╌>

Marist Poll: Harris leads Trump by 5 points

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  yesterday  •  121 comments

By:   Abbi Stanley (NEWS ABC)

Marist Poll: Harris leads Trump by 5 points
According to the latest national Marist Poll, Vice President Kamala Harris is leading Former President Donald Trump by five points among likely voters. This poll includes undecided voters who are leaning toward certain candidates.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. (NEWS10) — According to the latest national Marist Poll, Vice President Kamala Harris is leading Former President Donald Trump by five points among likely voters. This poll includes undecided voters who are leaning toward certain candidates.

The poll asked likely voters who they are supporting or leaning toward in the presidential election. 52% of voters said they support the Harris campaign while 47% said Trump and 1% said another party's candidate.

The Marist Poll says that earlier this month the number of points separating the candidates was only two. 50% had said they would be supporting Harris while 48% said Trump.

Among registered voters, the contest ran a bit tighter. 51% said they would vote for Harris while 48% said Trump, separating them only by three points. The candidates were also separated by three points earlier in October with Harris having 50% of registered voters support and Trump with 47%.

The Marist Poll also surveyed Independents who are likely to vote, and they favored Trump by 10 points. 54% said they would vote for Trump while 44% said Harris.

Among the men and women who were polled, Trump leads Harris with the men while it is the opposite for women. 53% of men said they would vote for Trump and 47% said Harris. 57% of women said they'd vote for Harris and 42% said Trump.

When it comes to the different generations, Harris has a majority of support from Gen Z, Millenials, Baby Boomers, and the Silent-Greatest Generations. Gen X is divided with 51% support for Harris and 48% for Trump.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    yesterday

original

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2  Dig    yesterday

Still rather close, with Independents favoring Trump by 10 points in this poll.

It's astonishing that Trump, a coup-attempting tyrant and traitor to the republic has any support among Americans at all. What a failure of the justice system and the media.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Dig @2    yesterday

it's amazing the lengths that some anti-democratic unamerican trump/maga scum will go to just to own the libs ...

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.1.1  Dig  replied to  devangelical @2.1    yesterday

It truly is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @2.1    yesterday

Its too late for them to admit they were wrong. They'd just as soon drag the country down. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2  bugsy  replied to  Dig @2    yesterday
a coup-attempting tyrant and traitor to the republic

When did he do that and what were the charges against him for treason?....yes you have to commit treason to be a traitor. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.2    yesterday
yes you have to commit treason to be a traitor. 

we are back to this nonsense?

do you believe in dictionary definitions?  

traitor
noun   C  ]
      disapproving
uk  
  / ˈtreɪ.tə r /   us  
  / ˈtreɪ.t̬ɚ /

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    yesterday

If you want to go back to it then that is OK with me. I proved you wrong before...and am going to do it again...Note number 2..

traitor

noun

trai·​tor   ˈtrā-tər 
1
:   one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.2.2    yesterday

there are thousands of words that have multiple definitions

your objection to definition number one in your own example is mind boggling

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.2    yesterday

I love it you must split hairs over Trump being a traitor or not...

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.5  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    yesterday

Number one is your opinion of what you think Trump did.

Number two is showing leftists that you have to commit treason to be a traitor, something many here have tried to argue, failingly, against. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.6  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.4    yesterday

No hairs split. The fact that you think Trump has committed treason is shot down simply by a Mirriam Webster definition.

The fact that no one has charged Trump with treason shows that even the most ethically corrupt leftist DA knows that there is nothing there to charge. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
2.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    yesterday

As has been stated many times before the colloquial use of traitor is nothing more than an opinion and doesn't mean shit in the real world.  It is just people playing word games so they can call him a traitor and hope the small minded buy into it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
2.2.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.2.4    yesterday

One is opinion, one is legal.  Far from splitting hairs.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.2.9  Dig  replied to  bugsy @2.2.2    yesterday
Note number 2

You can't really be this dumb, can you? Is saying "note number 2" supposed to be some kind of magic trick that makes number 1 disappear? See that thing about being false to an obligation or duty? Like to the Constitution, which expressly instructs the president to see that the laws are faithfully executed? Trying to TAKE power after losing an election was an attack on the Constitution and the republic itself, making him a tyrant and a traitor TO the republic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.7    yesterday
one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

The easiest way, but not the only way to prove Trump is a traitor is his deliberate inaction while the J6 riot was taking place. 

This not an opinion or speculation, it is historical fact.  He never made a phone call or tried to facilitate more law enforcement or the National Guard to stop the riot once it had started.  That is dereliction of duty and betrayal of his oath of office. 

Trump didnt want to stop the riot, he wanted it to succeed. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.11  seeder  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.8    yesterday

Wrongo! It actually is the definition of splitting hairs! 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.12  seeder  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.10    yesterday

How are MAGA going to define it when Trump is convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America?

After all, there is no denying it. We saw it with our own eyes!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.13  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.10    yesterday
Trump didnt want to stop the riot, he wanted it to succeed. 

Your opinion.

A bunch of idiots that broke windows does not make an insurrection

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.14  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.2.12    yesterday
How are MAGA going to define it when Trump is convicted of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America

I guess we will have to see if someone charges him with it, huh?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.15  bugsy  replied to  Dig @2.2.9    yesterday

Thank you for your opinion but it was a fail.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.2.16  Dig  replied to  bugsy @2.2.15    yesterday

Only to a delusional mind.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.17  bugsy  replied to  Dig @2.2.16    yesterday

I'm sorry about your condition.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.2.18  Dig  replied to  bugsy @2.2.13    yesterday
A bunch of idiots that broke windows does not make an insurrection

Good lord. 

Here. Preceding events are listed as well...

Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Or, if you want the long version...

Final Report of the Select Committee

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.2.19  Dig  replied to  bugsy @2.2.17    yesterday

You're certainly sorry.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dig @2.2.18    yesterday
Good lord. 

I'm not sure that's the guy responsible for the mass amnesia effecting Trump supporters when it comes to January 6th as they are so deep in denial, they're likely on a first name basis with the 'other' Lord. Apparently, they love being 'rebels' so much they're willing to sell out their country and sign away their souls to the devil as long as it pisses off the liberals and progressives.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.21  bugsy  replied to  Dig @2.2.18    yesterday

You mean the highly partisan J6 committee that presented only items that were negative to Trump and nothing that would show a different side, the same J6 committee that destroyed everything they had when Republicans came back into power.

The same J6 committee that their stated mission was to find solutions that would not allow that day to happen again, but never touched on that?

It is amazing that leftists keep complaining that Trump resorts to going back to 2020 all the time and that he should move forward, but half the delusional population keeps bringing up a riot that lasted a few hours that happened almost 4 years ago.

The hypocrisy is astounding....but expected.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.22  bugsy  replied to  Dig @2.2.19    yesterday

That's why I sent my condolences to you.,

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.2.23  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @2.2.17    yesterday
I'm sorry about your condition.

Let me know if there’s any change in his condition (youtube.com)

But seriously, those who refuse to accept that January 6th was a violent attempt to stop the certification of a free and fair election and threatened what every REAL American holds dear, aka the constitution, and our long history of peaceful transfers of power, is a fucking traitor and not worthy of the protections the constitution provides them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.2.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @2.2.21    yesterday
You mean the highly partisan J6 committee

Nope. What every American who loves the constitution and is actually HONEST with themselves saw that day, was clearly an attempted insurrection. Those who wish to continue sucking dirty Donalds ball sweat are welcome to gargle his crotch drippings and pretend that what we all saw didn't happen, but those of us with more than half a brain know what we saw regardless of the January 6th committee hearing. All the hearing did was fill in a couple blanks by letting us know what some of those around Trump were doing at the time, and it clearly showed they were as pissed off as every other real American was.

“In my mind this whole time I felt this moral struggle,” “It feels ridiculous, because in my heart I knew where my loyalties lied, and my loyalties lied with the truth. And I never wanted to diverge from that. You know, I never wanted or thought that I would be the witness that I have become, because I thought that more people would be willing to speak out too.” - former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.25  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.23    yesterday

Maybe that was the idea of some that were there but to blame Trump is delusional at best.

Obviously, "peacefully and patriotically" is now insurrection talk. 

The left needs new talking points.

The ones you use are worn.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.26  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.2.21    yesterday
You mean the highly partisan J6 committee that presented only items that were negative to Trump and nothing that would show a different side,

Trump has had almost 4 years to tell his side of the story. All he says is how big his crowd was and they all love him and he told them to be "peaceful".   All that is a tiny fraction of the story. 

He has a chance to answer everyones questions and doesnt even try. Why?  Because he knows he's guilty. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.27  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.26    yesterday

Your opinion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.28  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @2.2.25    yesterday

Instead of calling authorities to try and put the riot down, Trump spent those hours calling congresspeople asking to go along with "the plan". 

Do you need a ton of bricks to fall before you see what was going on ? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.29  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.28    yesterday
Instead of calling authorities to try and put the riot down,

Something Pelosi should have prepared for in the beginning.

Where is your poutrage about her?

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
2.2.30  Thomas  replied to  bugsy @2.2.5    yesterday

From the Merriam-Webster sight:

Definitions

It may seem a bit silly that we need to have an entire section defining what the definitions are, but many people appear to have some awkward ideas about how words are defined (both in terms of what this means and what it doesn’t mean). Here are some points for your edification:

  1. If we define a word it does not mean that we have approved or sanctioned it. The role of the dictionary is to record use of a language, not to regulate it.
  2. If we do not offer a definition for a word, or a sense, this does not necessarily mean that the word is not real. Some words are omitted because they are too obscure or specialized, or too new (and do not yet have a solidified meaning), or simply are as yet unknown to us. Just as inclusion in a dictionary does not confer status upon a word, exclusion from this book does not remove it.
  3. If a word has multiple senses the first one is not the most important one. It is also not the most ‘correct’ one. The senses of each word are organized in one of two possible ways: beginning with the oldest known sense or the most common one. An example of a word which begins with the oldest known sense is   dishabille ; the common use of this word today is “the state of being dressed in a casual or careless style,” but it is preceded in the entry by the definition “ negligee ,” which was the word’s original meaning. An example of a word which begins with the most common sense is the previously mentioned   debacle . Although the earliest meaning of this word is “a tumultuous breakup of ice in a river,” this sense is preceded by the more common one of “a great disaster.” At one point we arranged all our entries in chronological fashion; we now are in the process of shifting from this style to arranging them beginning with the most common sense.
blocks%20spelling%20out%20the%20word%20slang-7864-9ad6ca07491afe15feabae5cdc64be2e@1x.jpghttps://merriam-webster.com/assets/mw/images/gallery/gal-wap-slideshow-slide/blocks%20spelling%20out%20the%20word%20slang-7864-9ad6ca07491afe15feabae5cdc64be2e@2x.jpg 2x" >

Usage Labels

Often a word, or sense of a word, will be followed by a usage label (written in italics). These labels are designed to give the user of the dictionary some additional information about the word. Here is a list of our usage labels, and what each one means.

Obsolete : this means that there no evidence of a word’s use since 1755. Please note that this label applies to the word itself, and not to any thing in the definition. When the thing being defined is obsolete (as with, say,   catapult , this will be indicated in the definition itself (“an ancient military device for hurling missiles”). An example of a word so labeled is   abastardize , a now-obsolete synonym of “ debase ,   bastardize .”

Archaic : this label means that a word or sense once in common use is found today only sporadically or in special contexts.   Gadzooks   (a word used as a mild oath) is an example of an entry we have labeled as   archaic .

Regionalism : a word or sense limited in use to a specific region of the U.S. has a regional label. The adverb  chiefly  precedes a label when the word has some currency outside the specified region, and a double label is used to indicate considerable currency in each of two specific regions (as in   Southern & Midland ). A word or sense limited in use to one of the other countries of the English-speaking world has an appropriate regional label ( Scottish ,   New Zealand ,   India , etc.).   Gadzookery   (“the use of archaisms, as in a historical novel”) is a regionalism, marked as   British .

Dialectal : the labels   dialect   and dialectal indicates that the pattern of use of a word or sense is too complex for summary labeling: it usually includes several regional varieties of American English or of American and British English.   Apurpose   (“on purpose”) is an example of a word labeled   dialectal .

Slang : slang is used with words or senses that are especially appropriate in contexts of extreme informality, that are usually not limited to a particular region or area of interest, and that are composed typically of shortened or altered forms or extravagant or facetious figures of speech. While many slang entries are recent additions to the language, there are some instances where the word has been with us for a considerable period of time;   absquatulate   (“to decamp, abscond”) has been in use since the early 19th century, and is labeled as slang.

Nonstandard : this label is used for a few words or senses that are disapproved by many but that have some currency in reputable contexts. Please note that   nonstandard   is not synonymous with   wrong .   Conversate   (“to converse”) is an example of a word we have labeled   nonstandard .

Disparaging, offensive, obscene , and  vulgar : these labels are used for those words or senses that in common use are intended to hurt or shock or that are likely to give offense even when they are used without such an intent.   Imbecile , a word formerly used as a clinical term for a person affected with moderate intellectual disability is an entry that we have labeled as   dated, now offensive .

original

Illustrations of Use

We provide illustrative examples of use, in order to better show a word’s meaning. There are three different types of illustration: examples we have written, examples we have selected from published writing, and examples of recent use taken from the Internet.

The entry for   vitriol   provides examples of each of these. The first sense defined is “bitterly harsh or caustic language or criticism”; this is first illustrated by an example written by our editors ("political commentators spewing angry  vitriol "). When our editors write examples they take care to try to use the word in the context in which it is typically found;   vitriol   is often described as   angry , and frequently is used to refer to political commentary.

Following this example there are citations from Walter Shapiro and Stanley Marcus, further illustrating this sense of   vitriol . By clicking of   More Example Sentences   the user will see additional examples written by our editors, as well as recent examples of this word as used on the Web. The recent examples taken from the web are automatically generated, and are not intended to reflect our point of view. We are picking these examples in an attempt to show how a word is being used in current writing, not because we agree or disagree with a writer or publication’s perspective.

original

First Known Use

Whenever possible, we attempt to give the first known use for a word. This date represents the earliest written record we have of the senses that we define. If there is another sense of the word which is now sufficiently obsolete that we do not enter it we will not use this sense’s date of first use.

The first known use is, with a very small number of exceptions, not intended to represent with certainty the date that a word was coined. In most cases we have no idea of when exactly a word was born, as people generally do not make an announcement when creating words ( Horace Walpole   being the exception), or may not have been aware that they were the first person to use a word. Furthermore, a large number of the words of English came into use in spoken form before they were used in writing, and so it is not possible to ascertain when they actually were first used. The first known use represents the earliest written record that current scholarship has established.

original

Etymology

We define the word   etymology   as follows: “the history of a linguistic form (such as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language.” As every dictionary approaches this subject in its own manner, here is a brief description of our approach.

The etymology traces a vocabulary entry as far back as possible in English (as to Old English), tells from what language and in what form it came into English, and (except in the case of such words outside the general vocabulary of English as  bascule  and  zloty ) traces the pre-English source as far back as possible if the source is an Indo-European language. We generally do not provide an etymology for words created in English by the combination of existing constituents or by   functional shift .

Please note that a word’s etymology is often quite distinct from its definition. The fact that   symposium   comes from the Greek word   sympinein  (meaning “to drink together”) does not excuse you getting blotto at some business meeting.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.31  bugsy  replied to  Thomas @2.2.30    yesterday

Nice cut and paste to something that no one cares about

My original post, with definition, stands. 

Try again

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
2.2.32  Thomas  replied to  bugsy @2.2.21    yesterday
The same J6 committee that their stated mission was to find solutions that would not allow that day to happen again, but never touched on that?

They found the who, the why, and the how. Some people are too deluded to admit it.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2.33  seeder  JBB  replied to  bugsy @2.2.31    yesterday

Nevertheless, your candidate Donald Trump is facing serious and incredibly well evidenced charges of leading a criminal seditious conspiracy against the United States of America!

How do you fluff that off? We all saw it play out live on TV...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.25    yesterday
Obviously, "peacefully and patriotically" is now insurrection talk. 

It is absurd to keep repeating the very few times Trump used proper language while ignoring the constant incendiary rhetoric that he used even months before the election.

Do you think his supporters ignore all the "fight like hell" crap drilled into their minds for months prior to the election???   

This:

“You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong … I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building. To peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard.” 

... does not erase this:

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"

This was said right before the insurrection and in the context of Trump claiming that the US presidential election was rigged, that he actually won, and that his supporters were all disenfranchised.

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
2.2.35  Thomas  replied to  bugsy @2.2.31    yesterday

Can you not read and understand the english language?

Your original post states:

a coup-attempting tyrant and traitor to the republic
When did he do that and what were the charges against him for treason?....yes you have to commit treason to be a traitor.

...that both definitions must be held, not just one or the other.  This whole long trolling diatribe has been one comment after another of you saying "Nuh-uh" to factual evidence being presented. 

I am not going to waste my time proving you wrong over and over again because you are like a little clockwork toy: Amusing to watch for the first few seconds, but one grows tired of repetitive whirring and noise. 

So go ahead and post away. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.36  bugsy  replied to  Thomas @2.2.35    yesterday
am not going to waste my time proving you wrong over and over again

You haven't done it yet, so.....

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.37  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.34    yesterday

Yes, because Trump was the first politician to say "fight like hell"

Wait....these guys have been politicians long before Trump came on the political scene.

Old tweets show Raskin, Biden saying 'fight like hell' (nypost.com)

Dems Lose Their Minds Over Trump Saying 'Fight Like Hell,' But Here Are All the Times They've Said It (westernjournal.com)

What violence were they trying to gin up?

Try again.,

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.37    yesterday
Yes, because Trump was the first politician to say "fight like hell"

And you of course ignore what I wrote.

TiG@2.2.34 ☞ This was said right before the insurrection and in the context of Trump claiming that the US presidential election was rigged, that he actually won, and that his supporters were all disenfranchised.

Context matters.   Trump had spent months claiming that the election was rigged.   He then spoke of "fighting like hell" in response to his lie that the US presidential election was rigged, that he actually won, and that his supporters were all disenfranchised.

Trump supporters seem to employ an extreme level of confirmation bias (what one would observe in a cult).   Ignoring the bad and only accepting the little good.   It is pathetic.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.39  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    yesterday

Personally, I will go with legal proceedings in a court of law with a judge and jury deciding to convict and sentence on a charge of treason if found guilty. Till then he is presumed innocent until proven guilty whether you like it or not. Same goes for the race accusations.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.39    yesterday

No jury is required to form a well-founded conclusion that Trump is a traitor.   Or form a conclusion that he is a pathological liar, narcissist, vindictive scoundrel who cares only about himself, on the lunatic fringe, etc.

Jury trials in criminal cases are required to determine guilt (or lack of guilt) regarding the breaking of law.   Human beings routinely make judgment calls on matters in life without waiting for each issue to be formulated into a case and adjudicated.

Trump is a traitor because he is the only PotUS in our history who used fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to bypass the CotUS and stop the peaceful transfer of power ... thus disenfranchising the electorate.   He was supposed to be the chief protector of the CotUS yet he tossed it under the bus.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @2.2.35    yesterday

That was awesome Thomas.  Absolutely excellent and to the point and the truth.  

Absolutely fucking awesome.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.40    yesterday

Excellent and to coin a phrase - 'the court of public opinion' rules in your favor.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.43  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.40    20 hours ago

I respectfully disagree with your assesment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.43    12 hours ago

Nobody needs a jury trial to make an assessment.    In Trump's case there is an abundance of evidence (fact, really) that Trump is the only PotUS in our history who used fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to bypass the CotUS and stop the peaceful transfer of power ... thus disenfranchising the electorate.   He was supposed to be the chief protector of the CotUS yet he tossed it under the bus.

The word 'traitor' appropriately describes Trump based on his actions.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
2.2.45  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.10    12 hours ago
one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

If that is the definition you are going with then it can be argued that Harris is a traitor to the American people.  She was right there lying to the American people that Joe was mentally capable to be president.  She was right there trying to install a puppet regime since Joe would be nothing but a puppet while others ran the country.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
2.2.46  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.2.11    12 hours ago
Wrongo! It actually is the definition of splitting hairs!

Wrongo.  Splitting hairs: as in complainingto make often peevish criticisms or objections about matters that are minor, unimportant, or irrelevant 

The difference between an opinion that someone is a traitor and someone that has been found guilty of being a traitor is anything but irrelevant, minor or unimportant. 

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.2.47  Dig  replied to  bugsy @2.2.21    11 hours ago
You mean the highly partisan J6 committee

More like highly patriotic. Out of nine members there were two Republicans, including ultra-conservative Liz Cheney as vice chair. The first attempt to form a Congressional commission with equal numbers of Ds and Rs passed the House but was blocked by Senate Republicans. Maybe you should whine about that.

Also, the vast majority of witnesses (and by far the most damning) were Republicans and Trump Administration officials, not Democrats.

that presented only items that were negative to Trump and nothing that would show a different side

What different side? Trump lost a lawful election and then unlawfully decided to try and take power anyway, breaking his oath and betraying the Constitution and the country in the process. What 'different side' are you referring to? Are you suggesting he didn't do that?

Again, the vast majority of witnesses were Republicans and Trump Administration officials, not Democrats.

the same J6 committee that destroyed everything they had when Republicans came back into power.

The Select Committee's material is preserved and available to the public here.

The same J6 committee that their stated mission was to find solutions that would not allow that day to happen again, but never touched on that?

Pathetic complaint. Publicly illustrating the chain of events and steps Trump and his fellow traitors took in their little coup attempt – from election night through Jan 6 – makes people aware of them. That's valuable for future deterrence. They also recommended criminal charges. Again, valuable for deterrence.

Let me ask you something, bugsy: Did Trump try to subvert the election to stay in power or not?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.48  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.44    8 hours ago

We are just not going to agree on this, so better just to let it go at that. You have your view and I have mine. A good day to you Sir.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.2.49  Krishna  replied to  Dig @2.2.18    6 hours ago
Good lord. 

Here. Preceding events are listed as well...

Timeline of the January 6 United States Capitol attack

Or, if you want the long version...

Final Report of the Select Committee

Some of the reactions were pretty weird! 

For example:

A Republican House member just described January 6 as a ‘normal tourist visit’

The Republican Party’s attempts to rewrite the history of the January 6 riot at the US Capitol took another dramatic step forward at a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday, when Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde (R) suggested that the insurrection was far less serious than it’s been portrayed.

“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures,”   Clyde said.   “You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

( READ IT ALL )

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.3  Krishna  replied to  Dig @2    7 hours ago
It's astonishing that Trump, a coup-attempting tyrant and traitor to the republic has any support among Americans at all.

I've posted this before, but will again as its quite relevant. A quote from Albert Einstein:

I know of two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. And I'm not entirely sure about the former!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.4  Krishna  replied to  Dig @2    7 hours ago
Still rather close,

That's my perception as well. 

Every day I take a quick look at the poll numbers--- the projected winner keeps changing, flipping back and forth between the two candidates.

I know it seems like a cliche, but IMO "Its still too early to tell"

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.5  Krishna  replied to  Dig @2    6 hours ago
What a failure of the justice system and the media.

Actually I like the idea that we have a free press. (Imagine if the all news we got was always endorsing the same candidate). Instead we have differwent media outlets presentig different content.

I put the fialure not with any system-- be it "the media" or "the justice system".

IMO the fault is with the people who consume the media output and are not particularly into "critical thinking!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.5.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.5    6 hours ago
I put the fialure not with any system-- be it "the media" or "the justice system". IMO the fault is with the people who consume the media output and are not particularly into "critical thinking!

Anyone familiar with the novel Animal Farm? The animals feel the system (Rule by humans) is unjust-- so they have a revolution that will fix the problems with the current system. Some small positive changes start to happen.

But towards the end... (spoiler alert!): The Pigs become more and more like the humans (and the system sucks!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.5.2  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.5.1    6 hours ago
But towards the end... (spoiler alert!): The Pigs become more and more like the humans (and the system sucks!
  When the animals outside look at the pigs and men, they can no longer distinguish between the two.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
2.5.3  Dig  replied to  Krishna @2.5    an hour ago
Actually I like the idea that we have a free press.

Well, yeah. So do I.

I put the fialure not with any system-- be it "the media" or "the justice system".

Trump should be in prison right now, not running again. The years-long delay before the indictment, and the insane Supreme Court ruling on immunity were both failures of the justice system.

The media failed by not being strenuous enough about his coup attempt. Sure, there's been reporting about it, but it obviously wasn't not enough. People are concerned about the abortion stuff, his many false statements, Project 2025 and his all-around craziness, but not enough people are talking about what should be his single biggest disqualifier: The fact that he has proven himself to be a tyrant for trying to take power unconstitutionally. That should be at the top of everyone's list for why he's unfit. Tyrants are destroyers of democracy and rule-of-law republics. The number one rule for preserving a republic is don't give power to tyrants. Like oil and water, they don't mix. The fact that it isn't a regular topic of discussion shows how the media has failed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    yesterday
@CalltoActivism
Subscribe
BREAKING NEWS: Jimmy Carter has achieved his goal of living long enough to vote for Kamala Harris. God Bless you, President Carter.
=============================================
some asshole will probably call his vote illegal because he didnt do it in person or because his signature on the mail in ballot was illegible
 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.1  George  replied to  JohnRussell @3    yesterday

Good for him, it is every Americans right to have their voice heard, and he voted for his candidate of choice, I'm glad he didn't vote third party or some asshole would probably accuse him of wasting his vote.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Krishna  replied to  George @3.1    6 hours ago
I'm glad he didn't vote third party or some asshole would probably accuse him of wasting his vote.

Well, at least he probably be accused of being a immigrant who eats peoples' pet cats and dogs!

(Although when you're dealing with some idiots, you never knew what weird nonsense they'll come up with! jrSmiley_5_smiley_image.png )

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.1.1    4 hours ago
probably be

Correction: that should read "probably can't be"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    yesterday

Doubtful. 

One of his family members got to vote twice. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    yesterday

Can you not just be happy for America's Longest Living President casting his ballot for his party's nominee for President at 100 YO?

Though, it would be perfect if Kamala wins Georgia by one vote...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @3.2.1    yesterday
not just be happy for America's Longest Living Presiden

How could anyone be happy for him in that condition? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.2    yesterday

Apparently Carter wants to live long enough to vote on election day.   Since he has the desire to live, why not be happy for him to live long enough to achieve his goal?   Why not be happy that he might get what he wants?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.2    yesterday

If he has the will to go on and can still interact with friends and family and has a goal to live for (he does) all power to him...

Ronald Reagan didn't know who was President for ten years.

Though not a very good President I never wished him unwell!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.2    yesterday

“How could anyone be happy for him in that condition?”

How could anyone denigrate him in seeing him fulfill a final patriotic act? 


 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.4    yesterday
Ronald Reagan didn't know who was President for ten years.

I think that he was only president for eight years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.6    yesterday

He left office in 1989 and died in 2004.   He announced his Alzheimers in 1994.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.8  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.7    yesterday
He announced his Alzheimers in 1994

he was in denial for a decade ...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.9  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.6    yesterday

Reagan was ex-President for fifteen years, the last ten of which he was practically catatonic. Though he sleeps a lot President Carter is lucid and still has his wits. In any case, nobody I was aware of wished him death those ten years...

He was just an old man, who forgot he was ever President!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.7    15 hours ago

Yes, so what?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @3.2.8    15 hours ago
he was in denial for a decade ...

Is that your medical opinion?  How can you deny something you’re not aware of?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.9    15 hours ago

I think that Jimmie Carter is our best ex-president.  I voted for him in 76.  I don’t know what the point is about Raegan in a string about Carter.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.13  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.12    14 hours ago

No, you just tried and failed to find an angle to be contrary...

I was addressing Sean and you thought you had a gotcha.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3.2.13    12 hours ago

Well, you really clarified your point, thanks.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.15  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.11    10 hours ago
Is that your medical opinion?  How can you deny something you’re not aware of?

humping liz taylor when she was 15 really fucked him up mentally, didn't it?

raygun is in the best place to do the most for his past supporters now ...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2.16  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.2    6 hours ago
How could anyone be happy for him in that condition? 

Well, there are the haters...and then there are people who'se tendency to be be very loving and accepting of others!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3    yesterday

One of the world's most decent men.  Awesome.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @3    7 hours ago

some asshole will probably call his vote illegal because he didnt do it in person or because his signature on the mail in ballot was illegible.

I was going to say that in Georgia it will now have to be "hand counted"-- but a judge just overturned that(1-/16):

(Original article (9/20): Georgia State Election Board votes in favor of hand counting all ballots, spurring fears about November chaos )
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    yesterday

Trump claims a shadow government is running the US

"I think it's a, it's a committee of people, and they might not even know who the committee is. They may not even know themselves. Does that make sense? It's a group of people at that are in different levels of DC."
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4    yesterday
They may not even know themselves. Does that make sense?

uh, no. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    yesterday
"Does that make sense?"

"uh, no."

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif  

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

I have to wonder how many people at that townhall Q&A which turned into whatever the hell that was (just standing there listening to music and occasionally moving his hands and occasionally mouthing some lyrics) were wondering 'what the hell is going on here' and 'does that make sense'?

lol

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @4    7 hours ago
Trump claims a shadow government is running the US

They haven't got a  CLUE.!

(Peoplle are saying the its Da Joos with a Space Laser in The Heavens!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
4.3  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @4    6 hours ago

They may not even know themselves. Does that make sense? 

Nope!

Not in the least!!!

In fact-- it totally ridiculous. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

(Sounds like the sort of deluded ca-ca that people like Trump or Vance would make up!)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    yesterday

GZ99OtZWcAAmJ5f?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5    yesterday
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.1    yesterday

that meme actually suggests Vance will stab Trump in the back and take power himself, BECAUSE Trump is in rapid decline. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    yesterday

Funny how no one on the left ever claimed Trump was on the decline until those on the right PROVED Biden was. When he got booted out by his own party, the left started screeching that Trump is in cognitive decline.

What this shows is many on the left try to claim of Trump what has already been proven about Biden. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
5.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @5.1.2    yesterday

“the left started screeching that Trump is in cognitive decline.”

Bottom line, bugsy…are you comfortable watching, listening, and in any way accepting of his recent behavior? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.4  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.3    yesterday

Bottom line???

No. He likes to repeat himself during his rallies but there is no decline. And if there is, you have to admit there is nowhere near what Biden has demonstrated the last couple of years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.1.2    yesterday
Funny how no one on the left ever claimed Trump was on the decline until those on the right PROVED Biden was.

If he's not in decline he's nuts.   Take your pick. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @5.1    yesterday
Project 2025 Disavowed By Trump: 'I Have Nothing To Do With Them' (forbes.com)

And by what pandering measure should Trump be believed?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
5.1.7  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @5.1.4    yesterday

“…what Biden…”

What Biden has said or done is rather moot at this point. What trump continues to say or do or promises is at the crux of this election. His apologists are left with Biden, are left with election interference, are left with criminal investigations, are left with…nothing but their politically motivated excuses. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.8  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.5    yesterday
If he's not in decline he's nuts. 

You have been making these claims for years but have never been able to prove any of them. Today will be no different. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
5.1.9  afrayedknot  replied to  bugsy @5.1.4    yesterday

“No. He likes to repeat himself during his rallies but there is no decline…”

So his repeated threats against all we should hold dear mean nothing? Consistency in his megalomania is not a positive. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.1.8    yesterday

Trump said "inrushess"  in a speech last night when he was supposed to say "insurrectionists". If Biden said that it would be the lead story on Fox News for six hours. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @5.1    yesterday
Project 2025 Disavowed By Trump: 'I Have Nothing To Do With Them' (forbes.com)

And yet, here is his quote from that article:

“Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” - Donald J Trump

So, if they were suggesting raping 6 year olds...

“Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” - Donald J Trump

If they were suggesting overthrowing our government to install Donald Trump as permanent President...

“Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” - Donald J Trump

That's closer to an endorsement than a repudiation of what Project 2025 is suggesting. To claim dirty Donald has "nothing to do with them" when they are some of his biggest supporters and he refuses to reject them is disingenuous at best but most likely just intentionally deceitful because Donald and his sycophants know they can't win unless they lie their asses off.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.11    yesterday

Doesn't mean he endorses him.

He is saying the Heritage Foundation has the right to try and push whatever agenda they want, just like left wing groups do. 

The delusion of many on the left is getting stronger and stronger the closer we get to Jan 5. 

What I am waiting for is what the left will do on their own J6 when they wake up and find Trump is their president again......on January 6th. 

Probably nothing but "mostly peaceful" protests, huh?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.13  bugsy  replied to  afrayedknot @5.1.9    yesterday

You guys really are reaching,.

You will have your chance at the presidency in a little 4 years. If you put up someone worthwhile, maybe they will get elected. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.14  seeder  JBB  replied to  bugsy @5.1.13    yesterday

Do you really believe Trump can win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote by ten million votes? Because, that is what it will be if Harris beats Trump by 5% on November 5th!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @5.1.14    yesterday

Given the fact that so many support Trump even now who knows?   Not only is Trump a traitor, con-man, on and on, but if you just listen to what the guy says ... he is on the lunatic fringe.   What the fuck has happened to our nation where so many would vote for such an abysmal character and arguably mentally sick and dangerously vindictive scoundrel when a normal, presidential, youthful, energetic, positive, patriotic team is available on the D side?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.16  seeder  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.15    yesterday

Because racism and sexism are immutable malignant prejudices?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @5.1.16    yesterday

It is waaaay more than that.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.18  seeder  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.17    yesterday

For some they have so commingled their faith with MAGA dogma that disillusionment with Trump would decimated their beings...

If they admit Trump is as bad as he is, then they are destroyed!

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
5.1.19  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.17    yesterday

His supporters value the Fascism that they think is coming because they have delusions of grandeur of a place in his scheme of things. From the malcontented for many reasons to the religious and pious, by saying "I am here and I will help you," whether he will or not, they each have their own vision of what he says. Because he hardly ever makes it through a thought before he moves on to another, there is space in which each and every follower can create their own version Trumplandia. 

Take the blue pill. They have. Don't worry. It will be better. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @5.1.12    yesterday

Bottom line is that no matter what Trump says about anything, the hard core liberal left will go out of their way to find some way to tear it apart and step on it. They far exceed anything the right may done to Biden.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.1.21  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.17    yesterday

Exactly 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.20    yesterday

Are you kidding?   Have you listened to Trump speak, Ed??

Good grief man, one need not be hard core left to see that Trump is entirely unfit to be PotUS ... that no patriot should support or defend this scoundrel.

This is where it started ...

Where have you ever heard of a PotUS speaking of using the military against fellow countrymen who are on the opposite side of his politics?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.23  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.20    yesterday

Or, MAGAs will excuse whatever untrue awful dangerous dumbass thing Trump says or does because he has falsely promises to stop brown people who have been going back and forth across that border forever? One issue trumps all!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.20    yesterday

That's ludicrous and not my opinion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    yesterday

'I don't know why they are or what it is but I don't agree with all of what they're saying'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @5.1.23    yesterday

Some folks just know because they're immersed in the culture.....lol

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @5.1.4    23 hours ago
but there is no decline.

So if Biden started to babble about sharks and batteries, you would think that was completely normal? Really?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.28  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @5.1    6 hours ago
Project 2025 Disavowed By Trump: 'I Have Nothing To Do With Them' (forbes.com)

And would Trump ever lie?

Oh course not- - if Trump says it it must be true!

(Many people are saying that Trump is A Divine Being -- A Heavenly Angel reincarnated to live and preach amongst us lower life forms that inhabit the planet Earth. So things like this are mere words of wisdom. See linked video illustrating what Heaven is actually like )-- word that are directly channeled from a higher power! )

Hashtags #Goth Hashtag #Heaven Hashtag #Reincarnation Hashtag #LeahMartin-Brown Hashtag #Trump

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
5.1.29  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.22    6 hours ago
Where have you ever heard of a PotUS speaking of using the military against fellow countrymen who are on the opposite side of his politics?

Ok, I'll take a guess.

Where?

IN EVERY CRUEL, TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP THAT EVER EXISTED!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @5.1.29    6 hours ago

PotUS = President of the United States

But, if we substitute 'a national leader' for 'PotUS' in my question then your answer is well founded.

 
 

Who is online





Tacos!


480 visitors