Not Enough Effort To Save Democracy - Apathy Is Pervasive
There is a fairly long article in The Atlantic today about how appalled George Washinton would be at the prospect of Trump becoming president again. It seems to me that there is a general consensus that Washington and other leading men from the founding period would be appalled at Trump. I have personally never seen anyone make the argument that a single one of the Founding Fathers would be a Trump supporter. If you know of such an article please post it in the comments.
I mention this because one of the premises of the first Trump term was that America was straying from the founding principles due to radical leftists. Trump even set up a commission to fill public schools with a "patriotic" curriculum that would excoriate concepts such as "black history" and support ideas such as that all the Founders wanted to end slavery (but not in their lifetime, since they were making money at it) and that overwhelming native lands with usurpers was God's plan.
So there is quite a disconnect between Trump's platitudinal pronouncements about American history and his behavior as a real life historical figure. It seems like every week we are hearing about a Trump behavior that has "never happened before" in presidential politics, and almost all of it is bad.
The USA Today has a very troubling article today
Who's ahead in the presidential race? The polls and odds have changed. What they say now
Trump has regained momentum in the past couple weeks, and according to the paper has wiped out Harris lead
- ABC News project 538 shows Harris leading in the national polls 48% over Trump 47.3% compared to Harris 48.5% over Trump 45.8% last week, compared to Harris 48.3% over Trump 45.6% two weeks ago , compared to Harris 48.3% over Trump 45.3% three weeks ago, compared to Harris 47.1% over Trump 44.4% four weeks ago, compared to Harris 47.1% over Trump at 43.9% five weeks ago , or compared to Harris 47.0% over Trump at 43.7% six weeks ago .
This ABC poll shows Trump gaining almost three points over the past month and Harris losing almost a full point.
The other polls the USA Today article mentions show similar results . The betting market shows Trump as a solid favorite
Trump 52.8% over Harris 46.7%, compared with Harris favored over Trump by 2% last week, compared to Harris over Trump by 3% two weeks ago
It seems that half of America is good with putting a lunatic in office. It sounds like a premise for a Stephen King novel or a Ryan Murphy psychological horror series on Hulu or Netflix.
If Trump wins, what will happen to our country? There is not the slightest doubt that he is 100% unfit for office. The list of the disqualifying attributes and actions of Trump runs into the dozens. Half the country will never accept someone this evil as their leader.
Will the national character of the United States be damaged? How permanently?
If Trump wins it is likely that the GOP will hold both chambers of Congress, giving them free run to end the filibuster, or at least pause it while Trumps draconian measures are rammed through. A Trump win will undoubtedly trigger massive protests around the country, probably requiring a strong law enforcement response. Another assassination attempt would surprise no one.
Are we going to wake up sometime in November to the news that the most unqualified candidate in American history will be the next president? If it happens it will be too late to lament all the apathy and both sidesism that has overtaken our nation.
Too late.
I watched a New York Times show on You Tube yesterday, it featured four people, two of which were the so called Trump whisperer Maggie Haberman and the Times polling guru Nate Cohn. The New York Times is firmly committed to bothsidesism, and they had quite a few negative things to say about Kamala Harris. No mention of George Washington though.
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
I expect Harris to win by over ten million votes...
John sees it.
Harris is fading as we speak.
Every time she opens her mouth she loses votes
That was the big risk her campaign took when they had her do a media blitz. Their inside poll numbers must be horrendous for them to take that chance.
I don't see it...
Every time Trump opens his mouth he disgraces our country and the Founding Fathers weep.
Harris isn't the one backing out of interviews because they'd do factchecking.
Maybe she should.................
[✘]
Seems he was concerned about the spin.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said “60 Minutes” “begged for an interview.” The campaign did have concerns about the show’s reporting on Hunter Biden and how it insisted upon editing Trump’s comments, he said.
Trump is not backing out of interviews.
Yes, she's not a cowardly little whiny little bitch like the former 'president' convicted felon conman rapist traitor.
You're watching the wrong channel-- change to a different one and you'll not actually fading...but actually getting bringhter with time!
Of course he's not "backing out"-- nor is he leaving them by walking forward!
Why?
Because he refuses to go to them in the first place!
Trump and Vance have done double the interviews of Harris/Walz since Harris became the nominee.
Just because he refused to go to a left wing trap called CBS and 60 minutes does not mean he does not do interviews.
Your post would fit Harris far better.
Name one interview Trump has given in the past year that was not on right wing media.
National Association of Black Journelists
Bloomberg News
Time
Actually she is rising in the polls..
So now we're deciding which candidate will win the election...by the number of interviews they do?
Question: Is that a better indication of who will win based of the polls?
Where did I say that? I ask that you not put words that do not exist in my posts into my posts.
Thanks
How foolish. The 'interviews' the fucking moron gives are nothing but intelligible endless demented word salads and hate and ignorance. The moron just fucking trashed Detroit while 'speaking' in Detroit. Talking about circles and some other unintelligible nonsense.
Then expect to be quite disappointed..........................
One thing is 100% for sure. Trump has never polled above 50% and has never gotten a majority of the votes, and he never ever will...
His game plan is to squeak out an inside straight in the Electoral College, but even Trump knows the majority always oppose him!
He will win the Electoral College this year, and the popular vote.
Yea, heard that in 2020 as well.
Link?
There is a poster here that likes to post incessantly that Harris will win by 10 million votes.
Why have you never asked for a link by that person?
Because Hillary won the popular vote by three million votes and Biden won the popular vote by seven million. Harris will win the popular vote by ten million votes. Only one gop nominee since 1988 has won the popular vote for President...
OK……since no one else will…..
Link?
I hope so, but I think that is in doubt. Our mainstream media has not disqualified Trump, quite to the contrary, they generally treat him as a viable option. We are rapidly approaching the point when it will be too late for the media to disqualify him and once that happens the die will be cast.
Last week information was publicly released showing that Trump is a traitor. There is no question that Jack Smith's J6 filing shows this. But the mainstream media did not highlight this information. Keith Olberman had a section on his podcast where he showed that major newspapers barely even covered it.
The sad truth is that the media which largely influences the track of news coverage doesnt care if Trump is president. In fact if he is it would make their jobs more interesting. The corporate owners of media certainly dont care.
My confidence Harris will win has slipped a bit as it becomes more clear that our media is tragically failing the country.
The media lied their asses off for Harris. "60 Minutes" even edited their interview with Harris to help her, but to no avail. They did all they could.
My confidence Harris will win
Don't lose heart just yet, they'll do just about anything to stop Trump.
You dont know what you are talking about.
Every single television interview is "edited".
The early voting in Pennsylvania is running at 70% Democrats and the rest split between the gop and independents...
It seems that I do. I talk facts & issues.
Uh, no. You talk Trump worship.
Have you ever heard a historian say the Founding Fathers would admire and support Trump? I have never seen such an article or opinion. Trump has been on the political scene for over 13 years now and historians are almost universal in their condemnation of him.
Saw an article the other day stating that Reagan would be horrified to see what the GOP had become.
This is why I consider most of what you post to be propaganda. That you think it is the function of any media to disqualify anyone has been made evident over the years and an argument against the kind of "democracy" you seem to favor. As far as I can tell, something much like what media in communist or other "democratic" dictatorships. Where the people "who know best" tell us what to think, what to believe and how we're supposed to act.
And this is simply more evidence for what I've said. That without the right kind of media to "guide" people in how to think about something, they could not possibly reach the right decision on their own. People who think that way are the last people I want in charge.
Links, or just your personal unbiased opinion?
Yeah, sue me. I dont think people who believe Trump is best for this nation are people we should be listening to.
You could take any random day from the past year, look at what Trump said on that day, and rationally conclude he shouldnt be allowed within a million miles of the White House.
Source? Because I can't find anything at all except that the earliest results will come out, even unofficially, is election night after 8pm. You appear to be making it up. Not even Politico has any stats.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the issue I brought up. That is, your apparent belief that it is the function of the media to qualify or disqualify people for office.
And you think the way to solve it is control of the media in order to influence the public? I don't think it would take too much guessing who gets control if you had your way. No thank you.
Never has and never will. Much like the former 'president'.
If Jack The Ripper managed to get nominated by a political party in America do you think the media would have no responsibility to warn people ?
I see many networks including Fox showing the bits and pieces of Trumps rally rants
that should be enough for the average person to see that this isn't Trump 2016.
It's Trump in decline.
Even Fox cuts away from live rally coverage regularly now because he's rambling the same nonsense in different order.
Prior to the 2016 election Trump was a known crook, con man, fraud, pathological liar and malignant narcissist. He has never for one minute been fit to be president.
I saw a video yesterday that included a woman who admired Trump and went up to him at some social function and tried to talk to him. The woman is, lets say, somewhat plain looking. She says he said this to her - "Why would I talk to you? Look at the other women around here. I wouldnt let someone like you suck my dick."
That was in 2014 I believe.
No one is going to have accurate voting statistics but counties know the party affiliation of the ballots they mailed and the ballots they have received.
Assuming there isn't a lot of GOP voting for harris or Dems voting for trump the counties are assuming 70% of mail in ballots are loyal to the Dems
Democrats Have Edge in Early Voting | America 2024 | U.S. News (usnews.com)
Link?
It was in the documentary "Unfit"
Either you do not understand the point I made or you do but think it perfectly okay and acceptable that media should be a controlled organ of a particular political party (as if it isn't practically one already). Media already does more than enough to feed their political backer's agenda to their bases. More than enough supposedly responsible media regularly compare Trump to Hitler, for instance and, if they could, they'd probably figure out some way to compare him to Jack the Ripper if someone gave them the idea and how to sell it. So your question is simply BS.
Once again, I'm addressing your stance that media hasn't done enough to disqualify Trump, as if that is the purpose of their existence. I am addressing your position that it is the media's job to do everything you apparently think they should do to ensure Trump can't run, let alone get elected.
Freedom of the press is supposed to be one of the core values of our country. It's supposed to protect them from being forced to either remain silent or to report according to political entities. But what happens when people who think as you do are the press? That they no longer report the truth or remain neutral but, instead, become the evil they were supposed to protect against? What you get is what you're advocating for. Media that only promote agendas people with your views support. That's tyranny.
That was in 2020. As usual it didn't stick to Teflon Don.
Thank you for the link.
Have you seen A SINGLE THING on ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN saying that Trump has said or done something that should be disqualifying? Never. We do hear about all Harris flaws and struggles. The idea that the media is for Harris and against Trump is a fantasy. Trump led an effort to overturn a free and fair election. If Trump had any actual evidence that the election was stolen from him dont you think he would have produced it by now, four years later? Almost every day now Trump continues to say the election was stolen from him 4 years ago. Do you seriously believe such a person should be the leader of the free world? God help you if you do.
As for your opinion of my comments - uh - I dont give a shit.
That would be editorializing and opinion. There is no place in real journalism unless labeled as such. Unfortunately for you, they don't play by your rules nor cater to your opinion. Sorry
Yes, and they are failing America. There is nothing stopping ABC from producing an editorial segment warning about Trump.
They dont do it because they dont want to offend part of their audience. They do both sides.
As they should when trying to come across as unbiased. You are advocating for them to become an arm of the Harris campaign which they do pretty well already at, besides the fact that they already have MSNBC for that.
That is hilarious. You say what you believe was an insurrection on J6, which to you is a disqualification of Trump being president, the left wing media you listed have been harping on J6 for over 3 years now.
Are you saying that those left wing sources agree (and rightly so), that J6 may have been a stupid thing for some to do, but it was not disqualifying to be president?
Sounds like you are.
Reminding everyone of a traitor convicted felon former 'president' who has been inciting (after inciting the first one) for another insurrection for four years now is called harping
That's how he feels about all of his [deleted] [✘] base of supporters.
What did he do to incite a first one and what is he doing to "incite" another?
Show proof and leave out feelings
He peed his pants and the crowd roared.
"THEY" don't have to do a damn thing, trump has sunk his own ship because he is too stupid to shut the fuck up.
I bet she still admired him after that for 'speaking his mind'
now called 'harping' and not the truth
Not to the point of making a word salad coherent
The press, journalists, have a responsibility to report who, what, when, where, and how truthfully and to the best of their abilities. Not half of the story. Not cherry-picked comments out of context. Just as in a trial setting, a reporter should report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. With the rise of personalities who talked about the news, the corporate media felt it had to, in order to hold onto ratings, follow suit, at least a little bit.
Looking back, I would say that the underlying theme of the whole slide towards mixing of fact with opinion and presenting that as news is the quest to remain profitable as a company. AKA, capitalism is killing democracy by allowing anyone to say anything and have it remain on the table as fact if enough people click "Like".
One mans word salad is another mans Pasta primavera
Jack the ripper was never found so maybe he was and no one ever knew it.
No amount of editing would make a Trump word salad coherent.
Not Enough Effort To Save Democracy - Apathy Is Pervasive
He is not even in her league
High profile clinical psychologist believes Trump is 'unfit for office' | Daily Mail Online
High profile clinical psychologist believes Trump is 'unfit for office' and claims he once told her at a New York party: 'Why would I want to talk to you? Look at all the beautiful women in here. I wouldn’t let you suck my d***'
We agree. She is way out of his league.
"A contract psychologist for the FDNY..."
Well there it is. I've just been wandering the woods, confused that the Generals, Cheney, Swift and Winfrey might be having a bad week. I'm so glad I heard from a New York qualified quack that it's my duty to save democracy and the free world by voting for grocery store price patrol.
Trump people will believe every fricking derelict and misfit that comes across their conservative social media, but not a psychologist that works for the city of New York. Who'd of thunk it ?
Well, that's totally wrong. Capitalism isn't causing this. Greed and/or political agendas are. One just has to look at communist or socialist countries to put the lie to it.
There are no communist countries, as if that was what I was advocating for in the first place, and some "socialism" is present in the most capitalistic countries. I reject the idea that socialism is bad by definition as I do the idea that capitalism is good by definition. Both are conceptions of economies, and pureness is unachievable in TRW.
I said:
My contention is that the underlying reason for the amplification of distorted narratives is the quest for more money via clicks, likes, etc. to gain more ad revenue. Money is the driver, so as long as one has a Tik-tok feed and a charismatic spokesperson, one can lie through their teeth convincingly to millions of people. Greed plays a part, certainly, as do political agendas, but the structure that they are laid upon that allows for the greed and political agendas to propagate and grow is capitalisic by design.
We need to disambiguate the news from the not-news and to do that we need journalists, not personalities, to relay the actual, factual, and whole news.
As someone once said, "It's a doggie-dog world out there..."
Ha. The left has turned up every woman Trump has groped, yet in this latest twist they introduce one who is disappointed she wasn't.
I didn't read anything that indicated she wanted to be groped.
It is disturbing that you admit that Trump has groped women (and the ones "the left turned up" were groped without their consent), and yet still defend him by inventing motives for a woman he didn't grope.
It's amazing how people will twist themselves into pretzels defending the SOB
More deception. What you are going to use as a defense is that no country has successfully embodied Marx's ideals, which is true. But the reason for that is because Marx's ideals are impossible to attain. Therefore, political entities that attempt to do so always end up the same way; totalitarian dictatorships. Because of that, that is, because they use Marxist ideologies to justify their actions, nations that claim to be communist are communist, simply because that is what always results from trying to follow a faulty system such as Marxism.
More deception. Nothing I said suggested that you were. If you believe otherwise, make your case. I used communism as an example because it is considered to be the opposite of capitalism in order to counter your claim concerning capitalism.
Socialism as a system of governance is bad by definition because it doesn't take into account human nature. Socialism seeks what it considers the good of humanity in general, regardless of the individual. That is, socialism operates on an ideology rather than human nature.
Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes human nature in general and seeks to establish a system that rewards or punishes individual effort. On one end of the spectrum of humanity, it punishes the sluggard and rewards the achiever. Those who will not work will not eat sort of thing.
Yes, I know what you said. I can read. The post you responded to did not address any of that. Please do not imply that what I said addressed what it did not.
That isn't even remotely close to anything he said.
The flaws in human nature become evidenced in both capitalism and socialism. Capitalism rewards exploitation and socialism rewards lack of initiative.
That is why a mixed economy of capitalism combined with some tinges of socialism is best. Unfettered capitalism may work for the exploiters best, but not for the mass population.
Look at human development before the industrial revolution and what has happened since.
All Marxists have done is kill one hundred million plus people in the last century plus.
There is nothing in socialism that leads to the killing of anyone.
Taking people’s property absolutely does.
Do you think the 100 million killed are just a coincidence?
Do the words
include any denial that he did the groping?
They do not.
He said Trump groped them. It's right there, in black and white.
However, there is no indication that other than from squiggy that
That was his own invention.
My assessment of his comment is accurate. And that comment was pretty damned disturbing, as is defense of it by way of denial of its contents.
No, because that wasn't his point, as you well know.
Context is king.Sandy. Based on what he was referring to, he wasn't acknowledging that every accusation of groping was factual.
Nope. It's only accurate for you and those who think as you do, which means nothing, since you believe in moral relativism. Under moral relativism, your opinion has no more value than anyone else's.
Which, when looked at rationally, simply means that anyone who opposes your point of view is disturbing.
Excellent points
He did acknowledge it. Doesn't matter whether you want to believe his words or not.
I'm interested to know, exactly how many factual accusations of groping do you find to be acceptable?
Ever watch Fox News?
No
I couldn't say. You did not list any.
My opinion is that it probably doesn't matter much, in the end. The corrupt always end up on top in any system. Just harder to stay there in supposed socialist systems, as it has the additional problem of power being concentrated in an individual with fewer checks against them.
Well, there's E. Jean Carroll, whose case was judged factual in court.
There are Trump's own words bragging about sexually assaulting women.
And not groping, but there are Trump's own words bragging about entering a changing room at a Miss Teen USA pageant with contestants in various stages of undress. So he was ogling minors.
I don't understand how professed Christians could defend him.
Its hard to believe on many levels, but Trump has at least 45% of the vote locked in. He could literally say anything at this point and not lose any of that 45%.
I just don't believe he's got 45% of the vote locked in, I don't see how that's possible.
'It's a dog eat dog world out there."
Quite possibly because intelligent Americans vote for the ideals and policies their candidate supports and not just on their feelings.
'ideals they hold true'
Voting for a cockroach.
Interesting how the comment was edited - obviously you knew what bullshit that was
What ideals would those be?
What policies?
But there was no verifiable, credible proof it was true, after all these years, simply "she said" hearsay
Same thing that happened to Kavanaugh.
Anything and everything not liberal. They are meant to destroy the country from within.
'intelligent' Americans voting for that fucking moron?
Projection.
Supposedly, leftists claim she told 2 friends right after Trump declared his candidacy.
Yea...that's believable s/
There sure is a lot of P, D and D being displayed from our "friends" on the left here.
That is not what Mama said!
Stir-Fried Dog with Coconut Milk
Caribbean recipe for a man eat dog world.
You really need to look up the definition of "hearsay".
Sorry if that seemed petty.
It wasn't after the traitor declared his candidacy for 'president' - it was right after he tried to rape her in the dressing room.
If that is what you believe, what kind of friends does she have that would not report the "rape" to the police?
You act as if the victims themselves did not testify.
They did.
They were found to be more credible than your guy.
That's what happens when one denies having met the woman one is accused of raping, and, when presented with a picture of oneself and that woman together, claims that it is actually a picture of one's mistress/second wife. It tends to harm one's credibility severely.
The other victims not directly invovled in the suit didn't help Trump's cause much, either. Their non-hearsay testimony established a pattern of violent sexual behavior.
Which is merely legal opinion, since there is no objective evidence to support the conclusion. That isn't defense of or validation of the claim. It is simply fact. The jury, in their opinion, believed the claims.
I do not know to what you are referring to, here. It seems you are referring to something specific to which I am unaware.
As you yourself recognize, this was not groping. I'm assuming you include it because you feel that someone who would do this would also grope. My own opinion is that, if so, it is possible but not definitive. Vastly more disturbing to me is that he was allowed to do so in the first place. That is, those who were in charge of the event to which you refer are as or more guilty than Trump for allowing him to do what he did.
Do not misunderstand me. Had I been there, I would have beaten Trump to a pulp for entering that place if my child had been there. But I would have been far, far angrier at those who allowed him access. I would have placed them on the level of child traffickers. In reality, however, my impression is that such a thing seems to be part and parcel of the industry. That is, anything is acceptable in pursuit of the goal.
In my opinion, this is because you don't actually try to understand. In your mind, Trump is bad and you don't go any further. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks beyond your own conclusion.
Speaking for myself, I do not defend Trump. If you haven't noticed, allow me to point out that I haven't participated in any of the political discussions, nor am I doing so now. If you think the reason I'm speaking to you is to defend Trump then you don't understand anything I've said. I am speaking to you because I disagree with your reasoning.
As for other Christians, I suspect you do understand, in spite of your claim that you do not. I think you know that many, hopefully most, think that Trump as president would have a more beneficial effect than Harris, not that Trump himself is the issue. That is, they aren't voting for Trump, per se, but rather, his stated policies.
Of course, no demographic is monolithic. There are undoubtedly Christians who think Trump is the second coming. My opinion is that the more Biblical a Christian is, the less this will be true. That is, the more Christ centered a Christian is, the more distasteful they will find Trump, even if they plan to vote for him. Such Christians, if they vote at all, will do so simply because they think Trump will do less harm to the nation morally than his opponent will. The lesser of two evils.
You're not aware of the Access Hollywood tape?
Astounding.
He was in charge of the event. That was part of the boast.
I understand the Jesus, on whom the faith is supposed to be founded, was outspoken in his criticism of hypocrisy. Professing to follow his words while supporting a boastful sexually violent man is hypocritical in the extreme.
Not really. Since you did not reference it, how could I know?
Irrelevant, and why I oppose the idea of moral relativism. The idea that Trump, or any male at all, had some moral right on any grounds except medical emergency to access is simply ridiculous.
I find it hard to believe you actually believe what you wrote here. It is devoid of any consideration of reality. That is, I think you speak from emotion rather than rationality. Can you really not understand the choice between the lesser of two evils? It doesn't matter what your choice would be, can you not understand that others are presented with the same choice? And, considering that you are a moral relativist, what grounds do you have to object???
Sorry you're upset that I know that the values that Christians profess are at odds with support of Trump, and say as much. I'm sure such call-outs are uncomfortable.
No, it's disturbing and creepy. 'Disappointed' that she wasn't 'worthy' for that disgusting scumbag?
She's smart and actually attractive. He's contemptible scum.
Of course you defend him.
If I am upset about anything, it would be the childish level of this discussion. I am trying to engage you on real issues but you insist on grade-school tactics like this one. If you change your mind and wish to have a real discussion, let me know. As it stands, this is just boring.
In response to school-grade tactics like this:
in reference to the Access Hollywood tape, which is where pretty much everyone who pays attention to anything knows Trump was recorded boasting about committing sexual assault. Deliberate obtuseness is childish, Drakk.
This comment, in response to me knowing the teachings of your religion run counter to Trump's actions, is insulting. Lashing out when one's moral inconsistencies are called out is childish, too.
Childish is either pretending to be or worse actually still being unaware of even the barest of facts about the bad character and abominable behavior of Donald J Trump. It is not knowing or worse not even caring about Jan 6th or Trump blackmailing Ukraine to manufacture false information against Biden or Trump colluding with Russia to interfer in American elections! The most ironic part it all is that if there is one thing Jesus of Nazareth was clear about, it was that evil would abuse His name and that a great host of those who believed they followed Him would be fooled and tricked into following The Father Of All Lies! Prophecy Fulfilled!
The four stages of being a member of Cult-45
1. "I didn't hear him say that."
2. "That's not what he meant—you just don't get him."
3. "I don't care that he said that."
4. "I agree with whatever he says."
The 4 step program to be a successful cult member.
It's hilarious when some folks say that it is we who are emotional and not rational. It's not rational to justify and defend the indefensible regarding every slimy and disgusting and racist and IMHO downright evil thing he does.
That actually is political supporters across the spectrum.
Yes, democrat supporters too.
Considering that she is losing voters in just about every demographic category, and people are starting to see what an empty pantsuit she is and how harmful the progressive agenda would be to our democracy.....how do you expect that to happen. Please be explicit.
JD? Is that you?
Please bring back the real Greg.
Ok, list the negatives....while you use the internet to do so.