages. There are advantages in California for sure and companies can come back (and forth) according to 'individual' needs. (California is a really, really, really, big state!)

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.22  cjcold  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.10    3 months ago

California doesn't have a launch complex.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.23  George  replied to  cjcold @6.1.22    3 months ago

VandenBerg disagrees with your comment.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.24  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.1    3 months ago

‘Trump is always an authentic pathological liar.   It is major league spin to cast this as a good thing.’

He was a democrat until about 10 years ago.

Sounds like he learned from the best at pathological lying. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.1.24    3 months ago
He was a democrat until about 10 years ago.

If he was still a D with the same past and present acts I would be issuing the same criticisms.

Sounds like he learned from the best at pathological lying. 

A perfect partisan comment.   A fine example of the (errant) simplistic team-sport view of political reality.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.26  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.25    3 months ago

If he was still a D with the same past and present acts I would be issuing the same criticisms.’
Somehow I find that doubtful.

A perfect partisan comment.   A fine example of the (errant) simplistic team-sport view of political reality’

Your opinion is noted and filed appropriately but my comment stands as fact.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.1.26    3 months ago

The problem with people who believe their ill-conceived notions are fact is that they wind up getting a lot of things wrong.

It is far better to ground one's conclusions in actual fact and keep revisiting one's assumptions to ensure they remain valid.

Of course, that takes work and it is far easier to make shit up ... as evidenced by your post.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.28  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.27    3 months ago

The problem with people who believe their ill-conceived notions are fact is that they wind up getting a lot of things wrong.’

Take that up with them, then.

Of course, that takes work and it is far easier to make shit up ... as evidenced by your post.’

Seems like more bs from those who don’t want to accept that Trump was a democrat like them for many decades prior to first running for president.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.27    3 months ago
The problem with people who believe their ill-conceived notions are fact is that they wind up getting a lot of things wrong.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.1.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.29    3 months ago

Give them some credit.  They are very knowledgeable in the stuff they make up.  For example, look how many were experts on Russia during the Russia collusion hoax.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.1.28    3 months ago
... who don’t want to accept that Trump was a democrat ...

And again you ignore what is written and make bullshit claims.   Read what I wrote:

TiG@6.1.25If he was still a D with the same past and present acts I would be issuing the same criticisms.

The word 'still' acknowledges that he was a D.    ⇡   

Further, what bizarre thought process makes you think I care to which party Trump is affiliated?

... was a democrat like them ...

I am not nor have I ever been a D.   What you do not seem to realize is that it is possible to support a D for PotUS while not being affiliated with the D party.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.1.14    3 months ago
Watch this space, nevertheless

I have had quite enough of unsupported claims already, should I be expecting yet more?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.33  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.31    3 months ago


[] What you do not seem to realize is that it is possible to support a D for PotUS while not being affiliated with the D party. ’

That is actually true. I voted for Bill his first term. Learned my lesson and have not made the same mistake again.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.34  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.2    3 months ago

It is very difficult to see why anyone would want to vote for these scoundrels, especially the one that lied about his service and what he retired as.[]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.35  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.25    3 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6    3 months ago

It is some major league spin to pretend Harris is competent.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    3 months ago

She watched Joe and figures "How hard can this be? All I have to do is do what I am told to. I'll have "people" telling me all the time for that".

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.1    3 months ago

I think a lot of instructions are coming from Obama and his gang of progressives. Same handlers as Biden, same failed policies being put forth, same failed results. She'll be headed for the dust bin of history in just a few weeks

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.1    3 months ago

I wonder how many Harris voters have really looked at her vs. the ones who are content to vote for her because she isn't Trump.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.3    3 months ago

That, my friend, is a damned good question............and also seems to be answered right here on NT when you look at the commentary.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    3 months ago

The best Trump supporters seem to have is feeble allegations that defy reality.

Trump is likely the most prolific publicly known liar of our times yet you deflect from this.

Trump's attempt to downplay the pandemic rather than immediately act to protect the nation was a prime example of narcissistic induced incompetence.   Trump's modus operandi is to present an alternate reality based on serial lies.   A prime example is his lying about his signature campaign promise — the wall.   He now claims that he finished the wall and was starting to build more of it.   This nonsensical bullshit was a coverup for the fact that not only did he fail to get Mexico to pay for the wall (ridiculous at the onset) but he could not get Congress to support his efforts (even when the GOP controlled Congress).   He instead diverted DoD money and wound up building 452 miles out of the needed 1,954 miles and half of what was built was simply replacing/repairing existing fencing.

And if we look at his many business failings, we see the same pattern of incompetence.

The one thing that Trump is good at is getting people to believe his bullshit.  At that, he is quite competent. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.4    3 months ago

If you wanted people to vote for Trump you should have told him not to become a traitor. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.3    3 months ago
I wonder how many Harris voters have really looked at her vs. the ones who are content to vote for her because she isn't Trump.

Again, you compare Harris with Trump and seem confused as to why someone would vote for her rather than Trump.    Your comments imply that you do not recognize that at the onset Trump is unfit for office and Harris is fit.   Fitness for office should be the very first test and Trump fails miserably.   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.3    3 months ago

As Jim stated, look at the commentary.  Many of those trying to brow beat others into agreement on a specific point of view cannot put forth any real list of her accomplishments.  They immediately repeat the typical blathering about the opposition.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.9  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    3 months ago
It is some major league spin to pretend Harris is competent.

compared to a convicted felon that's now awaiting sentencing for his crimes, on only 1 indictment so far?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.10  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.8    3 months ago
put forth any real list of her accomplishments

google her tie breaking votes in the senate...

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
6.2.11  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.8    3 months ago
They immediately repeat the typical blathering about the opposition.

Mirror, mirror on the wall ... @!@

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @6.2.10    3 months ago

So she toed the party line. Woo Hoo you go Kammy

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @6.2.10    3 months ago
google her tie breaking votes in the senate...

Exactly, she never went against her Party's vote.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.5    3 months ago
The best Trump supporters seem to have is feeble allegations that defy reality.

Well, then the appropriate thing to do would be to take your complaints and comments TO them instead of me.

Trump is likely the most prolific publicly known liar of our times yet you deflect from this.

That is unadulterated bullshit. I deflected to Harris on a story about Harris----that doesn't make a damn lick of sense.

Perhaps it is really YOU deflecting TO Trump because you have no real rebuttal.

Just for once, I would love to see a defense of Harris that doesn't include the usual stale old "Not Trump" idiocy seen here often.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @6.2.10    3 months ago
google her tie breaking votes in the senate...

thanks for proving the point.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hallux @6.2.11    3 months ago

Oh, I forgot the personal attacks (like this one) when one doesn't agree with the brow beating.  Thanks for reminding me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @6.2.9    3 months ago
compared to a convicted felon that's now awaiting sentencing for his crimes, on only 1 indictment so far?

Look, I know there is no real defense for Harris and her [] supporters and [] must deflect to Trump every time someone says something mean to little Kamala.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    3 months ago
Again, you compare Harris with Trump and seem confused as to why someone would vote for her rather than Trump. 

What exactly are you reading, because it doesn't appear to be my posts. I made no comparison, be honest!

Your comments imply that you twist what I actually wrote and then attempt to poorly argue the position you have invented for me. If that is what you wish to continue to do, you don't need my participation any longer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.8    3 months ago
Many of those trying to brow beat others into agreement on a specific point of view cannot put forth any real list of her accomplishments.  They immediately repeat the typical blathering about the opposition.

That must pass as a cogent rebuttal in some places.

Tie-breaking votes is no accomplishment and it is ludicrous to suggest such a thing and tout a vote as an accomplishment of something meaningful.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.18    3 months ago

[removed]

[] he challenged your position, if you can, try and rebut him. all you do here is tell people that they are misrepresenting you. Then try and represent yourself.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.19    3 months ago

All it shows is that she can perform some simple tasks.  Like blinking and breathing.  Nothing more. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.8    3 months ago
As Jim stated, look at the commentary.  Many of those trying to brow beat others into agreement on a specific point of view cannot put forth any real list of her accomplishments

What gets me is the continual misrepresentation of what is clearly written before them. It gets old having to point out so often that some are arguing themselves since they invent the position for us.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.21    3 months ago
All it shows is that she can perform some simple tasks.  Like blinking and breathing.  Nothing more. 

Hey, she is the 'woke' Joe Biden with a makeover.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.22    3 months ago
What gets me is the continual misrepresentation of what is clearly written before them.

Like I mentioned before.  What you say isn't what you say in the conversations in THEIR HEADs.  Instead of dealing with reality, they run with that fictitious conversation.  It doesn't help when there are comments like 6.2.20 trying to go along with that fictional conversation.

It gets old having to point out so often that some are arguing themselves since they invent the position for us.

Makes you wonder if English is the primary language or if Google Translate is failing them

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.23    3 months ago

LMAO.  No matter how long they polish it, it's still a turd.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.24    3 months ago
What you say isn't what you say in the conversations in THEIR HEADs.  Instead of dealing with reality, they run with that fictitious conversation. 

That certainly seems to be the case as often as it happens.

It doesn't help when there are comments like 6.2.20 trying to go along with that fictional conversation.

That inanity doesn't deserve a response.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.14    3 months ago
I would love to see a defense of Harris that doesn't include the usual stale old "Not Trump"

You have never read my comments on Harris?   

From a recent comment of mine comparing the two:

  • Trump is historically by far the worst nominee of a major party.   Harris is a normal candidate for the D party.   
  • Trump is the most prolific pathological liar of our times.    Harris is a normal pandering politician.
  • Trump is a malignant narcissist who has proven he puts himself over country.    Harris will try to do what is best for the nation rather than for herself.
  • Trump is a negative curmudgeon who (in direct contrast to Reagan, et. al.) paints a picture of a nation in shambles.   Harris (like Reagan) inspires the nation with positivity.
  • Trump is the oldest nominee in US history.   Harris is 59 years old — a perfect age for a PotUS.
  • Trump is a loose cannon, an unpredictable, reactive childish asshole.   Harris is an adult who can control herself.
  • Trump is the opposite of presidential; an embarrassment for this nation.   Harris is presidential.
  • Trump is a lifelong con-man, thief, and serial womanizer.   Harris has led a life of lawfulness.

Given the choice of Trump or Harris, how could anyone want scoundrel Trump to have the power of the presidency??

How could anyone just sit on the sidelines and not work to ensure Trump is not PotUS?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.27    3 months ago

And every single little bullet point was, as usual and expected, a comparison of Harris to Trump, not one damn thing to do with judging her on HER own merits. Just another ho-hum list of "Not Trump" swill.

Which has been my point all along, thanks for giving a perfect example of exactly what I have been actually taking about.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.27    3 months ago
How could anyone just sit on the sidelines and not work to ensure Trump is not PotUS?

The exact same way others can sit on the sidelines and not work to ensure Harris is not the POTUS.

Do you recognize that this is not really that novel of a concept to many folks?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.28    3 months ago

What a stupid and dishonest complaint.   If you ignore the comparison and read the points I colored in Blue you will see the reasons to vote for Harris. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.30    3 months ago
What a stupid and dishonest complaint.   

Wrong, again.

I specifically asked about defending Harris or promoting Harris based on HER own ideas and accomplishments, and in typical fashion, you responded with a bunch of "Not Trump" excuses.

Not interested in further "Not Trump" stuff.

Save that for a Trump supporter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.32  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.30    3 months ago

The "argument" being posed by the other side here is really poor, under our present circumstances. The argument goes "unless you can cite specific positives associated with Kamala Harris logic dictates you should vote for Trump or stay home" 

I can cite positives for Harris, but even if I couldnt she is still preferable to Trump. In fact its no contest. 

How about we flip it?  Unless you are totally sure that Trump is honest, trustworthy, mentally sound, ethically normal, and a non-traitor , you are required to vote for Kamala Harris no matter what you think about her "policies". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.32    3 months ago

I have no expectation that facts and reason influence anyone who still supports Trump (or who cannot see the profound difference between Trump and Harris-Walz where Harris-Walz is clearly the only rational, responsible, patriotic choice).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.33    3 months ago
Harris-Walz where Harris-Walz is clearly the only rational, responsible, patriotic choice).

Nonsense.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.32    3 months ago
The argument goes "unless you can cite specific positives associated with Kamala Harris logic dictates you should vote for Trump or stay home" 

This tactic of deliberately misstating others' arguments is getting old.

Which post makes the argument you claim other than your own?

I defy you to quote me even ONE time saying to vote for Trump. Or to stay home.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.36  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.33    3 months ago
Harris-Walz is clearly the only rational, responsible, patriotic choice).

Then why did the PEOPLE not have that choice for them to be a candidate?  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.37  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.30    3 months ago
If you ignore the comparison and read the points I colored in Blue you will see the reasons to vote for Harris.

And all you did was compare her "traits" to Trump's. At that, no less than half of the blue points are opinions only......and subject to scrutiny..........much scrutiny at that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.38  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.36    3 months ago
Then why did the PEOPLE not have that choice for them to be a candidate? 

Because the moneybags who own the Democratic Party recognized Biden was truly a horrible candidate despite Democratic Party lies to the contrary, knew that more and more people were suddenly realizing they had been lied to about Biden for months if not years, and figured that Harris would be the next Chosen One.  She undoubtedly checks a lot of boxes, and they waited too long to get rid of Joe, hoping against hope he could still stumble across the finish line.

I suspect the moneybags knew all along that Joe isn't fit. They waited too long and got painted into a corner with Kamala.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.37    3 months ago

What do you hope to gain by ignoring the obvious?

The points in blue are reasons to vote for Harris.

Further, you too now whine that I showed the Trump faults in comparison yet one of these two will be PotUS.  They should always be compared.

Do you think pathetic ‘rebuttals’ like you just offered influence anyone?


Here, I will make it super simple:

  • Harris is a normal candidate for the D party.   
  • Harris is a normal pandering politician.
  • Harris will try to do what is best for the nation rather than for herself.
  • Harris (like Reagan) inspires the nation with positivity.
  • Harris is 59 years old — a perfect age for a PotUS.
  • Harris is an adult who can control herself.
  • Harris is presidential.
  • Harris has led a life of lawfulness.

See, these are reasons to vote for Harris.   And the Ds will add a number of policy reasons for why they support Harris.

I will add a few policy reasons that I like of Harris:

  • Responsible focus on the environment via renewable energy
  • Targeted and appropriate measures to curtail pandemic-triggered price-gouging (not price control)
  • Support for Israel and for humane handling of Palestinians (complex issue)
  • Support for Ukraine and continued opposition to threats such as Putin
  • Leaving decision for abortion as a personal choice by a woman and her doctor
  • General intent to increase opportunity (legislation details will matter)
  • Support and respect for the military

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.36    3 months ago

It is amusing that Trump supporters are clinging to something that only they seem to care about.    This is a non-issue, so keep wasting bandwidth on it and illustrate your lack of an argument.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.41  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.39    3 months ago
Do you think pathetic ‘rebuttals’ like you just offered influence anyone?

Just as much as your constant never-Trump bleatings do. And if you want the third coming of Obama, the second coming of Biden, and the second coming of Jimmy Carter and his candy-assed handling of everything GovCo, that my friend is your choice.

The world and our adversaries will crush her.........

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.2.42  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.41    3 months ago
The world and our adversaries will crush her.........

That's fucking hilarious there! It made me laugh out loud in the office is so absurd.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.43  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.40    3 months ago
It is amusing that Trump supporters are clinging to something that only they seem to care about.

And Harris supporters aren't? Wow

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.41    3 months ago
The world and our adversaries will crush her.........

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.45  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilone @6.2.42    3 months ago

They did Biden and his former boss.................

256

Who can forget the red line(s) in the sand, or the exit from Afghanistan (which I hear we are still sending them money), and Iran and their nuke program, and the money we released and on and on.

Oh and how can we forget Russia cruising into Ukraine.......China rattling sabres as well as the Norks

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.46  CB  replied to  evilone @6.2.42    3 months ago

It's a 'Donald' line. Donald thinks his self-important butt is God's only gift to the world. Actually heroes and sher-oes are born everyday! It's the true nature of things. Besides, sadly, we will never know how many of those born 'roes have been lost to this world through 'everyday' gun violence from all the guns in our country. They, trumpists, don't care about it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.2.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.2.46    3 months ago
Besides, sadly, we will never know how many of those 'roes have been lost to this world through 'everyday' gun violence from all the guns this country

What is your proposal to address 'everyday' gun violence? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.48  CB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.2.47    3 months ago

It's a passing comment. The actually point is this: "It's a 'Donald' line. Donald thinks his self-important butt is God's only gift to the world." written in reply to Evilone. :)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.2.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @6.2.48    3 months ago
It's a passing comment.

Not worthy of much thought?  Surprised since you had it in bold, red font.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.2.50  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.45    3 months ago
Who can forget...

Looks like you forgot a few other things, like who put us in the sandbox in the first place or negotiated the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners. Who pissed off the Iranians so much they restarted their nuclear program. Who posted classified information on social media. Who gave Russians some Israeli intel... Who alerted our enemies before we dropped bombs on their airfield.  And who shits on our Military at every opportunity, except when he thinks a photo op benefits him. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.51  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.5    3 months ago
"Trump is likely the most prolific publicly known liar of our times yet you deflect from this."

All the things your mentioned in this comment don't matter to the average rational and sane American voter.

Including his alleged lies, of which are outnumber by those of Harris.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.52  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.51    3 months ago
All the things your mentioned in this comment don't matter to the average rational and sane American voter.

According to you, the average, rational, sane American voter does not care if the PotUS lies to them continuously (many times on each speech) and does not accomplish what he claims yet lies and says he does anyway?   

Including his alleged lies, of which are outnumber by those of Harris.

First, you use 'alleged' implying that you do not believe Trump routinely lies.   Such an outrageously absurd claim ... I would expect pretty much anyone reading your post will not take you seriously.   But then you double-down with something even more ridiculous: that Harris lies more than Trump.

I would imagine even Trump supporters are shaking their heads at that ridiculous claim.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.2.53  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.33    3 months ago
"Harris-Walz is clearly the only rational, responsible, patriotic choice)."

Only in your partisan mind.  She and Walz are extremely progressive lefties. The American people as a whole do not want that.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2.54  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.34    3 months ago

Watch the movie "Unfit" online.

The story of Trump's lifelong crime-spree. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.55  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.53    3 months ago

Another ridiculous declaration.   Genuine partisans do not seem to believe that anyone can be non-partisan;  they are so entrenched in their party-dependent ways that to them it is inconceivable how someone could actually make decisions where the party of the politician is not the top priority.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.56  CB  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.52    3 months ago

We, this nation, can not afford in any shape, form, or fashion to go 'head-long' backwards to all the lies, deceptions, obstructions, blockages, denials of forward momentum, thefts, deaths, murders, and of course do not forget suppressions and oppressions that stalked this country like a 'birth-mark.' (Thankfully, we were able to grow-up as a nation - in part anyway, and excise some of this toxic poison from the land.)

Now, trumpists intend to bring it back. And yes, they intend to use the levers of government (Project 2025) and our SCOTUS - with Chief Justice (C.J.) Roberts as their 'take our country back champion' to do so. I am reading a book that details how C.J. Roberts is a ringleader in setting our country backwards.

If we lose the SCOTUS to Donald (in 2025) it will mean Donald can appoint more justices (even change out the 'old guard' conservative justices wanting to retire) and remember it only takes FIVE justices to break any law congress can write (by defining it as constitutional). No one can stand against the high court acting in its authority and venue.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
6.2.57  1stwarrior  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.41    3 months ago

Not to mention that kamala-ha-ha is telling us she’s “Not Going Back.” So, not going back to lower gas prices. Not going back to a robust economy. Not going back to staying out of wars we don’t need. Not going back to a time when biden-flation wasn’t running rampant. Not going back to a controlled border. Not going back to an FBI and Justice Department un-weaponized against political opponents. Not going back to fighting human trafficking across the southern border, instead of facilitating it. Not going back to low mortgage interest rates…not going back to having a middle class able to afford a house. Not going back to a White House without crackhead sons and coke heads on the staff determining policy and selling influence. Not going back to a President without severe mental disabilities that are covered up by his VP and staff with a pack of lies for months and months. Not going back to respect for private property. Not going back to lower taxes for all. Not going back to liberty as our highest value. Not going back to presidential candidates selected by a vote of the people, instead of by party elites.

Oh yeah, the world and our adversaries are gonna crush her and her "party".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.58  Tessylo  replied to  evilone @6.2.42    3 months ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.59  CB  replied to  CB @6.2.56    3 months ago
(by defining it as constitutional)

Un constitutional , that is.

 Therefore, I have no doubt that (an unapologetic SCOTUS conservative majority) will declare laws unconstitutional for the sake of their ideology.  

The Chief Justice Who Isn’t


How John Roberts lost control of the Supreme Court



Matt Ford /
October 20, 20 22

As a writer and legal thinker, Roberts is characteristically lucid and direct. And as an interview subject for C-SPAN, he was equally straightforward. Host Susan Swain asked him what his fellow Americans should understand about the Supreme Court’s role in modern society.

The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government,” Roberts told her. “They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, it’s more or less just too bad."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.60  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.6    3 months ago
If you wanted people to vote for Trump

I don't think we will have any problems.

The latest projection from the legendary Nate Silver:

GWkNN-gXEAEpUEO?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.61  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.7    3 months ago
why someone would vote for her

How can a woman who is not confident and secure in her own voice have the confidence and strength to lead the free world?

No, Harris isn't fit for the office.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.62  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.61    3 months ago

Harris is not fit for office, per you, merely because you think (for whatever unknown reason) that she is not confident and secure in her own voice.

That is an amazingly weak argument.   Your proposition is subjective and seems like it is heavily based on bias and your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Amazing that someone would not be embarrassed to post something this feeble.

Worse, you think Trump, the traitor who violated his oath of office trying to steal the 2020 election (the only PotUS in our history to use fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement to try to thwart the historical peaceful transfer of power),  is fit for office.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.63  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.60    3 months ago

Just so you don't get too worked up, the electoral vote predictions grow weaker as margins reduce.    The idea that Nate (or anyone) could look at the current polls and predict the electoral winner is silly.   One could make a decent prediction on the popular vote since that is a linear equation.  But the electoral college dynamics are non-linear and thus inherently complex.   It is not as if having a 51% probability of winning means that you will win a state.  There are myriad scenarios with close states and while one can definitely devise a good probabilistic model, presidential elections are not decided on probabilities.   

To make this last point clearer, a probabilistic model could easily show Harris with a 48% probability to win a state like Pennsylvania but on election day she could indeed win.   Even though the hypothetical model said that Trump was more likely to win (52%) that does not mean that he WILL win.   (These probabilities are made up for example purposes, currently they are 50% each.)

If the weather forecast says there is a 65% chance you will experience a thunderstorm, do you recognize that you might NOT experience a thunderstorm?   Yet if the forecast is 45% do you conclude that you will not experience a thunderstorm?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.64  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.60    3 months ago

Where is a link for this data? Please share it.


UPDATED Sep. 3, 2024, at 11:49 AM

Who Is Favored To Win The 2024 Presidential Election?


538 uses polling, economic and demographic data to explore likely election outcomes.

Harris wins 56 times out of 100 in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election.

Trump wins 44 times out of 100.
There is a less than 1-in-100 chance of no Electoral College winner.
Harris            557
Trump           439
No winner+        4
                    1,000    simulations
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.65  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.60    3 months ago

Now, we all know if Nate Silver showed the exact opposite, our leftist friends here would harp that Silver is the best pollster there is and can never be wrong. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.66  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.35    3 months ago

It’s been repeated her over and over, many times by the same posters, insinuating that if you are just slightly right of Marx, then you must be an avid Trump supporter. 
One would think to write down screen names and who they state they will vote or not vote for to keep things simple. 
it would drastically reduce the number of incorrect guesses.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.68  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.63    3 months ago

It is a very close race. In both 2016 and 2020 Trump outperformed his poll numbers. Harris needs to really be ahead in the battleground states.

Then there is the way the election is conducted. What is the only thing we still do that we did during the pandemic?  It's mail-in voting.

In 2020 Marc Elias was able to push through massive mail-in-voting throughout the country. The idea was to help democrats get their less enthusiastic voters to cast a vote. It was an overwhelming success. The democrats banked millions of votes each day which turned election day into an afterthought. It has benefited then in subsequent elections. The question now is if Republicans have adapted.

We do have a debate next week which may or may not affect the election. Early voting begins in PA on Sep 16th.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.69  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.62    3 months ago

Comon TiG, I have given you many reasons why she is not up to the job.

Changing her way of speaking and keeping as cell phone to her ear to avoid answering questions are among the latest indicators.

She is unfit and Biden was a national disgrace.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.70  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.40    3 months ago
It is amusing that Trump supporters are clinging to something that only they seem to care about.

Then take it up with Trump supporters.  I, on the other hand, ask you a question.

This is a non-issue, so keep wasting bandwidth on it and illustrate your lack of an argument.

So doing exactly the opposite of what they claim is a non-issue?  And you all blather on about one specific person lying.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.71  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.69    3 months ago

Is Trump fit for office ? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.72  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.71    3 months ago

Is Kamala?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.73  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.68    3 months ago

It is a very close race thus predicting the winner in terms of the electoral college is flawed as I noted.   That is simply the reality of mathematics.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.74  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.69    3 months ago

You have an amazing low bar for 'unfit'.   

How is it possible to have your bar for 'unfit' an inch about the floor and still consider Trump fit for office?   

And how could you consider Harris a disgrace and somehow not recognize that Trump has disgraced the GOP and the nation and continues to do so on a daily basis?

Just bizarre.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.75  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.72    3 months ago

Absolutely!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.76  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.72    3 months ago

yes

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.77  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.74    3 months ago

Extremists look at things differently than the rest of us do. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.78  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.75    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.79  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.76    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.80  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.67    3 months ago

Our concern is less about cannibalizing content that could induce people to become paid subscribers and more that these charts can get taken out of context. For instance, we’ve seen cases of people using this chart—

[Chart won't display. Go to source to view.]

to imply that we have Donald Trump forecasted to win the election by 10 or 11 points. The biggest landslide since Reagan in 1984! But that’s not at all what this chart is saying. Rather, it displays the  probability  that Trump will win the Electoral College — which is about 55 percent in our forecast, compared to about 45 percent for Harris.

Rather than a landslide, that implies an extremely uncertain and probably ultimately very close race — well in the range of what  we’d consider a “toss-up” . In fact, the chance of a landslide — either Harris or Trump winning the popular vote by 10 points or more — is only about 5 percent in our model.


This is what is on the page you linked regarding the Electoral College (at this point). The chart is in flux! (Subject to change and potential wide-changes). It's a "very close race" according to Nate Silver.

I am unsure why your 6.2.60 chart 'title' and image does not look the same as the one I found on the page you linked. What you have at 6.2.60 does not appear the same as on the 6.2.67 link! (That is a problem.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.81  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.68    3 months ago
It is a very close race.

That is an admission!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.82  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.69    3 months ago

That comment is notable in its pettiness. Question everything a democrat does (or his/her motivations), while ignoring Donald's blatant attacks on everything civil and decent in the country. .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.83  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.2.82    3 months ago
That comment is notable in its pettiness. Question everything a democrat does (or his/her motivations), while ignoring Donald's blatant attacks on everything civil and decent in the country. .

This comment is notable for its deflection.

Throw in some twisted hyperbole, and voila!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.84  CB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.83    3 months ago

I will not waste time on pointless back and forth. You can have the last word.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.85  Texan1211  replied to  CB @6.2.84    3 months ago
I will not waste time on pointless back and forth. You can have the last word.

Why, thank you!

I kind of figured asking for a defense of Harris without mentioning Trump would be a conversation-ender.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.86  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @6.2.54    3 months ago

Think I will pass.

See, I have no Trump obsession.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.87  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.73    3 months ago

Who should break it to Nate Silver?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.88  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.71    3 months ago

He proved it for 4 years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.89  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.2.81    3 months ago

Every election, other than the 2008 election, in the past two decades has been close.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.90  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.89    3 months ago

Twenty years ago in 2004 was the only time since 1988 that the Republican candidate got over 50% of the popular vote...

In thirty six years the gop got majority support only one time!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.91  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.90    3 months ago

A lot of democrat votes are concentrated in big blue cities populated by minorities, migrants, homeless people, and the destitute.

It is kind of like the Roman Republic and the vote of "the mob."

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.92  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.91    3 months ago

Prejudices have no place in determining which citizens vote!

The "Mob" were Trump's January 6th MAGA Insurrectionists!

If the gop wants to win elections they must appeal to voters...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.93  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.91    3 months ago

Isn't that how every big city is populated 'by minorities, migrants, homeless people, and the destitute'?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.94  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.92    3 months ago
Prejudices have no place in determining which citizens vote!

Citizens only!


The "Mob" were

The mob in ancient Rome were poor rabble who voted for any side which gave them bread. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.95  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.93    3 months ago

Have you ever been to Las Vegas?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.96  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @6.2.57    3 months ago

Who gave you those talking points?  I note 'our adversaries are gonna crush her and her party' has been repeated by several others.

WTF does that even mean?????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.97  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.94    3 months ago

That's who will be voting - citizens.  Not mobs of illegal immigrants.

The mob would be the 'right'.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.98  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.94    3 months ago

It is a major federal crime for any noncitizens to vote in any state or federal elections in the United States of America...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.99  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.97    3 months ago
That's who will be voting - citizens.

How can you be sure?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.100  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.99    3 months ago

Prove me wrong!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.101  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.98    3 months ago

It doesn't mean a damn thing if nobody is assigned to check.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.102  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.100    3 months ago
Prove me wrong!

You were asked to prove that citizenship was being verified on those federal ballots.

I'm still waiting.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.103  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.101    3 months ago

Voter registrations and who has voted in our elections is public record and this can be checked and double checked against citizenship rolls by anyone at any time and often are. Elections are regularly audited. Little evidence of attempted fraud is ever found. When it occurs it is inevitably caught and punished! 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.104  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @6.2.103    3 months ago
nd double checked against citizenship rolls by anyone at any time and often are.

Can you post a link to the "Citizen roll?" 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.105  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.102    3 months ago

There are no federal ballots. States conduct federal elections.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.2.106  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.104    3 months ago

They are available to election officials from both parties! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.107  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.2.105    3 months ago

There are two forms a voter may use to register to vote, the  state form  or the  federal form .

Federal Only Voters | Citizens Clean Elections Commission (azcleanelections.gov)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.108  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.107    3 months ago

A 1993 federal law  called the National Voter Registration Act allowed people to register to vote even if they don't have papers showing they are citizens.

How a proof-of-citizenship voting rule may tilt a key swing state (msn.com)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.109  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @6.2.106    3 months ago

So what's the source for your new claim? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.110  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.87    3 months ago

I am confident that Silver understands what one would learn in Statistics 101.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.111  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.110    3 months ago

Then it is ok for him to make estimates & predictions?

For a minute there I thought you were against pollsters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.112  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.111    3 months ago
Then it is ok for him to make estimates & predictions?

I did not write that it is not 'ok' for Silver to make predictions.   I explained why making a prediction on the electoral college given such a close race is not currently sound.   Here is what I wrote:

TiG@6.2.63 ☞ Just so you don't get too worked up, the electoral vote predictions grow weaker as margins reduce.    The idea that Nate (or anyone) could look at the current polls and predict the electoral winner is silly.   One could make a decent prediction on the popular vote since that is a linear equation.  But the electoral college dynamics are non-linear and thus inherently complex.   It is not as if having a 51% probability of winning means that you will win a state.  There are myriad scenarios with close states and while one can definitely devise a good probabilistic model, presidential elections are not decided on probabilities.   

To make this last point clearer, a probabilistic model could easily show Harris with a 48% probability to win a state like Pennsylvania but on election day she could indeed win.   Even though the hypothetical model said that Trump was more likely to win (52%) that does not mean that he WILL win.   (These probabilities are made up for example purposes, currently they are 50% each.)

If the weather forecast says there is a 65% chance you will experience a thunderstorm, do you recognize that you might NOT experience a thunderstorm?   Yet if the forecast is 45% do you conclude that you will not experience a thunderstorm?
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.113  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.112    3 months ago

I don't need for you to repost what you wrote.

All I wanted was to hear you say it was ok for Silver to do what he does.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.114  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.113    3 months ago
All I wanted was to hear you say it was ok for Silver to do what he does.

Why do you need me to write that?   If you read what I wrote you would see that I did not even imply Silver cannot operate as a pollster, so why do you need me to affirm that he can operate as such?

I made a point about the inaccuracy of an electoral college winner prediction when the margins are so tight.   If you have a concern with that then state it rather than ask me to make a pointless affirmation of something that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.115  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.89    3 months ago

6.2.60 was superfluous to show, in my opinion. The data is in flux.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.116  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.91    3 months ago

Gasp! Please elaborate. . . . 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.117  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.94    3 months ago

One 'man' one vote is how this ought to work. Anything else would exclude citizens and by the way the purpose of our republic's is to advance the 'needy' not to over-indulge the 'elite' business owners and wealthy-born.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.118  CB  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.96    3 months ago

It means Fox News and some conservatives are playing up women as being under men. It means women should 'know their place in politics' or even get out of it. It means women can't handle conflicts or international interests in cooperation with/against male dictators.

Even though queens have ruled and led nations historically- some using an 'iron fist.' ). 

Bottom-line: It's some conservative smearing of women as lightweight, unserious, and as 'play-toys' for toxic males. And, less we forget: FEARMONGERING. Some conservatives are stagnant and standing in the cesspool belief that women will give the country away in a fit of 'hysterics.'  Fear is a tangible weapon ( to be wielded and swung) to some rightwing minds.

The best 'solution' for every toxic male leader: Is to suggest he go. . . 'stuff' himself!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.119  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.101    3 months ago

And yet it is some conservatives who 'question' expenditures on the national ledger that go to feed and uplift the nation to its higher level who desire a federal AGENCY dedicated to watching the lack of actions suspected by non-citizens. Perhaps our leaders could commission a congressional panel to investigate the need of such an agency first (and accept its results good, bad, or indifferent once and for all)!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.120  bugsy  replied to  JBB @6.2.90    3 months ago

In thirty six years the gop got majority support only one time!’

Until you realize that popular vote in presidential elections does does not matter, your ‘point’ is mute.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.121  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.2.120    3 months ago
Until you realize that popular vote in presidential elections does does not matter, your ‘point’ is mute [sic].

His point is not moot.   I am sure everyone in this forum is quite aware that US presidential elections are decided by the electoral college votes.   So just take that as a given.

Now, with that as a given, JBB was arguing that the key reason GOP presidents have been elected in the past 36 years is because of the electoral college;  that if not for the state-centric, winner-take-all (in 48 states) structure, the GOP would have had only 1 winning candidate for the presidency in the last 36 years.

His point is certainly not moot, and he is clearly recognizing that presidential elections are won based on 270 or more electoral votes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.122  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.2.119    3 months ago

South America tried it. It failed.

Europe tried it. It failed.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.123  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.2.117    3 months ago
One 'man' one vote is how this ought to work.

This is a Republic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.124  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @6.2.116    3 months ago

Those self-interest voters are all concentrated in urban areas.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.125  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.114    3 months ago
I made a point about the inaccuracy of an electoral college winner prediction when the margins are so tight. 

And you did it superbly.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.126  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.123    3 months ago

Please be specific.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.127  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.124    3 months ago

Please be specific.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.128  Ronin2  replied to  CB @6.2.64    3 months ago

You had better get something more current; because Nate Silver most recent analysis says Harris is toast.

 Trump's chances of winning the 2024 presidential election have reached their highest level since July, according to the latest projections from  Nate Silver 's election model.

Silver's forecast model gives Trump a 60.1 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, compared to Vice President   Kamala Harris ' 39.7 percent, with the former president taking 277 electoral votes to the vice president's 260.

The latest prediction gives Trump his highest chance of winning since July 30.

The model also shows that the   Republicans   have made a net gain of between 0.1 and 2 points in every swing state other than Georgia and Wisconsin in the past week. Meanwhile, Trump leads in every battleground state other than Michigan and Wisconsin, where the candidates are tied.

Electoral College forecasts, including Silver's, also put Harris ahead. However, according to Silver's model, Harris' lead is now starting to unravel.

He attributes this to several factors, including a lower-than-expected poll bump for the vice president following the Democratic National Convention. According to Silver's model, Harris would have expected a two-point boost following the DNC; however, her lead has only increased by 1.2 points.

Silver added that former 2024 independent candidate  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 's endorsement of Trump last month may have eaten into any expected increase from the  DNC . However, he also said Harris' weak numbers in Pennsylvania influenced the model.

The Democrat Hyena can't lie her way out of this one. The media ignoring her past won't save her thanks to the internet. "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" isn't going to work like it did in 2020 because of what Biden/Harris/Democrats have put this country through for the last four years. Harris is bound to the failed Biden administration completely- her whole "I am a DC outsider" BS is falling flat.

I would call Harris and empty pant suit of a politician; but everyone knows where she stands, and what a failure she has been at every level government she has served.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.129  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.128    3 months ago

Wait for the ‘well, his reasoning is flawed and can’t be taken serious’ argument to come at you. 
Of course, if it showed the opposite, leftists would be screaming at the sky that Silver is the best pollster ever to exist.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.130  CB  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.128    3 months ago

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE YOU POSTED AS A LINK:

. . . .

Despite Silver's assessment, FiveThirtyEight's forecast projects that the Democrats will win Pennsylvania by 0.7 points.

Meanwhile, other pollsters are showing that Harris is ahead in the Electoral College. FiveThirtyEight's forecast model showed that Harris would win with 285 electoral votes to Trump's 253. RealClearPolitics also has Harris ahead in the Electoral College when tossup states are removed.

Although Silver's assessment may differ from other pollsters, it is in line with other polling aggregators, which show Harris is predicted to win the popular vote. Silver's model shows that Harris has a 58 percent chance of winning the popular vote compared to Trump's 41 percent chance, while FiveThirtyEight's forecast shows Harris is predicted to win 51 percent of the popular vote compared to Trump's 48 percent.

The forecasts indicate that although Harris could secure the popular vote, the Electoral College outcome is expected to be closely contested, especially in swing states with razor-thin margins. This makes the race highly competitive and still up for grabs for either candidate.

As to be anticipated (and expected) polling is "all over the map"! Best just sit back and watch as the election approaches and time narrows for it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.2.131  CB  replied to  bugsy @6.2.129    3 months ago

I am going to add a forecast(er) to this comment: I don't recall hearing or knowing of this man before this voting 'cycle,' but he seems confident enough for me to share (and I have seen him from somewhere). . .anyway. I will leave it up to voters. In any case, I plan to vote and take others to vote for all 'they' are worth!

Harris will beat Trump, says election prediction legend Allan Lichtman

Published Thu, Sep 5 20 24
Kevin Breuninger
@KevinWilliamB
Key Points
  • Professor Allan Lichtman predicts that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris will defeat Republican rival Donald Trump in the Nov. 5 election.
  • Lichtman, who has correctly predicted most presidential elections for four decades, bases his forecast on a model he dubs the “Keys to the White House.”
  • Lichtman predicted that Trump would defeat then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that President Joe Biden would beat Trump in 2020.

. . . .

The unique system, which he developed in the early 1980s with the Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok, analyzes the political landscape through the lens of 13 true-false statements focused on the incumbent president’s party.

If six or more of the statements are false, then the challenger — in this case, Trump — is predicted to win.

Here are the keys, and Lichtman’s determinations for each:

  1. Party Mandate:  After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.  FALSE
  2. Contest:  There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.  TRUE
  3. Incumbency:  The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.  FALSE
  4. Third party:  There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.  TRUE
  5. Short-term economy:  The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.  TRUE
  6. Long-term economy:  Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.  TRUE
  7. Policy change:  The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.  TRUE
  8. Social unrest:  There is no sustained social unrest during the term.  TRUE
  9. Scandal:  The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.  TRUE
  10. Incumbent charisma:  The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.  FALSE
  11. Challenger charisma:  The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.  TRUE
  12. Foreign/military failure:  The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
  13. Foreign/military success:  The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.2.132  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.72    3 months ago

Is Kamala?

Why not just answer the question?

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
7  squiggy    3 months ago

She continues to evolve - unburdened by what has been. Personally, I was shattered by the flashback of, “ gonna get myself a beer.”

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  squiggy @7    3 months ago
She continues to evolve - unburdened by what has been.

I can hardly believe that she fell in love with that.

 
 

Who is online




461 visitors