I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
What competencies about actual governance are you looking for? I think it's pretty damn rich that a person whose country gave Brexit & Liz Truss to the world is pearl-clutching about a US political candidate who's so far above and beyond the capacities of Donald F. Tr*mp that the only people who can get a clear view of her right now are the private sector astronauts who took a spacewalk today.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
What competencies about actual governance are you looking for? I think it's pretty damn rich that a person whose country gave Brexit & Liz Truss to the world is pearl-clutching about a US political candidate who's so far above and beyond the capacities of Donald F. Tr*mp that the only people who can get a clear view of her right now are the private sector astronauts who took a spacewalk today.
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
- you can't write in a candidate -
That depends on the state; in some states you can/might be able to. Of course, it’s purely a protest vote. A write-in has no chance of winning.
Telford is British, so he definitely can’t. I was just interested to hear his preference and reasons.
@Telford has already saidtwice that he sees no difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris when it comes to which one would make a better President of the United States. I'm more interested in examining his reasons for making this claim. His stated reasons so far are fairly vague, mostly that Harris spent too much time reminiscing about her family instead of explaining her policies. This seems like one of those shifting standards female politicians are often subjected to, where all possible answers are somehow wrong. She spends too much time talking about her family instead of policy. She never talks about her background so I have no idea about who she is as a person. She should smile more. She smiles too much. She never laughs. She laughs too much. Her laugh is weird. Etc. I'd like @Telford to be a little more forthcoming about what his actual standards are here.
For example, here's one exchange where Harris mentioned her upbringing. Presumably this is the kind of thing that @Telford found so problematic, but I'm just guessing because he's being so vague about it.
DAVID MUIR: So let's get started. I want to begin tonight with the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue, and that is the economy and the cost of living in this country. Vice President Harris, you and President Trump [ ed. - presumably Muir means President Biden and misspoke ] were elected four years ago and your opponent on the stage here tonight often asks his supporters, are you better off than you were four years ago? When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So, I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people. And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy. Because here's the thing. We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children. And I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time. So that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children. My passion, one of them, is small businesses. I was actually -- my mother raised my sister and me but there was a woman who helped raise us. We call her our second mother. She was a small business owner. I love our small businesses. My plan is to give a $50,000 tax deduction to start-up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of America's economy. My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America's deficit. My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month. Economists have said that Trump's sales tax would actually result for middle-class families in about $4,000 more a year because of his policies and his ideas about what should be the backs of middle-class people paying for tax cuts for billionaires.
Most people would think this is a politician using their personal experience to illustrate how her economic policies (child tax credit, small business tax deduction) would benefit families in similar situations. Here's Trump's response.
DAVID MUIR: President Trump, I'll give you two minutes.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: First of all, I have no sales tax. That's an incorrect statement. She knows that. We're doing tariffs on other countries. Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we've done for the world. And the tariff will be substantial in some cases. I took in billions and billions of dollars, as you know, from China. In fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money, they can't. It would totally destroy everything that they've set out to do. They've taken in billions of dollars from China and other places. They've left the tariffs on. When I had it, I had tariffs and yet I had no inflation. Look, we've had a terrible economy because inflation has -- which is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation's history. We were at 21%. But that's being generous because many things are 50, 60, 70, and 80% higher than they were just a few years ago. This has been a disaster for people, for the middle class, but for every class. On top of that, we have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. And they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied right now by African Americans and Hispanics and also unions. Unions are going to be affected very soon. And you see what's happening. You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they're destroying our country. They're dangerous. They're at the highest level of criminality. And we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast. I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. I'll do it again and even better.
Trump is mostly going on about how great things were when he was president (Americans were literally fighting each other for the last package of toilet paper in the store by his last year in office) before seguing into his immigrant invasion paranoia. @Telford claims to see no difference between these answers in terms of explaining each candidate's economic policy. I'd like @Telford to explain that.
I think it's pretty damn rich that a person whose country gave Brexit & Liz Truss to the world
Oh come now. We also gave the world Boris Johnson. (Or is he included under Brexit?)
Seriously though, I think you're underestimating the way the right-wing UK media pick up and repeat right-wing US talking points.
Fundamentally, Harris belongs to a demographic who if they walked on water would have right-wing commentators complaining that there's no evidence they can swim.
To go back to an earlier point in the discussion, I'm not sure it benefits Harris a great deal to have the endorsement of Dick Cheney or (should it happen) George W. Bush. I think it speaks well of Cheney and Bush that they are prepared to do this, but it may play into Trump's populism - "look, the elites are closing ranks against us, just like I said". Also it might put off some core Democrats to think that Harris has W's approval.
I think it's pretty damn rich that a person whose country gave Brexit & Liz Truss to the world
Oh come now. We also gave the world Boris Johnson. (Or is he included under Brexit?)
Seriously though, I think you're underestimating the way the right-wing UK media pick up and repeat right-wing US talking points.
Fundamentally, Harris belongs to a demographic who if they walked on water would have right-wing commentators complaining that there's no evidence they can swim.
LOL. That'd be really funny if it wasn't mostly true.
Fundamentally, Harris belongs to a demographic who if they walked on water would have right-wing commentators complaining that there's no evidence they can swim.
Rubbish.
If she walked on water they'd accuse her of witchcraft and try to burn her at the stake.
Because it’s a way of telling voters how and why she can identify with the challenges facing typical households. That’s in contrast to Trump, whose background puts him totally out of touch with the challenges facing typical households. It’s a standard way of drawing the “I get you, care about you and will fight for you, he doesn’t and won’t” contrast.
This debate is a very bad format for discussing policy. You don't have time to discuss details and consequences. You have time for intentions and soundbites - it's more about getting some kind of sense for who the candidates are and what kinds of things they would do than a detailed point-by-point analysis of policy proposals.
Also it might put off some core Democrats to think that Harris has W's approval.
No, I don't think so. You're not seeing the likes of Bush and Cheney endorse Harris because she's proposing a platform that Republicans will be excited about - you're seeing them endorse Harris because she's a rational human being, and is the non-Trump candidate.
Their support is not a statement about Harris so much as it is one about Trump.
Because it’s a way of telling voters how and why she can identify with the challenges facing typical households. That’s in contrast to Trump, whose background puts him totally out of touch with the challenges facing typical households. It’s a standard way of drawing the “I get you, care about you and will fight for you, he doesn’t and won’t” contrast.
This debate is a very bad format for discussing policy. You don't have time to discuss details and consequences. You have time for intentions and soundbites - it's more about getting some kind of sense for who the candidates are and what kinds of things they would do than a detailed point-by-point analysis of policy proposals.
Exactly.
A New York Times article,
“Is Trump Too Emotional for This” (may be behind a paywall), on the debate has this regarding a college student (from my state) who voted for Nikki Haley in the primary:
Gamble, a registered Republican, isn’t sure who he will vote for in November, and as he watched the debate in a dorm with friends on Tuesday night, he was trying to figure it out.
Gamble isn’t sold on Trump. But he’s been disappointed by aspects of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, including the cautious television interview she gave this month. The debate, he said, might have changed things.
Harris’s attacks, Gamble said, made Trump look “unbalanced.” She, however, seemed “presidential,” he said.
Gamble hasn’t made up his mind. But the debate left him feeling like Harris is an option.
“I know how she would act as a president,” he said, “which I think is almost as important as policy itself.”
That was an additional goal for Harris in the debate that I failed to include in my list above: show that she’s presidential, and enable people to see her as commander-in-chief.
Trump supporters seem to have decided that he won the debate. So does Trump. They do have a gift with creating alternative facts. Harris’s earrings were apparently false, enabling her to hear advice from her team during the debate. Or, alternatively, ABC fed her the questions in advance.
It’s pretty weird to hear this stuff from MTG, Loomer and the like. If Harris wins, we can confidently expect round 2 of “the election was stolen”.
Trump says there won’t be another presidential debate against Harris. I am taking that to mean he did not feel he did well in the first one. If he thought he was the winner, I should think that he would want a repeat performance.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
Given the choice is Harris or Trump - you can't write in a candidate - which do you prefer and why?
I have indicated that I am not happy with either so I would not be voting.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
Yes it is. I was refering to current events not history or geography.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election seems like a current event, so I don't see why you object to @quetzalcoatl pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about when you comment on the current U.S. presidential election. You self-admittedly "have no knowledge of [ current ] events in the USA".
Trump supporters seem to have decided that he won the debate. So does Trump.
Grass roots Trump supporters may think he did, or may think he didn’t only because the debate was “rigged.” But people closer to the campaign know he didn’t, and have been saying so.
And I don’t think Trump thinks he won. If he thought he’d won, he wouldn’t have gone into the spin room afterward to talk about how he’d won, and how it was his best debate ever, and try to change the inevitable focus on how poorly he did. He knew he won against Biden, and he didn’t go to the spin room.
Nor would he have attacked ABC News and the moderators, because why attack the people who ran a debate you won?
And he probably wouldn’t be afraid to debate again, at least on Fox.
AS I have said somewhere else, I have no knowledge of events in the USA
Yes it is. I was refering to current events not history or geography.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election seems like a current event, so I don't see why you object to @quetzalcoatl pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about when you comment on the current U.S. presidential election. You self-admittedly "have no knowledge of [ current ] events in the USA".
I know as much about incidents in the USA and people in the USA know about similar incidents in the UK.
I feel a lot of people on the Ship are vastly overestimating how much influence the debates have on the average voter.
Most Americans, who aren't hugely plugged in to politics, are simply doing the basic calculation: am I better off now than I was during the Trump years?
And let's face it, the Democrats have an abysmal ground game in a number of states they used to reliably win. Otherwise, the polls wouldn't be so close.
I’m pretty sure that the proceeds of successful fund raising are used in part to improve the ground game.
A recent Guardian argument suggested that there is concern in the GOP about their ground game in the swing states. That doesn’t surprise me. Is there similar concern in Democratic circles?
I feel a lot of people on the Ship are vastly overestimating how much influence the debates have on the average voter.
Most Americans, who aren't hugely plugged in to politics, are simply doing the basic calculation: am I better off now than I was during the Trump years?
And let's face it, the Democrats have an abysmal ground game in a number of states they used to reliably win. Otherwise, the polls wouldn't be so close.
I feel a lot of people on the Ship are vastly overestimating how much influence the debates have on the average voter.
Most Americans, who aren't hugely plugged in to politics, are simply doing the basic calculation: am I better off now than I was during the Trump years?
And let's face it, the Democrats have an abysmal ground game in a number of states they used to reliably win. Otherwise, the polls wouldn't be so close.
Unless you're using the term 'ground game' differently to how I understand it, this doesn't really follow. As I understand it, the main point of the ground game is to get the vote out. They have a lesser effect on polls than they do on the actual vote.
Moreover, it is very widely reported that the Dems ground game is up and running as per usual, whilst the Republicans have virtually no ground game due to Trump's poor fund raising and his redirection of the funds they do have to fighting his various legal battles.
I feel a lot of people on the Ship are vastly overestimating how much influence the debates have on the average voter.
Actually, I don’t think anyone has done that. I don’t recall anyone saying anything close to “Harris won the debate, so Harris will win the election.” My read of this thread is that most posters understand that it remains a very close election.
Most Americans, who aren't hugely plugged in to politics, are simply doing the basic calculation: am I better off now than I was during the Trump years?
Or the question: “Is the country better off now than it was during the Trump years?” The MAGA folks answer “no,” while die-hard Democrats answer “yes.” But for those few undecideds remaining, it well may boil down to whether they think any benefit from a Trump presidency is worth four more years of Trump’s behavior.
I've heard a fair amount of pushback against that zero-sum question. Most people's better-off or worse-off status isn't directly and solely related to who the POTUS is.
The Dems' ground game is in fact much better than the GOP. Trump's campaign has outsourced the ground game to third parties in order to save money - groups that aren't coordinated with each other and haven't done this before. Party officials are concerned. Source is Semafor, worth reading for the details: https://news.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-unconventional-ground-game-094151485.html?guccounter=1
@Powderkeg, how about some actual support for your claims? You know, facts, sources, that kind of thing.
I know as much about incidents in the USA and people in the USA know about similar incidents in the UK.
That little? I always thought there was a pretty big disparity between what the average American knows about UK politics (very little) and what the typical British subject knows about about US politics (not a lot, but significantly more than Americans know about UK politics). My guess is that if you stopped a bunch of people in central London and asked them to identify the man in this picture more than two of them would be able to correctly identify him, and more than zero would know his name.
Sorry, have not been on much over the past few days, Traveling, you see. We are now in Alaska. Drove to Washilla today--home of Sarah Palin, the former VP nominee of John McCain. No Trump signs anywhere. And this is a very Red State.
BTW, for those of you who remember, no, you cannot see Russia from Sarah's backdoor. Too many mountains in the way.
Triple Hearsay: Original Sources of the Claim that Haitians Eat Pets in Ohio Admit No First-Hand Knowledge
“I’m not sure I’m the most credible source because I don’t actually know the person who lost the cat,” Kimberly Newton told NewsGuard. She is the Springfield, Ohio, resident whose story started it all
<snip>
NewsGuard identified and tracked down the two people central to the claim: Erika Lee, the Springfield resident who wrote the original Facebook post, and Kimberly Newton, the neighbor who had provided her with a third-hand account of the rumor, making Lee’s social media post a fourth-hand account: the alleged acquaintance/cat owner; Newton’s friend; Newton; and Lee, who posted it on Facebook.
In exclusive interviews, NewsGuard spoke both with Lee, a 35-year-old hardware store worker who has lived in Springfield for four years, and Newton, her neighbor and a 12-year resident of Springfield. The interviews reveal just how flimsy and unsubstantiated the rumor was from the beginning — based entirely on third hand hearsay. Yet it quickly gained traction and, remarkably, found its way to Trump’s lips on a national stage.
“I’m not sure I’m the most credible source because I don’t actually know the person who lost the cat,” Newton said about the rumor she had passed on to her neighbor, Lee, the Facebook poster. Newton explained to NewsGuard that the cat owner was “an acquaintance of a friend” and that she heard about the supposed incident from that friend, who, in turn, learned about it from “a source that she had.” Newton added: “I don’t have any proof.”
That adds up to three people with no firsthand knowledge of the allegedly victimized cat: Newton’s “friend,” Newton, and then her neighbor Lee. Or perhaps it’s four people if we count the “source” that Newton says her “friend” relied on.
Read on if you want the details, but be warned that the story contains a fairly lurid (and almost certainly fictional) description of animal cruelty.
It's notable that this investigation was done by a small, independent news source and published on Substack. Legacy media seems more interested in the horserace aspects of this story than doing any actual digging.
Of course, once the story was broken NBC wanted to talk to those involved. The original FaceBook poster of the new anti-Haitian blood libel says she didn't intend to villainize Haitians with her post villainizing Haitians.
This is, naturally, getting very ugly with bomb threats and the Proud Boys white supremacist gang showing up in Springfield, OH.
And Trump has posted on Truth Social: "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!"
That's remarkable. My kids are 17 and 19, and haven't had to deal with that kind of playground stuff for quite a few years. What's next? 'My brother's a black belt in Karate'? 'My Dad could have your Dad, you think your Dad's hard, chinny reckon'?
I know as much about incidents in the USA and people in the USA know about similar incidents in the UK.
That little? I always thought there was a pretty big disparity between what the average American knows about UK politics (very little) and what the typical British subject knows about about US politics (not a lot, but significantly more than Americans know about UK politics). My guess is that if you stopped a bunch of people in central London and asked them to identify the man in this picture more than two of them would be able to correctly identify him, and more than zero would know his name.
How big is this bunch of people and how would they get on with the same picture in 30 years time ?
Would they be identifying the face or the crest ?
Just going to remind people up front, when discussing this please be mindful of UK law, anything that looks like incitement to violence may leave you liable to legal action and hosts will redact immediately.
I had a news pop up saying "Trump is 'safe' after gun incident at golf course". I immediately started to wonder why the word safe was put in scare quotes. Turns out it because it was a quote from Trump's social media post to his followers.
Comments
What competencies about actual governance are you looking for? I think it's pretty damn rich that a person whose country gave Brexit & Liz Truss to the world is pearl-clutching about a US political candidate who's so far above and beyond the capacities of Donald F. Tr*mp that the only people who can get a clear view of her right now are the private sector astronauts who took a spacewalk today.
Well put.
@Telford has already said twice that he sees no difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris when it comes to which one would make a better President of the United States. I'm more interested in examining his reasons for making this claim. His stated reasons so far are fairly vague, mostly that Harris spent too much time reminiscing about her family instead of explaining her policies. This seems like one of those shifting standards female politicians are often subjected to, where all possible answers are somehow wrong. She spends too much time talking about her family instead of policy. She never talks about her background so I have no idea about who she is as a person. She should smile more. She smiles too much. She never laughs. She laughs too much. Her laugh is weird. Etc. I'd like @Telford to be a little more forthcoming about what his actual standards are here.
For example, here's one exchange where Harris mentioned her upbringing. Presumably this is the kind of thing that @Telford found so problematic, but I'm just guessing because he's being so vague about it.
Most people would think this is a politician using their personal experience to illustrate how her economic policies (child tax credit, small business tax deduction) would benefit families in similar situations. Here's Trump's response.
Trump is mostly going on about how great things were when he was president (Americans were literally fighting each other for the last package of toilet paper in the store by his last year in office) before seguing into his immigrant invasion paranoia. @Telford claims to see no difference between these answers in terms of explaining each candidate's economic policy. I'd like @Telford to explain that.
Seriously though, I think you're underestimating the way the right-wing UK media pick up and repeat right-wing US talking points.
Fundamentally, Harris belongs to a demographic who if they walked on water would have right-wing commentators complaining that there's no evidence they can swim.
I'm skeptical that anyone whose vote is determined by what George W. Bush says or does is truly a "core Democrat".
LOL. That'd be really funny if it wasn't mostly true.
Rubbish.
If she walked on water they'd accuse her of witchcraft and try to burn her at the stake.
But he does tell splendidly bad jokes. And Trump is a bad (very bad) joke.
This debate is a very bad format for discussing policy. You don't have time to discuss details and consequences. You have time for intentions and soundbites - it's more about getting some kind of sense for who the candidates are and what kinds of things they would do than a detailed point-by-point analysis of policy proposals.
No, I don't think so. You're not seeing the likes of Bush and Cheney endorse Harris because she's proposing a platform that Republicans will be excited about - you're seeing them endorse Harris because she's a rational human being, and is the non-Trump candidate.
Their support is not a statement about Harris so much as it is one about Trump.
A New York Times article,
“Is Trump Too Emotional for This” (may be behind a paywall), on the debate has this regarding a college student (from my state) who voted for Nikki Haley in the primary:
That was an additional goal for Harris in the debate that I failed to include in my list above: show that she’s presidential, and enable people to see her as commander-in-chief.
It’s pretty weird to hear this stuff from MTG, Loomer and the like. If Harris wins, we can confidently expect round 2 of “the election was stolen”.
Trump says there won’t be another presidential debate against Harris. I am taking that to mean he did not feel he did well in the first one. If he thought he was the winner, I should think that he would want a repeat performance.
No matter how the election turns out, I think JD Vance has replaced Sarah Palin as the historic example of a bad choice of running mate.
I have indicated that I am not happy with either so I would not be voting.
I find it amazing that you are able to read my mind
He doesn't have to read your mind, just your posts. You've claimed on at least two occasions that you know virtually nothing about the United States.
That's not exactly what I would have said. because it wouldn't be true.
Isn't this you?
Yes it is. I was refering to current events not history or geography.
The 2024 U.S. presidential election seems like a current event, so I don't see why you object to @quetzalcoatl pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about when you comment on the current U.S. presidential election. You self-admittedly "have no knowledge of [ current ] events in the USA".
And I don’t think Trump thinks he won. If he thought he’d won, he wouldn’t have gone into the spin room afterward to talk about how he’d won, and how it was his best debate ever, and try to change the inevitable focus on how poorly he did. He knew he won against Biden, and he didn’t go to the spin room.
Nor would he have attacked ABC News and the moderators, because why attack the people who ran a debate you won?
And he probably wouldn’t be afraid to debate again, at least on Fox.
I know as much about incidents in the USA and people in the USA know about similar incidents in the UK.
Most Americans, who aren't hugely plugged in to politics, are simply doing the basic calculation: am I better off now than I was during the Trump years?
And let's face it, the Democrats have an abysmal ground game in a number of states they used to reliably win. Otherwise, the polls wouldn't be so close.
A recent Guardian argument suggested that there is concern in the GOP about their ground game in the swing states. That doesn’t surprise me. Is there similar concern in Democratic circles?
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2024/09/12/federal-court-again-dismisses-suit-challenging-arkansass-racially-gerrymandered-congressional-districts
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/16/ohio-republicans-gerrymandering-proposal
https://www.aclusc.org/en/news/its-time-end-gerrymandering-south-carolina
Some recent posts have been close to attacking the person not the argument. Drop it or take it to hell please.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Sounds like Trump lost the debate then.
Unless you're using the term 'ground game' differently to how I understand it, this doesn't really follow. As I understand it, the main point of the ground game is to get the vote out. They have a lesser effect on polls than they do on the actual vote.
Moreover, it is very widely reported that the Dems ground game is up and running as per usual, whilst the Republicans have virtually no ground game due to Trump's poor fund raising and his redirection of the funds they do have to fighting his various legal battles.
What am I missing?
Or the question: “Is the country better off now than it was during the Trump years?” The MAGA folks answer “no,” while die-hard Democrats answer “yes.” But for those few undecideds remaining, it well may boil down to whether they think any benefit from a Trump presidency is worth four more years of Trump’s behavior.
@Powderkeg, how about some actual support for your claims? You know, facts, sources, that kind of thing.
That little? I always thought there was a pretty big disparity between what the average American knows about UK politics (very little) and what the typical British subject knows about about US politics (not a lot, but significantly more than Americans know about UK politics). My guess is that if you stopped a bunch of people in central London and asked them to identify the man in this picture more than two of them would be able to correctly identify him, and more than zero would know his name.
BTW, for those of you who remember, no, you cannot see Russia from Sarah's backdoor. Too many mountains in the way.
Read on if you want the details, but be warned that the story contains a fairly lurid (and almost certainly fictional) description of animal cruelty.
It's notable that this investigation was done by a small, independent news source and published on Substack. Legacy media seems more interested in the horserace aspects of this story than doing any actual digging.
Of course, once the story was broken NBC wanted to talk to those involved. The original FaceBook poster of the new anti-Haitian blood libel says she didn't intend to villainize Haitians with her post villainizing Haitians.
This is, naturally, getting very ugly with bomb threats and the Proud Boys white supremacist gang showing up in Springfield, OH.
Ohio Republican Gov. Mike called the claim "a piece of garbage". He's 77 - he should go ahead and end his political career and endorse Harris.
And Trump has posted on Truth Social: "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!" So, the usual level of level-headedness there.
That's Trump for you. Always selflessly addressing the concerns of people who aren't him.
[/sarcasm]
That's remarkable. My kids are 17 and 19, and haven't had to deal with that kind of playground stuff for quite a few years. What's next? 'My brother's a black belt in Karate'? 'My Dad could have your Dad, you think your Dad's hard, chinny reckon'?
Would they be identifying the face or the crest ?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/politics/donald-trump-safe-shots/index.html
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
I had a news pop up saying "Trump is 'safe' after gun incident at golf course". I immediately started to wonder why the word safe was put in scare quotes. Turns out it because it was a quote from Trump's social media post to his followers.
Maybe. Let's wait for the facts. I know that is an old-fashioned concept, but I am an old fogey and I still believe that facts should come first.
Amen re facts. (It’s why I put “apparent,” just to be safe.) At least this time the shooter is in custody, so they can actually ask him stuff.