The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[rocknroll41]

36 minutes ago, downzy said:

Looks like the betting markets are predicting Shapiro will get the VP nod.  So I guess I was off about Kelly.

Shapiro makes sense if Harris wants to lock down Pennsylvania.  The guy is a rock star in his state.  Whether it costs Harris support in Michigan is up to debate.

But if this does help give PA to Harris, it leaves her needing two of the five other swing states (WI, MI, AZ, GA, NC).  Trump would need to essentially win four of them if he can't win PA.  That assumes she's able to hold on to NM and NV.

For a sec I thought you meant Ben Shapiro and almost had a heart attack…

(haven’t slept much lately, fwiw)

Edited August 2 by rocknroll41

[Sweersa]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following here.

Both parties have responded differently with respect to his leading their party at this point.  So I'm curious why you think both parties are guilty of not being able to shake who they have been propping up.  Democrats are no longer carrying Biden after his debate performance.  Republicans continue to support Trump despite his obvious cognitive decline (and other issues).

So again, not sure why you're employing both side-ism with respect to how each party has managed a very similar situation.  

First time I've heard of Trump having challenges on his cognitive abilities (other than his age alone), he seemed to handle himself well (for the most part) with that event he was at with people of color. Maybe the Democrats are so used to hearing it thrown against Biden, it's just easier to parrot it seeing how the shit they have been throwing doesn't seem to stick on Trump for long. (It amazes even me) He's great at deflecting and using humor as a tool to throw people off and consume time, so they can move on to the next thing. 

What I meant was Biden and Trump being considered at all by both parties, months ago. You would think both sides could have found someone better. I think the left had an "oh shit" moment, especially after the first debate with Biden's horrible performance, and Kamala was an easy out, or is she? Who knows. She's doing better than I expected. But will be be enough? Who knows. I hope not, but many do, of course. I've "wasted" a vote before on a 3rd party due to not liking either of the mains, but not since 2016. 

I'd like to type more, but the damn ads on this site keep messing with composing my message. It's like damn Po**Hu* with the ads here sometimes, but I get it.  

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 8/1/2024 at 7:50 PM, downzy said:

The anti-anti Trump folks started out disliking some of the responses from Democrats to Trump (particularly around Russia), which put them on a path that led them to being pro-Trump.

Sorry, but you're falling for their excuses. "Look what you made me do" is one of the right's favorite tactics, and it works hand in hand with pretending to be an impartial centrist who just so happens to side with Trump because "tHe LeFt iS jUsT sO rAdIcAl" or because "I'm just calling balls and strikes, so when I favor Trump, it can't be partisan".

Just think about what a frivolous reason that would be to convert to an entire ideology. Because you think people are too critical of it? People can be rude in mocking Scientology, that doesn't make anyone want to join it out of sympathy though. 

Quote

 Russell Brand is a good example of this.  Here's a guy who was predominantly left-leaning and ripped into Trump and Trumpism eight years ago, but now shows up at the RNC convention and hawks the most insane theories about Democrats and the left. 

Russel Brand went right because his viewership exploded as soon as he dabbled in it, and his anti-vax beliefs overlapped with the right during covid. He's a perfect example of how it's all a grift.

 

This article explains Brand's grift quite well:

https://www.mediamatters.org/rumble/video-russell-brand-and-conspiracy-grift

Quote

 You see this with the Never Trumpers, who a few years ago were fairly conservative about everything and who have now bought into the Democratic platform.

Who can you point to for this? The Lincoln Project founders are the most prominent never Trumpers and they are still completely conservative.

Quote

Trump himself use to be in on the joke (that is himself as a character). He supported Democratic politicians and causes. 

Trump used to be a Dem because he was a real estate developer in New York, which is heavily democratic, so if you want to buy favors, you need to donate to the party which actually holds power.

Quote

Just like Trump, Vance's personal ambitions outweighed his principles and values. 

Actually, if you read Hillbilly Elegy, Vance was never a leftist. He blames the Appalachians for their own struggles and has zero systemic analysis for why they ended up this way. His analysis is that they are just lazy and lack personal responsibility.

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Sweersa said:

First time I've heard of Trump having challenges on his cognitive abilities (other than his age alone), he seemed to handle himself well (for the most part) with that event he was at with people of color

Then you haven't been paying attention.  He's been slurring his words a lot in campaign speeches.  Too many examples of word salads, forgetting names, and being overall confused...

Trump never stops talking for a second, so I guess it's easy to tune him out.  But anyone listening to him for the last year or so can see he's suffering from some form of decline.

5 hours ago, Sweersa said:

What I meant was Biden and Trump being considered at all by both parties, months ago. You would think both sides could have found someone better.

Republicans were given an opportunity to find someone better and they chose not to.

With respect to the Democrats, you just don't force out a sitting president unless you absolutely need to. And until the debate, Biden's decline wasn't considered steep enough to warrant concern.  But there was no looking the other way after the debate.  Look, Biden's debate performance masked how bad Trump was in the same debate.  Trump gave arguably the second worst debate performance in American presidential history (after Biden).  The Democrats gave Biden time to do the right thing, and the party acted like a party.  There is no Republican party anymore.  It's the party of Trump.  Despite being impeached twice, found libel of sexual assault and business fraud, criminally convicted of 34 counts, and facing dozens of additional federal and state charges, the party has rallied around him.  Biden mumbles his way through one debate and the Democrats find a new candidate (like a functioning party should).  So tell me again how both sides are guilty of doing the same thing.

 

 

[downzy]

37 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Sorry, but you're falling for their excuses. "Look what you made me do" is one of the right's favorite tactics, and it works hand in hand with pretending to be an impartial centrist who just so happens to side with Trump because "tHe LeFt iS jUsT sO rAdIcAl" or because "I'm just calling balls and strikes, so when I favor Trump, it can't be partisan".

I'm not giving them any excuses.  But I think save for some elected members, most MAGA supporters firmly believe what they're saying.  I don't think most are grifting their constituents.  Someone like Vance is now a true believer; not because of what the Democrats have done, but because his opposition to the initial criticisms of Trump led him down a path to full blown believer.

39 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Just think about what a frivolous reason that would be to convert to an entire ideology. Because you think people are too critical of it? People can be rude in mocking Scientology, that doesn't make anyone want to join it out of sympathy though. 

Again, not the point I was making.

40 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Russel Brand went right because his viewership exploded as soon as he dabbled in it, and his anti-vax beliefs overlapped with the right during covid. He's a perfect example of how it's all a grift.

So you're claiming he doesn't believe any of it?

Maybe initially, but again, I don't think it's possible for one person to keep the act going for that long.  I think there's a certain level of buy-in.

42 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Who can you point to for this? The Lincoln Project founders are the most prominent never Trumpers and they are still completely conservative.

David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Richard Painter, Mark Cuban, etc.

The best example is Stuart Stevens, who wrote a book a few years ago about how most of the conservative movement was all built on a lie. 

Bill Kristol is on record for voting Democratic House and Senate candidates in Virginia.

46 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Trump used to be a Dem because he was a real estate developer in New York, which is heavily democratic, so if you want to buy favors, you need to donate to the party which actually holds power.

Right, but if you listen to the people who knew him back in the 1990s and 2000s, they would tell you he's a completely different person.  The persona of Donald Trump came to devour the person he was.  Sure, there's a healthy amount of overlap, but there was a time when Donald was in on the joke of how he was perceived.  That stopped when The Apprentice took off and he began to believe the persona that his TV show had created.  Can you imagine Trump going on Comedy Roasts these days?

49 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Actually, if you read Hillbilly Elegy, Vance was never a leftist. He blames the Appalachians for their own struggles and has zero systemic analysis for why they ended up this way. His analysis is that they are just lazy and lack personal responsibility.

Never said he was a leftist.  But he demonstrated a willingness to have a sincere discussion about the issues.  Whether his book misdiagnosis the core problems or not, there was a sincerity to Vance back when the book came out.  That Vance is long gone.  

[Sweersa]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Then you haven't been paying attention.  He's been slurring his words a lot in campaign speeches.  Too many examples of word salads, forgetting names, and being overall confused...

Trump never stops talking for a second, so I guess it's easy to tune him out.  But anyone listening to him for the last year or so can see he's suffering from some form of decline.

Republicans were given an opportunity to find someone better and they chose not to.

With respect to the Democrats, you just don't force out a sitting president unless you absolutely need to. And until the debate, Biden's decline wasn't considered steep enough to warrant concern.  But there was no looking the other way after the debate.  Look, Biden's debate performance masked how bad Trump was in the same debate.  Trump gave arguably the second worst debate performance in American presidential history (after Biden).  The Democrats gave Biden time to do the right thing, and the party acted like a party.  There is no Republican party anymore.  It's the party of Trump.  Despite being impeached twice, found libel of sexual assault and business fraud, criminally convicted of 34 counts, and facing dozens of additional federal and state charges, the party has rallied around him.  Biden mumbles his way through one debate and the Democrats find a new candidate (like a functioning party should).  So tell me again how both sides are guilty of doing the same thing.

 

 

I think that would be a further waste of both of our time. But, I will anyway. democrats picked a man who is all but a corpse until the last minute to represent them, and the republicans picked a shady (to say the least) bully who’s in some legal trouble, which so far hasn’t seemed to impede him any, if anything, seems to have helped. From a purely empathetic standpoint, I feel bad for Biden, but they shouldn’t have kept him animated for so long. The dude should have retired years ago. A geezer deemed unfit for trial and for re-election is the current president of the US. Maybe his ego kept him in it. What else would it be, pressure from his party? I hope he at least pardons his son for the firearms related charges before he leaves office, and I am sincere with that. Even with a drug addiction, I believe Hunter’s rights are protected under the second amendment. I have not noticed any issues with Trump’s performances, he seems as sharp as he has been, and as entertaining. People are just looking for reasons to further put him down and it seems to be back firing, which I think some are admiring and supporting him even more as a result because they enjoy how difficult he is to control. Isn’t he even gaining some ground with minorities? I never would have guessed that happening, save for those who came from socialist countries. I’ve seen it in my own personal life as well. I’m mostly saddened by Biden stepping out of the race because it will limit further hilarious occurrences like calling the Ukrainian president Putin (which ironically could actually happen 😂) and confusing Kamala for Trump as the VP. It’s almost all one big joke. Most of my friends outside of my profession are leftists and it’s amazing how quickly they went from fully supporting Biden to embracing Kamala. Hard for me to criticize her because I don’t really know much about her, I don’t think most do.
 

Either way, whomever becomes president, they sure have a shit show to deal with. They need to decide whether or not to take over being a sugar daddy/mama to Zelensky, and deal with the growing war in the Middle East. 

[-W.A.R-]

You don't spoil Democratic unity by picking Shapiro. Walz or Beshear keep the train rolling.

[Dazey]

On 8/2/2024 at 12:50 AM, downzy said:

Russell Brand is a good example of this.  Here's a guy who was predominantly left-leaning and ripped into Trump and Trumpism eight years ago, but now shows up at the RNC convention and hawks the most insane theories about Democrats and the left.

I think that Russell Brand’s conversion has a little more to it. He was massive over here until around the mid 2010’s. Thing is that it was an open secret within the UK TV and comedy circuit that he had a bit of a sex pest problem going on. It got to the point where lots of people refused to work with him because of it and the work started to dry up. 

His pivot to the right appears to be a deliberate move to appeal to an audience where these things didn’t matter. His shift into conspiracy nonsense is basically his way of avoiding scrutiny by saying it’s all made up by the deep state and there’s nothing to see here. 
 

So basically he’s a predator who couldn’t get anybody to return his calls so he decided to throw his hat in with the pussy grabber brigade to pay the bills. 
 

This documentary released last year gives a good overview of his situation. 

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/russell-brand-in-plain-sight-dispatches

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8o4deh

 

[Rindmelon]

28 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I think that Russell Brand’s conversion has a little more to it. He was massive over here until around the mid 2010’s. Thing is that it was an open secret within the UK TV and comedy circuit that he had a bit of a sex pest problem going on. It got to the point where lots of people refused to work with him because of it and the work started to dry up. 

His pivot to the right appears to be a deliberate move to appeal to an audience where these things didn’t matter. His shift into conspiracy nonsense is basically his way of avoiding scrutiny by saying it’s all made up by the deep state and there’s nothing to see here. 
 

 

back in the day before any of this was public knowledge I used to actually make jingles for his radio show/podcast, that's back before he politically did a 180 of course. The public perception of the guy in the mainstream was that he was some sort of byronesque fop from the victorian era, part rockstar part idiot.  

Truth is sadly he is a very well read guy, machiavellian and far from an idiot. I don't doubt for a second his turn to the right is a grift, I don't think he believes a thing he says anymore at all. I wonder what Winehouse, Mr G and Matt Morgan would make of him now. For some of those on the left he was an entry point for people who would go on to read Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, & now he basically seen as the UK's Alex Jones/sex pest.. shame

[Dazey]

8 minutes ago, Rindmelon said:

back in the day before any of this was public knowledge I used to actually make jingles for his radio show/podcast, that's back before he politically did a 180 of course. The public perception of the guy in the mainstream was that he was some sort of byronesque fop from the victorian era, part rockstar part idiot.  

Truth is sadly he is a very well read guy, machiavellian and far from an idiot. I don't doubt for a second his turn to the right is a grift, I don't think he believes a thing he says anymore at all. I wonder what Winehouse, Mr G and Matt Morgan would make of him now. For some of those on the left he was an entry point for people who would go on to read Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, & now he basically seen as the UK's Alex Jones/sex pest.. shame

I used to listen to his radio show religiously back in the mid 2000’s. I thought he was awesome. I agree that he doesn’t believe a word of it but as you say he’s a very smart guy and he knows that this is a way to make a lot of money. 
 

Did you have any personal interaction with him back in the day?

[Rindmelon]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I used to listen to his radio show religiously back in the mid 2000’s. I thought he was awesome. I agree that he doesn’t believe a word of it but as you say he’s a very smart guy and he knows that this is a way to make a lot of money. 
 

Did you have any personal interaction with him back in the day?

No I never met him or anything but if you listened to the Radio 2 and audioboom days then you will have heard stuff I did for sure..... I'm actually pretty sure I sent Matt Morgan GN'R leaks as he was a fan lol. Anyway back on topic I watched the full video of Trump being interviewed by black journalists...........it did not go well for him 

[downzy]

10 hours ago, Sweersa said:

I feel bad for Biden, but they shouldn’t have kept him animated for so long.

There really is no way of removing a sitting President if he chooses to run for re-election.  You can't force the issue.  The only time that can be done is when it's painfully obvious.  And until the debate in June, it wasn't painfully obvious to most people, even elected officials who had constant contact with the White House.

Biden had been doing the job.  He has a great track record.  The issue that became apparent for almost everyone was that he was too old to run again.  The debate made that clear.  Go back to his State of the Union speech in March.  He came off sharp and strong.  The problem with someone at that age is they have good days and bad days.  It's clear now that Biden's team had done a great job of hiding Biden on his bad days.  

There is no "they."  The only person who could decide to not run was Biden.  And when it became clear, the party elders went to Biden and asked him to step down.  And it still took time for him to make that decision, even after he was pressured by the Party.

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, Rindmelon said:

No I never met him or anything but if you listened to the Radio 2 and audioboom days then you will have heard stuff I did for sure..... I'm actually pretty sure I sent Matt Morgan GN'R leaks as he was a fan lol. Anyway back on topic I watched the full video of Trump being interviewed by black journalists...........it did not go well for him 

I think that coupled with a woman of colour as the candidate might shift things a little. I’m very interested to see how the VP pick and any convention bounce shifts the polls. Shapiro seems a shoo-in at this point given the importance of Pennsylvania. 

[downzy]

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

I think that Russell Brand’s conversion has a little more to it. He was massive over here until around the mid 2010’s. Thing is that it was an open secret within the UK TV and comedy circuit that he had a bit of a sex pest problem going on. It got to the point where lots of people refused to work with him because of it and the work started to dry up. 

His pivot to the right appears to be a deliberate move to appeal to an audience where these things didn’t matter. His shift into conspiracy nonsense is basically his way of avoiding scrutiny by saying it’s all made up by the deep state and there’s nothing to see here. 
 

So basically he’s a predator who couldn’t get anybody to return his calls so he decided to throw his hat in with the pussy grabber brigade to pay the bills. 
 

This documentary released last year gives a good overview of his situation. 

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/russell-brand-in-plain-sight-dispatches

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8o4deh

 

Yeah, I don't doubt that it was a calculated decision at the time.

My only question now is how much of it he believes now that he's fallen down the rabbit hole.  I think it's hard not to lose yourself to the story you've set up for others.  

I do think there are Republicans in the House and Senate who say one thing in public and say another in private.  Most loathe Trump, but they have to play along to keep their jobs.  So I get that dynamic.  But most of those types usually keep their public comments about Trump to a minimum.  Plus many were part of the club a long time prior, so they feel less need to broadcast their public positions. 

I guess my only real contention with a lot of these types is that what started off as a grift has become somewhat of a religious conversion for them.  They're too far gone to find their way back, even if the financial incentives were to swing the other way.  Maybe some of them can come back.  But when your newfound identity is so tightly wound around this snarling politics of contempt, it's sort of like falling to the dark side of the force.  Most don't find their way back.

 

[Rindmelon]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

But when your newfound identity is so tightly wound around this snarling politics of contempt, it's sort of like falling to the dark side of the force.  Most don't find their way back.

 

Most probably realize they would not be welcomed if they tried to find there way back anyway.

[-W.A.R-]

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

I think that coupled with a woman of colour as the candidate might shift things a little. I’m very interested to see how the VP pick and any convention bounce shifts the polls. Shapiro seems a shoo-in at this point given the importance of Pennsylvania. 

I don't know if he will cost her the election but Shapiro will ruin the party unity that she has enjoyed thus far. Walz/Beshear have progressive/liberal support and Mark Kelly may be acceptable by virtue of not being Shapiro.

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:07 PM, downzy said:

I'm not giving them any excuses.  But I think save for some elected members, most MAGA supporters firmly believe what they're saying.  I don't think most are grifting their constituents. 

Oh, the supporters believe it absolutely. The politicians and media figures are a mix, but are increasingly (especially with the MAGA movement) con artists.

The ideology is fundamentally a con to preserve the existing power hierarchy, and any supposed principles that flow from that only exist to reinforce that power and capture some easy targets, like Christians, gun lovers, etc. Religion has long been used as a tool for controlling the masses.

Harvard Political Scientist David Ziblatt states that the birth of democracy hinged on whether the existing aristocrats felt that they would be represented by a strong conservative party:

"Indeed, through conservative parties, old regime incumbents could maintain their political dominance by playing according to the rules of the democratic game."

https://www.europenowjournal.org/2018/01/31/conservative-parties-and-the-birth-of-democracy-by-daniel-ziblatt/

Quote

Someone like Vance is now a true believer; not because of what the Democrats have done, but because his opposition to the initial criticisms of Trump led him down a path to full blown believer.

His explanation for the change is that he saw the Trump white house in action and liked the results. I've not seen him say anything about it being a reaction to liberals.

Quote

So you're claiming he doesn't believe any of it?

Maybe initially, but again, I don't think it's possible for one person to keep the act going for that long.  I think there's a certain level of buy-in.

Russell Brand is clearly smart enough to know what he's doing, and to see through the simplistic lies he's spreading.

Tucker Carlson kept his act going way longer than Brand has. He called out Bill O'Reilly for exactly what he went on to do as well:

"Like everyone in TV, he has a shtick. O’Reilly is Everyman — the faithful but slightly lapsed Catholic son of the working class who knows slick, eastern Establishment BS when he sees it. ... O’Reilly’s success is built on the perception that he really is who he claims to be. If he ever gets caught out of character, it’s over. If someday he punches out a flight attendant on the Concorde for bringing him a glass of warm champagne, the whole franchise will come tumbling down."

And there is a TON of evidence that Carlson didn't believe half the shit he said:

"In the filings — text messages and emails authored by Carlson (and other Foxies) — he reveals that the wildly pro-Trump stance that he and his network long cultivated has been a theatrical performance. Carlson, who has long defended and promoted Trump, as well as advised him on national security issues, has never been a genuine Trumpie, he has just played the role on TV."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/08/tucker-carlson-phony-fox-00086126

Quote

David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Richard Painter, Mark Cuban, etc.
The best example is Stuart Stevens, who wrote a book a few years ago about how most of the conservative movement was all built on a lie. 

Bill Kristol is on record for voting Democratic House and Senate candidates in Virginia.

In what ways have they become liberal? The GOP moving far right doesn't make neocons liberal.

All of those people rebuked the MAGA movement because it's anti-democratic. They felt forced out of the party over that issue, not that they suddenly "bought into the democratic platform".

Stuart Stevens is still a Republican, though. All of those names you listed are still registered Republicans or independents, except Kristol.

Quote

Right, but if you listen to the people who knew him back in the 1990s and 2000s, they would tell you he's a completely different person.  The persona of Donald Trump came to devour the person he was.  Sure, there's a healthy amount of overlap, but there was a time when Donald was in on the joke of how he was perceived.  That stopped when The Apprentice took off and he began to believe the persona that his TV show had created.  Can you imagine Trump going on Comedy Roasts these days?

Different in what way, though? That's important. It's not really relevant if they mean "he was very friendly at parties".

Back in 1989 he was already calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five. He only ever supported abortion because he was a philanderer. He was sued by the DOJ for discriminating against black tenants in the 1970s. Listen to interviews with him in the 1980s and he was the exact same man he is today, just more articulate and not yet working a con angle on conservatives.

I haven't seen any evidence that he was ever in on the joke. He's always been shamelessly self-promotional and self-aggrandizing, and he'll go on a show that's mocking him because "any press is good press". He went on SNL and also let Jimmy Fallon impersonate him in 2016.

And obviously as a politician, he can't let anyone see that he's in on the act, because the whole thing would then fall apart.

Quote

Never said he was a leftist.  But he demonstrated a willingness to have a sincere discussion about the issues.  Whether his book misdiagnosis the core problems or not, there was a sincerity to Vance back when the book came out.  That Vance is long gone.  

I  think he simply miscalculated his grift. He originally thought there would be a counter-swing from the MAGA radicalism to a more moderate GOP, and he was wrong.

Edited August 4 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

23 hours ago, Sweersa said:

I have not noticed any issues with Trump’s performances, he seems as sharp as he has been, and as entertaining.

Then you have not been paying attention.

Donald Trump 'Slurring' Words Again at Rally Sparks Speculation

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rally-slurring-words-cognitive-state-new-hampshire-1863045

Trump repeatedly claimed that his opponent Nikki Haley was in charge of Capitol security on January 6. (Haley never had any connection to Capitol security.)

He has repeatedly confused who he ran against in the past, such as stating, “With Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won.” (Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.)

Trump has confused Biden with Obama so often that he’s had to put out a statement that the slips have been intentional.

In October, Trump warned his supporters that Biden would lead America into World War Two.

Forgetting somebody's name

Forgets what state he's talking about

Forgets where to go at debate

Forgets what country he bombed

Forgetting what state he's in

And then we have all the times right wingers have been caught editing videos of Biden to manufacture their dementia narrative:

Accidentally endorsing Trump

Confused

Stumbling over words

Forgetting location and more

Saying he cured cancer

"sniffing child".

Referring to baseball player as "negro"

This is what happens when only one party is engaging in propaganda. The takeaway of the average disinterested person in the opposite of reality. Overwhelm reality with a firehose of lies. I bet you've seen a lot of those fake edited Biden videos online, haven't you? How many have you seen of Trump's gaffes I listed above? Only one party is actually playing politics, that's the problem with the "both sides bad" narrative.

Edited August 4 by evilfacelessturtle

[Rindmelon]

@evilfacelessturtle Remember his comments about airports during the Civil War? 

It's 4 months and 1 day to the 5th of November, that's not that long now really, we should have a count down clock

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 8/4/2024 at 4:26 AM, Rindmelon said:

@evilfacelessturtle Remember his comments about airports during the Civil War? 

It's 4 months and 1 day to the 5th of November, that's not that long now really, we should have a count down clock

And then they clipped Biden quoting his comments and passed it around as another "Biden going senile" viral video. Absolutely no shame, these people.

[rocknroll41]

Not sure if it’s been said here yet but it looks like Tim Walz is Harris’s pick for VP.

[-W.A.R-]

Very happy with Walz as VP.

[-W.A.R-]

Walz on Vance "I can't wait to debate the guy....that's if he's willing to get off the couch and show up"

[Tom2112]

On 8/3/2024 at 1:53 AM, downzy said:

Then you haven't been paying attention.  He's been slurring his words a lot in campaign speeches.  Too many examples of word salads, forgetting names, and being overall confused...

Trump never stops talking for a second, so I guess it's easy to tune him out.  But anyone listening to him for the last year or so can see he's suffering from some form of decline.

Republicans were given an opportunity to find someone better and they chose not to.

With respect to the Democrats, you just don't force out a sitting president unless you absolutely need to. And until the debate, Biden's decline wasn't considered steep enough to warrant concern.  But there was no looking the other way after the debate.  Look, Biden's debate performance masked how bad Trump was in the same debate.  Trump gave arguably the second worst debate performance in American presidential history (after Biden).  The Democrats gave Biden time to do the right thing, and the party acted like a party.  There is no Republican party anymore.  It's the party of Trump.  Despite being impeached twice, found libel of sexual assault and business fraud, criminally convicted of 34 counts, and facing dozens of additional federal and state charges, the party has rallied around him.  Biden mumbles his way through one debate and the Democrats find a new candidate (like a functioning party should).  So tell me again how both sides are guilty of doing the same thing.

 

 

It's a little simplistic to say Biden mumbled his way through one debate. He had been making huge gaffes for a long time and it was a loud conversation (on both sides of the fence) that was being had and ultimately they couldn't quieten it so they forced him out. 

As for Trump... listening to any of his speeches, he's rarely directly answering a question, he always goes off on another slight off centre rant. I don't think his cognitive health is the issue there, but maybe? I think he just doesn't want to give direct answers to things that might come back to bite him later on. Really you watch any politician talk and you rarely hear them give definitive straight answers it's always a lot of deflection, smoke and mirrors.

The Democrats choice of Biden, well as you said he's the sitting president and it was his intent to run for a 2nd term. The actual issue was that they ran him the first time. 

Now, Trump is a rambler and sometimes you're wondering what the fuck he's on about but he's still sharp, I don't know who feeds him information though, they clearly need to pipe in more fact checked material. Whether he'd be sharp in a further 4 years we don't know but time is not on his side. Kamala is much younger, however her answers to sticky questions are just as bizarre and sometimes you might think she's suffering from some sort of mental dysfunction (unlikely I just think she isn't good without pre-prepared answers). 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Walz on Vance "I can't wait to debate the guy....that's if he's willing to get off the couch and show up"

Kind of an out of left-field choice that few saw coming a few weeks ago.

I listened to him being interviewed last week and he does come across as articulate, authentic, and well meaning.

It's an interesting choice with respect to what it says about Harris's campaign view of the race.

Clearly they're less concerned about PA than others might think.  Shapiro likely would have locked down PA for them, so the fact that they're not going that route says they feel confident they can win PA without Shapiro and that Walz helps them with states like WI and MI.  

Can't wait for the Walz - Vance debate.