"KFile: Harris told ACLU in 2019 she supports cuts to ICE funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants"
"Transgender rights
Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”
Only if you try to do it in a compressed soundbite, assuming your audience is terminally online and already knows what you’re talking about.
If you stop to explain, “the aclu had a questionnaire they asked candidates, about transgender healthcare, and they specifically asked whether candidates would be willing to provide it to people in detention, and she specifically said yes”, then it sounds like she’s the crazy one. But if you just say “she wants to do transgender surgery on illegal immigrant prisoners”, then you sound like a self-parody.
The same is true in other directions. If you say “he wants to send abused teens back to be raped by their fathers” you sound unhinged, but if you say “he wants to have mandatory parental notification for abortions, even in the case of rape or incest”, then you can understand.
agreed. Trump just says it the first way it comes to mind - he's never optimized for coming across agreeable or sympatico - which means he would've never made it up the ranks politically. It's surprising he has the support he has - and part of it may be people's hunger for that type of unfiltered speech even if they disagree with it - it's how most people talk to each other in private
Then perhaps you, and we as a society, should step back and consider whether we are right to place so much emphasis on how someone phrases something vs whether the thing they are saying is true.
There are a lot of Fox News watchers who will decide this election. The caricature of Trump, and Republicans in general, as wacky conspiracy theorists is wrong about as often as it's right and can easily be thrown at the other side with substantial accuracy. The big difference is in how each side's narratives are treated by governmental and media institutions. In my opinion, the middle is not listening much to those authorities anymore. So calling the right "weird" might get you a lot of play on MSNBC, but I doubt it moves the voting needle to the left. Quite possibly, it moves it a little bit the other way.
In a wildly hypothetical way, if you read the actual quote & understand how unlikely surgery is going to be prescribed and then how unlikely any treatment at all happens…
Plenty of people die in custody from a lack of cancer treatment. Hell, even very simple stuff becomes lethal in prison. 🤷♂️
The truth is that she supports the idea that people should get medical care while in detention, and that if a medical professional determines that gender transition care is relevant at the moment that someone is in detention (talk about an 0.1% of an 0.1% sort of coincidence on the timing there!) then it should be paid for like any other care.
Ranting and raving about transgender illegals in prison just makes you sound like a Fox News obsessive, not like someone who is thinking about what actual rules for policy should be.
Well, consider this for a second. When we imprison people, is it not morally correct that we assume responsibility for maintaining their medical well-being to some standard? A prisoner who has high blood pressure or cholesterol should receive appropriate medications to manage their condition. Likewise, schizophrenic and bipolar inmates should be provided the appropriate psychiatric medications to ensure they do not become an excessive danger to themselves or the other people they're imprisoned with. By analogy, it would make sense to provide transgender inmates with the gender affirming treatments they need to make sure they don't get sick when we're responsible for them. So I don't find it particularly out of pocket that Harris answered an ACLU questionnaire the way she did; it's a questionnaire, not a fully-developed policy proposal.
• The woke: “It's not happening! Nothing so awful could happen! You're crazy! You're weird!”
• Proof is given that it really is happening.
• The woke, without ever pausing to consider whether they should adjust their world-view in light of this new information: “Of course it's happening, and it's a good thing! We should celebrate that it's happening!”
Ha, excellent. And the same applies to the “Haïtians eating pets / protected species” point: now that videos have emerged proving beyond doubt that it is happening, they have seamlessly moved on to saying that it's just the same as when you go to KFC. No embarrassment about completely changing their position on a dime. They just say it, and when that point is eventually debunked they move on to the next talking point handed to them by the media.
"KFile: Harris told ACLU in 2019 she supports cuts to ICE funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants"
"Transgender rights
Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”
“Hahaha! Imagine believing things just because they're provably true! lol so weird amirite?! Sensible moderates like me believe whatever we're told by the TV.”
My impression (from a few different reported stories, and from talking to some people in my own network of party contacts) is that Pelosi is really the person most responsible for getting Biden to step aside.
But leaving that aside, I just don't think it's true that Biden hates anyone because of that. I think it was a wrenching decision, but ultimately other Democratic leaders persuaded him that _regardless_ of whether he believed he could do the job, the American people (and many of those leaders) just don't have faith that he can, and for the good of the country he needed to do it. And they honored him for it.
Trump can't comprehend a world in which a leader gives up power for the greater good. He's projecting. If he had been forced to step aside, he would _despise_ the people who'd pushed him out. So he believes that must be how Biden feels. Whereas I believe his endorsement of Harris is sincere -- when he said to her, publicly, "I love ya, kid," I don't think that was an act. There's a paternal / mentor relationship. (And there's some deep psychological stuff there -- Biden has lost children in multiple ways, and in particular Beau dying as an adult, when he had been on track to have a successful political career, had to be wrenching. Taking on Kamala as a "daughter" in some sense, fulfilling his legacy, has to be really appealing.)
Trump's ceiling and floor have been fixed for some time. Evidenced by the inssesent non-response, both sides were trying (rightfully so) to control the Harris ceiling. One side attempting to limit by definition, the other side trying to expand by painting a vision. Willing to place a bet that Harris ceiling rises by 1 point while the bounce adjustment fade takes care of another 1.5
Didn't he say 20 million illegals were pouring into the country each MONTH? So essentially the US population will double after about 18 months at this rate?
Illegal aliens are certainly killing women in my county in Maryland; and many other counties as murderers run for the border --- and cross north to us. This badly needs to be stopped. It will never be stopped by Dems, which apparently like it.
immigrants are significantly less likely to be convicted of a crime. This makes sense as being caught committing a crime carries a much higher risk to them. This is also backed statistically, with one recent figure showing they are 60% less likely to be convicted of a crime than their us-born counterparts.
If we're just going to abstract this into concentrations of crime-committers per capita then the safest thing to do would be to flood your population with as much of the lower-crime-density undocumented immigrants as possible. If I have water with 10% dirt in it, and could add in water with 2% dirt in it, and my goal was as clean of water as possible, I should add as much 2% dirt water as I can get my hands on.
Crime is also a nebulous construct to use for discussion on safety as its largely influenced by which areas are getting policed, what bias individual officers may carry, what bias the larger system carries, as well as which regulations are actually enforced and how they are interpreted.
It is also difficult to defend a position that we can look at crime statistics as representative of how dangerous a community is. If someone incarcerated for stealing bread from Target is treated as 1 convict and someone charged with a triple homicide and grand theft auto as 1 convict then the number of convicts isn't telling us as much as we may want it to. Even in cases of similar crimes, the underlying circumstances can paint drastically different pictures.
In reality immigrants are people. Because of the nature of being an undocumented immigrant, many come from difficult circumstances and many are socioeconomically disadvantaged in our country. Being poor in our country is designed to be a highly contentious and difficult way to live. We do not provide much in the way of safety nets towards our own citizens, and substantially less than that to these undocumented immigrants. They are still people. They want their kids safe, fed, and clothed. They want a bed and a shower. Many want to work, and of those many are the backbone of our economy living on under-the-table wages to work long hot hours on our farms and other manual labor positions.
Much of the violence we are seeing from gangs and other organized crime are also largely a result of US interventionist policy in South America over the last century, and refusing to acknowledge our own role in that crisis is short-sighted.
The rhetoric that violent immigrants are threatening your way of life is a fear tactic by aspiring fascist groups looking to usurp power through mass hysteria. That is all it has ever been. Immigrants are people looking to join your community. They bring a unique perspective and culture, and are a massive asset to have if we treat them properly. Providing avenues to legal citizenship, education, and stable employment and housing are the proper and only effective way to reduce crime and violence and give them a real opportunity to integrate into our communities
Then why didn't Donald back the bipartisan border deal? Either it's important enough to deal with when given the chance or someone just likes to fear monger and use it as a campaign topic. I'm pretty sure you know the real answer.
There are Haitians in Springfield, that much is true. They aren't eating pets, that is a lie.
Trump's debate prep is always poor, because he doesn't actually care about the truth. And regardless of what Democrats think about Ohio, they won't elect them, so there's not much they can do about it.
I wonder, will democrats ever do some self reflection and wonder why half of the country is choosing this guy over thier politician? Like, maybe there are some policies that are giving him legitimacy where he should have none.
One example: the border wall. When Trump ran on the border wall in 2016, democrats and the media widely ridiculed him for it. Saying immigrants were not taking jobs away from Americans and that the wall wouldn't work anyway. At the time I was studying labor economics with Singaporeans and found out that yes, when foriegn workers enter a labor market the native workforce suffers in term ls of employment and wages. My Singaporean classmates complained about a similar situation (Indian immigrants were taking engineering jobs). In addition one of my classmates was Israeli and talked about how the wall in southern Israel stopped illegal drugs and immigration from coming into thier country. Fast forward to today and Kamala Harris now supports a wall, I think. Maybe an apology from the media and democrats for gaslighting Republicans for years would help? When somebody is pissing on you and calling it rain eventually you're going to punch them in thier face and tell them to stop. Yes, Trump is an asshole but democrats are assholes that are nice to your face but then stab you in the back. It's about seeing the other side as Americans (hell, maybe even just human beings) and BOTH sides are equally guilty. Until that changes I don't see things getting better anytime soon.
First, no she doesn’t support a border wall. She supports the border bill which republicans insisted funding be carved out for the border wall. It’s called a compromise. Regardless any complaint about the border or immigration lands on deaf ears because Trump killed the bill. So no I don’t think I will apologize to any republicans. The border wall will always be a waste of time and money because anyone and their mother can scale those things after a $50 trip to a hardware store.
Second, comparing the effect of illegal immigration on a country the size of Singapore to that of the US is laughable if it weren’t a bad faith argument. Singapore is the size of a postage stamp (I lived there for two years) there’s only so much room and resources to go around so it would obviously have a larger effect. But the larger argument, at least in the US, is that immigration has a positive effect on the economy. More people paying taxes, buying goods and services will lead to more growth.
You’re free to call who you want an asshole, but if your going to complain about a political party not seeing the other side as American then you should start with the Republicans; they have been calling democrats a litany of things over the years. Communist, anti-American, evil, radical. The Republican Party gave us Trump who is clearly the bigger danger to democracy. If democrats are guilty of anything right now it’s not having a backbone and actually fighting for the things they believe in.
I’ve always been a registered republican but I’ve only voted for democrats since Trump started running. He’s ruined the Republican Party and if we elect him again who knows what will happen. Nothing good.
Oh, and just for the record, walls or fences do reduce illegal immigration. The point is to slow people down. Yes, you can still climb the fence but it takes significantly longer to climb a fence than if there isn't one there. Border patrol is then given time to go and intercept the illegal immigrants before they finish crossing the border.
I'd address the rest of your comments but honestly it's not worth my time. Hopefully this is enough of a response to show other readers why Republicans are fed up with being gaslighted by democrats and just vote for the guy that doesn't hate us.
First, if you read the post you linked, you'll find towards the bottom that comparing Israel's border to the US-Mexico border is very difficult because there are significant differences between the two. The two biggest ones are terrain and distance. I'm meh on Senator Sinema, but she did have a good fact sheet (1) on the border bill. And most of what you're describing was in the bill. After the election, I hope Congress revisits the bill and passes it.
Second, what you said at the end was exactly what I was talking about. Democrats don't hate you. We must get past this childish notion that the opposition is evil for wanting different policies. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. For years, this country has had politicians who disagreed with one another find ways of working together. We can get there again, but we must stop with this idea that it's a zero-sum game.
Thank you. Responses like this are the perfect explanation for why Republicans vote for Trump. I just wanted you to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a legitimate political issue and that building the wall is a reasonable proposal to deal with it. I didn't ask you to agree, just acknowledge that it is a real problem and a reasonable policy proposal to deal with it. You couldn't do that and neither could the media or democrats in general.
We have a problem of perspective here. Is illegal immigration a problem? Sure. As Trump said in the debate, is it to the tune of "millions and millions of people" or 21 million? Not even close. The highest monthly number of border crossings since 2019 was 370,000 in December 2023 (1). As of July this year, it was down to 56,408, the lowest total since September 2020 (2). But let's talk for a second as to why he says it. What is the point of expressing a number that takes all 5 minutes to Google and see that it's not true? Fear and outrage. Trump has manufactured outrage over the border by inflating the numbers and pointing his finger, saying, "You should be afraid." The unfortunate side effect of this is that Americans who listen to him start to be fearful of their neighbors. This constant division will ultimately hurt America because it only leads to a hierarchy where some people believe they are entitled to more say in what happens than others. And, as I said before, the bipartisan border bill did have funding for a border wall, more CBP agents, and additional equipment to detect and prevent Fentanyl from crossing the border. Republicans and Democrats compromised on legislation, giving Republicans much of what they wanted and leaving little for Democrats. Yet Trump asked, and Senate Republicans killed the bill (3,4 TS21:31) because he wanted to campaign for chaos rather than solutions.
Most Dems and Reps just follow whoever is the party nominee. Dick Cheney could get the Dem nomination and most dems would still vote for him and vice-versa
I think Democrats did do this to some extent back in 2016-2017. However I think the real answer is that it’s got less to do with the Democrats and much more to do with the Republicans super-competence when it comes to media and messaging to their own base. It literally does not matter what Democrats do or propose for the average conservative media consumer because they typically only or nearly only consume media from that conservative space and so will only be (mis)informed that the Democrats plans are evil, un-American, and Marxist, and whatever accurate information they are given will be sandwiched between so much editorializing they’ll never be given the chance to absorb and consider that information themselves.
You hit the nail on the head, David Eskin. I would like to see more reporting and research on the extent to which voters become "inelastically" conservative if they're immersed in the rightwing media ecosystem (or the left -- although I don't think it's as much of a phenomenon on the left).
If a voter is convinced that the 2020 election was stolen or that Democratic politicians are practicing pedophilia in the basement of a pizza shop, there is nothing a Democratic candidate could say to change the voter's opinion.
It puzzles me that this isn't more of a topic in the mainstream media, and particularly among data-based journalists. The ideological sorting of much of our media (particularly the "alternative facts" universe that RW media has created) has gone hand-in-hand with the extreme partisanship of Republican politicians.
Frankly I’ve come to expect very little from the mainstream media. They tend to only but weakly counter disinformation from conservatives, meekly acquiescing to the skewed framing from Republicans and forcing Democrats to constantly deny that they are socialists while ignoring the truly radical nature of the modern Republican Party.
The serious errors in factual reporting and the sheer credulity with which the NYT took Hamas propaganda at face value during the last year highlight to me how morally bankrupt the entire mainstream media has become. The fact that no one at the Times realized how little sense it made for the Israelis to strike a Hospital with JDAMS or to wait for independent verification before running to the proverbial presses at the word of terrorists openly committed to global jihad was truly disgusting and shameful. While this may seem an unrelated example I think it is highly relevant as it shows the extent to which even storied journalistic organizations have allowed individual or institutional bias to override policy, procedure, and common sense in all areas of reporting. We truly do live now in a world where nothing can be simply accepted without serious scrutiny and skepticism, no matter how reputable the source or welcome the information is to our own sensibilities.
I truly balk in horror at what generative AI is going to do to our ability to discover and discern truth from fiction in the very near future.
It’s the result of a concerted effort to become unburdened by reality & reason. This was Gingrich’s plan, Reagan & then Rush were the primary vessels. Once you move from the logical to the emotional you can dream up whatever rationale you like to move people.
“Biased media” was the prime excuse used to sell it.
To be clear, the last time Donald Trump won an election was in 2016 so I think the country has shown they are not interested in his policies for quite some time now. And, at no point did he win half the country's vote, having had fewer national/popular votes than his opponent in every election. America wants a Democrat as president despite the will of some random 100,000 swing voters.
The data (and objective reality, and like 10 circuit court judges) completely disprove your first assertion, and the second has yet to be observed, but I have no doubt you'll make up your own reality separate from the rest of the universe for that too.
Ahhhh....Yes, the vast policy apparatus of Trump that attracts all the policy-minded voters! Okay, that was a bit unfair... But, the point still stands.
We know why they vote for him, they told us. They think Washington hasn't worked for them and they vote for him as payback to the elites and the politicians that they think have ignored them for so long. So, on temperament... His being patently unqualified was always the point for large swathes of voters.
Obviously, they aren't the only ones supporting Trump... The intellectual and ideological right has endorsed Harris--an insurrection was a bridge too far and they see he makes us weaker (as any self-disruptive force propped up by self-revenge would). The folks for whom social issues, like abortion, are paramount vote for him because of his Supreme Court picks. And the corporate elite support him because they are historically Republican and Trump is ultimately transactional--it is his *lack* of deeply-held stances of policy that they support. And the low-information voters or politically disengaged voters support him for the same reason a lot of people vote for the party currently out of power--something over the last four years was less than ideal and they want to shake the Etch-a-Sketch. Many are willing to give him a mulligan on the pandemic, otherwise he would probably be dead in the water. Why so many are able to forgive January 6th and the insurrection, that I don't understand.
In fact, the few *policy* positions he has or can be seen from his 2016 term are *against* the interests of most of his voters. Supporting massive tariffs as a solution to inflation is, at its core, tautologically nonsensical.
So, half the country is--in polls--saying they prefer Trump over Harris for a variety of reasons, but the best way to bring more of them over is to show the contrast. If you care about abortion, then here is his answer vs. hers. If you care about healthcare, here is his answer vs. hers.
Good point, and this: When will Republicans do some self reflection and wonder why they are so detached from reality that their voters follow this loon
they'll still be saying he's clearly not qualified to be president after he was president for 8 years. I mean I agree, I'd rather someone more qualified than Trump and whatever the 'machine' is that is currently running the executive branch
I think you might be underestimating trumps self inflicted wounds here. The horribly racist “eating pets “ comments will likely turn off some moderate swing voters. Most people don’t pay attention to rallies so to say this with an audience this big will not help.
At this point, after the countless crazy, insulting, etc. things Trump has said (and have been national news), I just have trouble believing that anything he _says_ can really hurt him all that much.
Although I guess it's true that enough people were done with it not elect him in 2020, so maybe they just need to be reminded what he's like after being (comparatively) out of the news for a few years?
I dunno. I'm just reflexively doubtful of the class of claims of "latest thing Trump did/said will finally be the thing that does it"
'I dunno. I'm just reflexively doubtful of the class of claims of "latest thing Trump did/said will finally be the thing that does it"'
True. I think we already reached the point where Trump could truly shoot David Muir in the head during the debate and his popularity would not drop below 40 points. Still, I think his BS still affects the race, yet much less impactful.
I guess it’s because there’s a lot of Trump voters who aren’t really in tuned with politics. They might not watch the debates or even actively watch conservative TV, but they know Trump, they like Trump, and they will end up voting for Trump. And right now, he has a bigger hold on likely voters who don’t follow politics.
Trump is a super strange fellow, I think everyone knows it, that's not news. The VP debate will be more interesting in that both are relative unknowns with the general voter
I agree, but I cannot imagine anyone voting for him (so I am biased). Harris did great. I only wish she would have reminded us that this person, who seems to actually believe what he spews about eating pets, would be entrusted with the nuclear codes. I also totally disagree with Nate's #10. I was too distracted by Trump's horrific facial expressions to care about "stature". BTW, someone who is not turned off by that type of nonsense is probably not "moderate" and it is truly scary that such a person might be considered a "swing voter".
>The horribly racist “eating pets “ comments will likely turn off some moderate swing voters.<
I'd have liked to hear Harris say something like: "Both Donald and I are the children of immigrants. It's thus especially shameful he's constantly demonizing them. They're Americans by choice, and their contributions to our national life are huge, and critical."
I'd like to agree with you, but it's hard to say this was anything out of character or any sort of new low for him. At best maybe it will serve as a reminder of what he was like for people who have started viewing the first term with rose tinted glasses.
No mention of the incredible visual difference between a glowering, angry old man and a younger woman who spoke to the audience? Trump never once said "I'm doing this for you".
If I'm a voter, I want someone who is running for me, not running for him. Harris pointed it out repeatedly.
Did she speak to the audience? It was so scripted and she deserves an Oscar for that performance. She would impress me if she could form a complete thought by going off script. Trump may have taken the bait but she by no means swayed voters the way this is being spun by the media. People see through her lies and people will see through the atrocity that is ABC News. These moderators should be ashamed of themselves.
You’ve always believed the same thing is the right thing? Nothings ever changed your mind after getting more information or jacked different experiences ?
Have I always believed the same thing is right? Absolutely my mind has changed throughout the years on many different viewpoints based on experiences and the willingness to hear others opinions or as I gain more information on a certain topic. If you’re asking if that happened tonight with VP Harris, the answer is no. I don’t feel like I walked away gaining much more information about her.
"Absolutely my mind has changed throughout the years on many different viewpoints based on experiences and the willingness to hear others opinions or as I gain more information on a certain topic."
I can't have been the only one who has read this with Kamala's voice :)
Yes. Completely. She will not come through with any of these false promises. I wish she was questioned more on her flip flopping of policies. I am not fooled by her performance.
I think you mistake preparation for 'fakeness.' Being prepared, knowing facts and figures, being versed in a number of different topics takes a lot of preparation and work, so it's inevitable that her answers will sound rehearsed. Because she has in fact, rehearsed them. It's debate prep- anyone who took civics and a debate course, or even theater knows this. Trump on the other hand, who speaks off the cuff may sound more genuine but it's simply because he refuses to prepare and won't even listen to the advisers who try to help him. And the result is that he doesn't answer a single question coherently or directly, can't outline a single policy, and just ends up spouting falsehoods and conspiracies.
I haven’t mistaken. Her “preparedness” didn’t leave me with more insight into what she plans to do. How can her answers be believed when she has flipped policy changes to appeal to a wider audience base. I don’t believe these are her stances, these are selling points to garner more votes.
Excuse me but Trump used to be a pro-choice amd voted for Bill Clinton. He has been consistent about being a racist and misogynist so I'll give you that. I'd rather have the typical politician flip flopping than the chaos and darkness Trump represents. You said yourself your views can change. Can't hers?
>>Her “preparedness” didn’t leave me with more insight into what she plans to do.<<
Please. She's a mainstream, establishmentarian liberal Democrat. I think we all know the broad brush strokes of what her political class tends to aspire to in terms of policy: safety net expansion, tax code progressivity, environmental regulations, the appointment of liberal jurists, participation in international organizations and military alliances, decarbonization initiatives, immigration-friendly laws, and so on.
Maybe that's not your cup of tea. That's fine! But no need to go spouting on about how you "don't know what she'd do" as POTUS. What she would do is pursue mainstream Democratic Party policies and sign bills into law sent to her by Democrats.
You're a conservative and you don't want this from your president. It's ok to say that!
She has policy outlines on her website, if you are at a loss. And also, people are allowed, even encouraged to grow and change as they advance through life. Is it hard to imagine that her experience in all her positions has broadened her perspective over time? Sure, politicians still do have to make decisions based on voter blocks, but turn and look at your guy, as I assume Trump is, who can't even decide how he feels about abortion for instance, much less other topics. But it's fair to just admit you don't like her, and/or you don't agree with her policies. I find it shocking though, for someone to 'not be fooled' by her performance, yet somehow be swayed or impressed with his, if that is the case, because, wow.
I remember the border being a complete disaster when Trump was in office. That was before he torpedoed the border bill to score political points.
Sure, there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war right now if Trump was in office. Putin would be in Kiev. And what does Harris have to do with Israel?
Hyperinflation: core inflation is down to what, 3%? What the heck are you talking about. You know full well that our inflation was one of the lowest in the developed world and most was supply chain related. Most of the $ stiumulus was passed under Trump's watch. You also know full well that his tariff policy might as well be called the 20% Trump sales tax. Tariffs set of hyperinfation leading to WWII and helped usher in the Great Depression, in case you weren't paying attention in history class.
“She will not come through with any of these false promises”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. A president with Harris’ temperament who doesn’t get any important policies passed is the best case scenario for the country right now.
I understand that we all tolerate some level of dishonesty in our political candidates, but for me Trump's rampant election loss denial is on another level. Disqualifying gaslighting, no matter what other positions he puts up that I might be open to support.
Yes. People in our country who need access to healthcare as determined by that individual and medical professionals should receive it and it should be affordable if not free for anyone to receive the healthcare they need. We live in societies for a reason and I believe in mutual aid and support in our communities and nation as a whole.
Yes if a doctor find it to be necessary. Just like I think an incarcerated person with breast cancer should be able to get post mastectomy reconstruction. You can call it giving criminals boob jobs, it doesn't make it less valid.
how did you feel about Democrats consistently talking about a stolen election in 2016 and hounding Trump throughout his Presidency with a lot of fabricated bullshit they knew was fabricated bullshit?
It is not quite as big a "gotcha" as you think (though there is for sure something there).
The Democrats have way too much mod on themselves to be the purity police even if they can reasonably argue the Republicans were down there first.
Both sides come off as embarrassing misbehaving children pointing fingers at each other instead of listening.
C'mon, Democrats might have whined about the 2016 electoral college bias to Republicans (which is a legitimate debate to have) but none claimed Trump's win was based on fraud.
Yeesh, talk about a false equivalence. Did Democrats file dozens of lawsuits in courts across the country claiming it was fraud without any evidence? Did Dems send false electors to state legislatures to try and orchestrate an illegitimate electoral count? Did Dems rally outside the white house en masse and march on the Capitol to try and prevent Trump from being officially confirmed as the winner? Did Hillary Rodham Clinton talk outside of both sides of her mouth about how those "protestors" were truly heroes that will be pardoned by her administration while ALSO saying that the horrific events of that day were totally Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser's fault because he knew how violent it would be and offered 10,000 national guard troops before the Jan. 6th (a literal lie)?
Honestly, this is a shockingly lame attempt to conflate two things that are virtually unrecognizable to one another. What are you even talking about?
To be clear- I thought the Dems claims that Russian interference had an impact on the election to be overblown and silly cope, and I rolled my eyes when it came up. But it's not in any way similar to what Trump did in 2020, has done since 2020, and continues to do to this day.
Russians actually did interfere with the 2016 election. The FBI and special council investigation ended up indicting 26 people. The Office of National Intelligence said "President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for president-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." So, like, it was true.
It was not true, OTOH, that Trump won in 2020 in any way. Nor was there any evidence of election fraud, except by the Trump campaign which tried to pressure state officials and interfere with election results, for which, you know, there is another ongoing investigation.
A major difference is that one actually happened and the other didn't. I feel like it's ok for Democrats to have "whined" about the election manipulation that happened and fraud for Trump to continue to whine about election inference that didn't while simultaneously being under indictment for interfering himself.
it wasn't stolen as much by outright voter fraud as intentional supression of the Hunter Biden laptop story and severe skewing of the search results by tech companies in the final weeks and months leading up to voting day - Zuck and the twitter files and many more have shown this. It's also been shown that in many cases people's minds can be made up with a single google search
Look trump is like a 5/100 on suitability for office. It Harris and the Dems generally are like a 35/100, when below 60% is failing.
But to listen to you partisan tribal idiots be like “haha the right has a bad candidate who does stupid shit hurting the country” when the main difference is one of degree is not something I have much sympathy with.
Where were all these principled defenders of election sanctity in 2017 on the left?
I was alive then, I remember what people on the left said.
If that’s the case why are you supporting someone that attempted to defraud & literally “steal” 2020 election? Who went so far on that as to violent insurrection?
Completely disagree with Nate’s take that Trump did better with the sound off. In what way? Almost all other commentary is saying the opposite., partcularly mentioning his refusal to look at Harris.
Normally I like to respond with something intelligent, but I'll stick with congratulating you for making me laugh out loud pretty hard with that. What a great comment. :D :D
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it's more like like "good debate for Harris, but not going to change the game", which is fair enough. Nate is writing to a mostly Dem-leaning audience who will be excited about a good Harris performance and mostly reading good stuff about it, but it is worth staying grounded and knowing that debates only ever have marginal impacts. Clinton was generally agreed to have won all 3 debates against Trump, which probably helped her, but wasn't enough to seal a win.
"Turn this around" meaning her polls stop going down and start turning back up again, not that she's going to become a lock to win or even a heavy favorite. It was necessary to have a good debate, but there's more still to be done.
Yeah, it was a win for Harris, apparently, but not good enough. Trump ALWAYS "loses" debates, doesn't he? Has he ever won one, according to the media? And yet ---------- he was president once and nearly won in 2020, even after COVID, and here he is again, doing well in the polls. Don't get over-optimistic, Dems, I'd say.
The presence of so many middle class and wealthy MAGA supporters is the greatest showcase of American exceptionalism. In what other land could such dim, credulous people acquire such personal wealth? The size of the market for grift is an incredible testament to the American system’s ability to boost the stupid beyond the confines of their intellectual circumstances.
It is hilarious that they don't see it. There was such a simple path to the just evisceration of the Republican party and the Democrats would rather call names, go all in on DEI, and cut off kids tits than take it.
If you don’t think the issues around “gender affirming care” and kids are winning republicans lots of extra flirtation from moderate and centrist parents you are super delusional. It is a big issue to a lot of people, and yes they have absolutely been doing surgeries on minors. Often with little actual process.
Keep people focused on irrelevant niche issues (obviously not irrelevant to effected people, but irrelevant to the vast majority of everyone else) and then they can’t focus on the economic issues, Supreme Court insanity, or criminal acts and sedition.
You should look at the data then. It is a lot more common than 1%, and has been seeing huge year over year increases.
Not surgeries, those are still thankfully quite rare, But just the general identification. Which in some larger set of cases set kids on a paths to puberty blockers and possibly a lodestone of severe medical problems and constant need for expensive drugs.
For what is in essence the 2024 version of being a goth.
Funny you mention furries because that is exploding too, 2 of the ~8 5th and 6th graders on my block where ears and a tail more often than not. Thankfully at least when in however many years they decide that is silly they won’t have made any permanent changes.
I don't think so: mutilating children's genitals and calling it "gender affirmation healthcare" is probably not fooling anyone. MAGA supporters like to say what is really going on, not use the leftists' fake coverup descriptions.
Agree generally, except #10. I think Trump came across, in the later portions, as sweating and angry. There were flecks of light coming off his face and he was gnashing his teeth. She, having undoubtedly been through many closing arguments against defense lawyers, was 100% in control of her expressions. She's not always a great orator, but 1-on-1 against an angry, sweat-flecked old man, she dominated.
Just insane Nate doesn't think it is important that the former president either (1) thinks people are eating their pets or (2) would lie about something like that on the national debate stage.
That was straight up some mid 20th century anti-Asian racist stereotype stuff. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. Immigrants are coming in and eating your pets? Seriously?!
Does that mean that you think “being here” means you shouldn’t criticize anything Nate writes? Because that would be kind of a weird take, especially on debate night.
What matters is the effect on polls and the model. Nate is always focused on trying to enumerate and explain the factors that will be causing changes in the model.
I have no doubt Nate finds Trump's comments totally insane/serial killer-esque, but unfortunately, Trump is given a pass by the American people to do and say whatever he likes. So, Donald Trump lying and saying that black immigrants are eating cats and dogs in a presidential debate will likely not change the outcome of the election. Don't you just love living in America?
I think I disagree with #10. I didn't notice the stature gap (only so many views where they would be clear), but I did notice that Kamala watched Trump when he was talking, but Trump didn't look at Kamala. Gave me the feeling that Kamala was in the driver's seat. And with ABC's split view that was much more noticeable.
It's like smiling in a performance -- the moment the audience wants to see is when your smile emerges, so you don't leave it on all the time. You have to stop smiling in order to start.
Same with looking directly into the camera. If you do it the whole time it's not as effective. You've got to be looking away so that you can have more moments where you turn to face it.
Debates don't matter (except Biden's) because everyone who watches them hs already decided. But don't even play around or try to stretch to sound unbiased and cool. She wiped the floor with him. She was completely in control of herself, her talking points, her attacks, and her message. He had zero emotional control or discipline, he was on her turf and rocked back on his heels the whole time, he was reactive and never on point, and she was pulling his strings like a master. Forget about policy or lies or any of that...SHE was controlling him, not the other way around, she dominated him, and it was obvious. To the extent debates are essentially prize fights for wonks and nerds, she knocked him out and this is perfectly obvious. Whining about the refs just makes it even more obvious.
You may be right about people watching debates having already decided. But there is a treasure trove of unhinged Trump moments that will get lots of social media and ad play. I can't think of much the opposition will find in potential Harris memes.
They won't, they're just complaining about the moderators, as if they really matter (and is it wasn't primarily Trump's job to hold Kamala's feet to the fire). Though I wish the moderators would not have seemed so favorable to Harris, because it gave them something to complain about and try to distract from Trump's performance, which was awful. The part where he basically admitted they had no plan about healthcare but if someone came up with something, he'd consider it, was actually shocking to me, because it almost seemed like he'd given up at that point. Didn't bother with the usual lies about having a big beautiful best plan ever.
As a thought exercise, I found myself wondering whether 2016 Trump would have been able to restrain himself from leaping at every single piece of bait she threw out there. It's hard to imagine he would have looked so childish and manipulable back then. I mean, he lied back then, too, but this time it was just so painfully obvious what she was doing, and he lashed back like he was 7 years old, max. Throughout. Self-obsessed, but not at all self-aware.
You could see his eyebrows go up at every single emotional trigger word for him, which you know she had ready and down pat. "Weak", "laughed at", "you were fired by 81 million Americans", "exhausted and bored crowds". He can't control his vanity, it's always been an enormous gaping weakness and she fully exploited it. Sliced his Achilles tendon...problem for him is he has no idea what her weakness is, and it shows.
Yeah, Nate said this morning that whining about the refs is a bearish sign (for the MAGA side). Agreed: because I've noticed forever that the people who are angry are the people who are losing. Here, it's the Dems who are angry, I'd say, so that's a good sign for my side.
And even if she and Trump's team had seen those lines of attack coming (which I think is a possibility),
1) there's a difference between a friend/ally saying something mean to you that they obviously don't believe (and in a prepared setting) and an enemy saying the same thing and meaning it;
and 2) at the end of the day Trump is going to do what Trump wants. They could have spent hours upon hours whispering soothing words to him, telling him "don't get angry don't get angry," giving him a Xanax, playing him ASMR, whatever, and it would not have changed anything. Once he's opened his mouth he cannot resist his in-the-moment gut instincts to veer off course to whatever he prefers to talk about. He probably consciously stopped himself from calling Harris a racial slur but that's about it.
Trump couldn't handle Tulsi (or anyone) taking real shots at him in prep. No way did she mention crowd sizes, eating pets, or any of his most indefensible lies. Can you imagine being tasked with advising him? Anything critical would simply get you replaced. It's a true stereotype about strongmen and their sycophants. He is incapable of self-reflection or receiving any critique.
My man said people are out there eating cats, getting illegal alien sex change prison surgeries, performing post birth abortions, and escaping insane asylums by the millions to invade our cities and we're supposed to take him seriously lmao.
Don’t feel sorry for me. Just don’t be blind to the lies on your side. It goes both ways. But while I’m here…
Kamala Harris filled out an ACLU questionnaire stating she supports government funded sex re-assignment surgeries for illegal immigrants and prisoners.
The former governor of Virginia in an interview stated that, as a physician in the scenario of a failed abortion where a viable baby was delivered, he would make the baby comfortable while deciding with the mother what to do
A Venezuelan prison gang ‘Tren de Aragua’ is growing in many cities as a result of Biden’s open border policy. This policy has resulted in 8M+ illegal immigrants parolled into the US +2M+ known gotaways + God only knows how many undetected gotaways. 70% of NYC criminal reports/cases are linked to illegal immigration. You can ignore all of this, but it’s real.
Also while I’m here, Trump never referred to neo-nazis as very fine people, nor did he say there would be a bloodbath…both disproven lies that Kamala brazenly repeated this evening. I turned the TV off at that point…I’m sure there were many more.
Nah still feel sorry for you that you had to waste your time trying to distort and reframe reality and actual events to somehow support Trump's stupid claims lol.
the two sides talk past each other on this 10-20M illegal migrants question. One says, 'they're mostly good people, they work hard and have low crime rates on average' - which is true. The other says 'those 10-20M include killers and gang members, they drive down the cost of labor by competing for entry level positions across the country, making it harder on the working poor', which is also true.
MU2002, I found this one comment of interest as have not followed the Venezuela story. I believe we can learn from the debate points (when true), from the opposing side.
“Again, he didn't refer to Nazis as very fine people. He referred to the people protesting with the Nazis,” Tapper said. “And I don't know who are the good people there. Friday night was 'the Jews will not replace us.'
---
So MU2002 is riding the coat tails of this argument that Trump was not saying the neo-Nazis were fine people, just the people protesting with the Neo-Nazis.
Personally, I think it's fair to suggest that these hypothetical people protesting alongside neo nazis and white nationalists who are not neo-nazis or white supremacists are still less than very fine. But that's just me.
theres actually a convenient name for people who protest alongside neonazis, which is of course neonazis. If you march in the Nazi group, you are in fact a nazi.
Don't you have to have a little card that says you're a Nazi? They definitely got a card in 1930s Germany --- and the communists here got cards, I suppose they still do. I'm not convinced that protesting in a demonstration with Antifas or Nazis turns anyone magically into a member of an organization. How about at the colleges? Does protesting something Israel does turn someone into a Palestinian or Hamas? Only people who have a barrel of tar and a brush and a great desire to tar people up.
Trump has done 1000s of appearances and 10000s of hours on air unscripted. He says what he believes with no filter. The fact that people zone in on a specific remark years ago to try twist it into some secret nazi-loving agenda is hilarious. Just focus on the things he actually clearly says all the time. If loved Nazis he would just say it, it's trump you're talking about, and it probably wouldn't hurt him in the polls anyway
Sorry. All of that is utter, complete nonsense. Absolutely devoid of evidence. And even if YOU can find nuggets, which I cannot, do those nuggets justify the lies? Or are you saying the nuggets mean they aren't lies at all? If the latter--and your use of quotation marks here is a tell--then you have truly jumped the shark.
It's implicit in a marketplace metaphor that there are other competitors in the marketplace that (fairly or unfairly) are either beating you or losing themselves. It's not placing any fault on Harris or Democrats to say that they might be losing if Harris doesn't gain in the polls, it's just stating a fact.
Nate is bought and sold as a republican/russian asset and paid for the same guy funding JD Vance, don't expect fairness or parity from him on this issue.
The real story is brandon signed up when Kamala was surging in the model and now he's taking his toys and going home because the model isn't just a jpg that says "Harris wins"
If you'd like to doompost believing the election will be decided by Wick or twitter surveys like Patriot Polling run by two teenagers and weigh them higher than established polls, I don't mind. Some of us have better things to do than follow a Model which cannot vet its sources.
I have seen stories that Thiel is an investor but don't believe Nate is asset for anyone. He is going to be honest in what he believes will sway electorate and we may not like how people react, but better to be informed.
Might be true. But he could do better informing us fully how his model works by making it public/available for dissection and why he's weighing certain polls the way he does.
Instead of getting in salty slapfights on Twitter. Just completely unprofessional.
I don't know if it's doing that. It's not ascribing blame, just saying that *if* (emphasis on if) this performance didn't win people over, then it seems like people are just calcified against her and it's hard to see what else she could do.
She gave probably one of the best versions of her own case and had no major missteps or embarrassing moments, so it won't really be credible to explain it as being down to a bad performance on the night that could be turned around.
Thought it was accurate statement in that she is the more competent human, the 50k swing voters that will decide the election may prefer emphasis on border, economy and non-dei.
Trump spoke to his base: people that hate immigrants, who want to believe the worst of their neighbors, and believe America is a dying country. Harris spoke to people who still have a belief that America is a great country, that still has room to grow and become even better. I know which America I want to live in. I much prefer Harris’s vision.
Point 16 is the most important point of all. If there aren’t any changes based upon the difference between the candidates then America just isn’t going to support Harris
yes. I thought both candidates got their message and personality across. It wasn't much of a debate but rather both speaking into a microphone with their canned responses. Trump's more or less the same for 8 years now. Harris' vibe was a mix of 'I care about the middle class with these 3 tax breaks' - which Congress, not Harris, would need to pass, and 'look at this guy, he's not fit, let's turn the page'. The latter was Hilary-esque without the Hillary-vibe.
Overall, it may end up being better for Trump. He lost in 2020 as the voters wanted something new - that's not playing against him this time. He's not going to turn undecided's away with his personality or tangents - those are known quantities at this point. Harris didn't give the voters much to sink their teeth into - she basically says - a vote for me is a vote for the machine, which is who is running the executive branch now anyway with Biden's senility.
If you love the machine, you're a Dem. if you hate it, you're a Rep. If you're undecided, it depends on your thoughts on abortion, but if Roe v Wade isn't swinging your vote - it's probably trump or third party/stay home at this point.
Harris didn't win but Trump definitely lost. He defeated himself. Harris was clever enough to set him up and allow him to do it, and amazingly, he delivered every time. If he was disciplined she would be in very hot water but he just.... can't.
It makes you wonder: if Trump so predictably takes the bait on comments on his rally size (during the portion of the debate that should be strong for him: the border), how does he actually do with other international leaders like Putin and Xi? Can he actually be trusted to effectively negotiate? I don't know how someone can watch him debate and think he could be strategic under pressure.
All the evidence that Trump is susceptible to flattery was provided by Trump himself during the debate when he went on a long, rambling tangent about how Victor Orban told Trump he was doing a great job with foreign policy.
I don't doubt that all those dictators tell Trump he is doing a great job - they know Trump is gullible enough to believe it.
He was president for four years. Rather than speculate, we can look at what actually happened in international affairs and foreign policy during his presidency vs. Biden's.
I think that's mostly true (for example, the deal he negotiated with the Taliban was debated tonight). But he would also be the oldest person ever elected, and I think his debate tactics are noticeably worse than say 2016. He's running for president for 1/2025 - 1/2029, not 2017-2021.
I’d welcome articles on how one admin’s foreign policy sets up wins or losses for their successor. If the Afghan deadline led to a disastrous departure, could a relatively peaceful Trump term be due to groundwork by the Dem before him?
Yes, it can be hard to say who should really get the credit or blame. That's also the case for the economy; if the economy is good during one president's term, is it because of what they did (or what Congress did during their term) or what the previous president and Congress did?
I mean to take the line Harris and the Dems are selling right now...the president isn't really the one in control of any of that. Sure they say some words, but the staff work out all the details.
But I agree he is totally unfit for office, but that isn't really a change in circumstance, that is the past 8 years writ large.
-1 for no mention of the cats thing, which is easily the most clip worthy moment of the night and made Trump look insane
Did you forget about the transgender surgeries for illegal prisoners?
That’s really an indictment on how bad Trump was that I forgot about that line already
This one is actually 100% accurate hahahahaha.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/kfile-harris-pledged-support-in-2019-to-cut-ice-funding-and-provide-transgender-surgery-to-detained-migrants/index.html
"KFile: Harris told ACLU in 2019 she supports cuts to ICE funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants"
"Transgender rights
Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”
Still makes him sound like a parody of a Fox News watcher.
We're in a world where to point out something crazy your opponent said makes you look crazy lol
Only if you try to do it in a compressed soundbite, assuming your audience is terminally online and already knows what you’re talking about.
If you stop to explain, “the aclu had a questionnaire they asked candidates, about transgender healthcare, and they specifically asked whether candidates would be willing to provide it to people in detention, and she specifically said yes”, then it sounds like she’s the crazy one. But if you just say “she wants to do transgender surgery on illegal immigrant prisoners”, then you sound like a self-parody.
The same is true in other directions. If you say “he wants to send abused teens back to be raped by their fathers” you sound unhinged, but if you say “he wants to have mandatory parental notification for abortions, even in the case of rape or incest”, then you can understand.
agreed. Trump just says it the first way it comes to mind - he's never optimized for coming across agreeable or sympatico - which means he would've never made it up the ranks politically. It's surprising he has the support he has - and part of it may be people's hunger for that type of unfiltered speech even if they disagree with it - it's how most people talk to each other in private
Then perhaps you, and we as a society, should step back and consider whether we are right to place so much emphasis on how someone phrases something vs whether the thing they are saying is true.
There are a lot of Fox News watchers who will decide this election. The caricature of Trump, and Republicans in general, as wacky conspiracy theorists is wrong about as often as it's right and can easily be thrown at the other side with substantial accuracy. The big difference is in how each side's narratives are treated by governmental and media institutions. In my opinion, the middle is not listening much to those authorities anymore. So calling the right "weird" might get you a lot of play on MSNBC, but I doubt it moves the voting needle to the left. Quite possibly, it moves it a little bit the other way.
welllllll AKH-chu-ah-LEEEE durrrrrrr
That was 2019 and it was an answer to one question, that doesn't mean they're doing it lol. So it's it's still 100% false.
Sounds like you replied to the wrong comment, I've said nothing about her media appearances
It was illegal aliens, right? I thought he was going to start ranting about UFOs.
Yes, surgery for transgender illegal aliens in prison!
In a wildly hypothetical way, if you read the actual quote & understand how unlikely surgery is going to be prescribed and then how unlikely any treatment at all happens…
Plenty of people die in custody from a lack of cancer treatment. Hell, even very simple stuff becomes lethal in prison. 🤷♂️
74 upvotes and counting—yet it's true, and easily verifiably so, as other replies have demonstrated.
Silver's subscribers aren't as “high-information” as he and they like to believe.
The truth is that she supports the idea that people should get medical care while in detention, and that if a medical professional determines that gender transition care is relevant at the moment that someone is in detention (talk about an 0.1% of an 0.1% sort of coincidence on the timing there!) then it should be paid for like any other care.
Ranting and raving about transgender illegals in prison just makes you sound like a Fox News obsessive, not like someone who is thinking about what actual rules for policy should be.
So, we're in agreement that she did support the policy then and she still supports it now? Great to hear. Thanks for your support, friend.
You're not adding anything of value here. Go back to Twitter.
Substack has a Block function. If you're sincere about feeling I'm not adding anything, I warmly recommend that you use it.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
Well, consider this for a second. When we imprison people, is it not morally correct that we assume responsibility for maintaining their medical well-being to some standard? A prisoner who has high blood pressure or cholesterol should receive appropriate medications to manage their condition. Likewise, schizophrenic and bipolar inmates should be provided the appropriate psychiatric medications to ensure they do not become an excessive danger to themselves or the other people they're imprisoned with. By analogy, it would make sense to provide transgender inmates with the gender affirming treatments they need to make sure they don't get sick when we're responsible for them. So I don't find it particularly out of pocket that Harris answered an ACLU questionnaire the way she did; it's a questionnaire, not a fully-developed policy proposal.
This is always the way it goes:
• Bad thing happens.
• The woke: “It's not happening! Nothing so awful could happen! You're crazy! You're weird!”
• Proof is given that it really is happening.
• The woke, without ever pausing to consider whether they should adjust their world-view in light of this new information: “Of course it's happening, and it's a good thing! We should celebrate that it's happening!”
Every. Single. Time.
no u
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/media-mocks-trump-over-transgender-operations-on-illegal-aliens-only-to-find-out-harris-wanted-the-government-to-pay-for-them/
Ha, excellent. And the same applies to the “Haïtians eating pets / protected species” point: now that videos have emerged proving beyond doubt that it is happening, they have seamlessly moved on to saying that it's just the same as when you go to KFC. No embarrassment about completely changing their position on a dime. They just say it, and when that point is eventually debunked they move on to the next talking point handed to them by the media.
are you crying?
In what tense is it true?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/kfile-harris-pledged-support-in-2019-to-cut-ice-funding-and-provide-transgender-surgery-to-detained-migrants/index.html
"KFile: Harris told ACLU in 2019 she supports cuts to ICE funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants"
"Transgender rights
Harris also wrote that she supported taxpayer funding of gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
Harris was asked if, as president, she would use “executive authority to ensure that transgender and non-binary people who rely on the state for medical care – including those in prison and immigration detention – will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care.”
So NOT the present tense. Not now. Not in a way relevant for this election & the next 4 years.
She hasn't renounced that position. So yes, still, which means now.
So we're supposed to ignore the truth if liberal media pundits think that the truth sounds “crazy”?
No thanks, I'll stick to believing the truth even if you don't like how it sounds.
“The truth” is that it’s a wildly misleading channeling of bigotry that is flat out weird
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
“Hahaha! Imagine believing things just because they're provably true! lol so weird amirite?! Sensible moderates like me believe whatever we're told by the TV.”
That one's true though.
That's true actually. Look up the ACLU questionnaire
For some low bar of “true”…and some high bar of “weird bigotry”. The distortion & focus on the obscure hypothetical is gross
Don’t forget That Harris was allegedly performing!!!
*competent
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/media-mocks-trump-over-transgender-operations-on-illegal-aliens-only-to-find-out-harris-wanted-the-government-to-pay-for-them/
RepubliQan is the name. White nationalist evangelical fascism is the game.
Also the rant about how Joe Biden hates Harris for stealing the nomination. That just seemed unhinged.
agreed. By all accounts it was Obama, but Harris was ready to invoke the 25th, per Seymour Hersh's reporting
My impression (from a few different reported stories, and from talking to some people in my own network of party contacts) is that Pelosi is really the person most responsible for getting Biden to step aside.
But leaving that aside, I just don't think it's true that Biden hates anyone because of that. I think it was a wrenching decision, but ultimately other Democratic leaders persuaded him that _regardless_ of whether he believed he could do the job, the American people (and many of those leaders) just don't have faith that he can, and for the good of the country he needed to do it. And they honored him for it.
Trump can't comprehend a world in which a leader gives up power for the greater good. He's projecting. If he had been forced to step aside, he would _despise_ the people who'd pushed him out. So he believes that must be how Biden feels. Whereas I believe his endorsement of Harris is sincere -- when he said to her, publicly, "I love ya, kid," I don't think that was an act. There's a paternal / mentor relationship. (And there's some deep psychological stuff there -- Biden has lost children in multiple ways, and in particular Beau dying as an adult, when he had been on track to have a successful political career, had to be wrenching. Taking on Kamala as a "daughter" in some sense, fulfilling his legacy, has to be really appealing.)
Trump's ceiling and floor have been fixed for some time. Evidenced by the inssesent non-response, both sides were trying (rightfully so) to control the Harris ceiling. One side attempting to limit by definition, the other side trying to expand by painting a vision. Willing to place a bet that Harris ceiling rises by 1 point while the bounce adjustment fade takes care of another 1.5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGEm-SB9WFM
Didn't he say 20 million illegals were pouring into the country each MONTH? So essentially the US population will double after about 18 months at this rate?
don't forget the picture of "Abduul's" House
Springfield is about the high cost of housing,fatal car accidents,& rising crime. Is our town,city the next Springville ?????
People are not eating pets in Ohio. That is a disgusting racist lie that makes Trump look deranged.
Illegal aliens are certainly killing women in my county in Maryland; and many other counties as murderers run for the border --- and cross north to us. This badly needs to be stopped. It will never be stopped by Dems, which apparently like it.
I live in MD too. It's less common than native born crime. Nobody likes it but the dems are not the ones lying about it to stoke xenophobic fear.
immigrants are significantly less likely to be convicted of a crime. This makes sense as being caught committing a crime carries a much higher risk to them. This is also backed statistically, with one recent figure showing they are 60% less likely to be convicted of a crime than their us-born counterparts.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31440/w31440.pdf
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-10/working-paper-60.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/05/13/is-there-a-connection-between-undocumented-immigrants-and-crime
but it's a non-zero chance, and with 10-20 million undocumented immigrants, you'll have plenty of bad apples
If we're just going to abstract this into concentrations of crime-committers per capita then the safest thing to do would be to flood your population with as much of the lower-crime-density undocumented immigrants as possible. If I have water with 10% dirt in it, and could add in water with 2% dirt in it, and my goal was as clean of water as possible, I should add as much 2% dirt water as I can get my hands on.
Crime is also a nebulous construct to use for discussion on safety as its largely influenced by which areas are getting policed, what bias individual officers may carry, what bias the larger system carries, as well as which regulations are actually enforced and how they are interpreted.
It is also difficult to defend a position that we can look at crime statistics as representative of how dangerous a community is. If someone incarcerated for stealing bread from Target is treated as 1 convict and someone charged with a triple homicide and grand theft auto as 1 convict then the number of convicts isn't telling us as much as we may want it to. Even in cases of similar crimes, the underlying circumstances can paint drastically different pictures.
In reality immigrants are people. Because of the nature of being an undocumented immigrant, many come from difficult circumstances and many are socioeconomically disadvantaged in our country. Being poor in our country is designed to be a highly contentious and difficult way to live. We do not provide much in the way of safety nets towards our own citizens, and substantially less than that to these undocumented immigrants. They are still people. They want their kids safe, fed, and clothed. They want a bed and a shower. Many want to work, and of those many are the backbone of our economy living on under-the-table wages to work long hot hours on our farms and other manual labor positions.
Much of the violence we are seeing from gangs and other organized crime are also largely a result of US interventionist policy in South America over the last century, and refusing to acknowledge our own role in that crisis is short-sighted.
The rhetoric that violent immigrants are threatening your way of life is a fear tactic by aspiring fascist groups looking to usurp power through mass hysteria. That is all it has ever been. Immigrants are people looking to join your community. They bring a unique perspective and culture, and are a massive asset to have if we treat them properly. Providing avenues to legal citizenship, education, and stable employment and housing are the proper and only effective way to reduce crime and violence and give them a real opportunity to integrate into our communities
Then why didn't Donald back the bipartisan border deal? Either it's important enough to deal with when given the chance or someone just likes to fear monger and use it as a campaign topic. I'm pretty sure you know the real answer.
Pro-tip on living in the REAL world: When you write that "the stories about Springfield are REAL," it does not magically make them actually REAL.
You're just a bigot. This is not happening.
This is entirely manufactured. You're just a bigot.
There are Haitians in Springfield, that much is true. They aren't eating pets, that is a lie.
Trump's debate prep is always poor, because he doesn't actually care about the truth. And regardless of what Democrats think about Ohio, they won't elect them, so there's not much they can do about it.
Look. It may be a close race, but Trump is clearly not qualified to be President. He was awful, angry, and unhinged.
I mean we knew that in 2015/2016.
I wonder, will democrats ever do some self reflection and wonder why half of the country is choosing this guy over thier politician? Like, maybe there are some policies that are giving him legitimacy where he should have none.
When will Republicans do some self reflection and wonder why they are so detached from reality that their voters follow this loon.
One example: the border wall. When Trump ran on the border wall in 2016, democrats and the media widely ridiculed him for it. Saying immigrants were not taking jobs away from Americans and that the wall wouldn't work anyway. At the time I was studying labor economics with Singaporeans and found out that yes, when foriegn workers enter a labor market the native workforce suffers in term ls of employment and wages. My Singaporean classmates complained about a similar situation (Indian immigrants were taking engineering jobs). In addition one of my classmates was Israeli and talked about how the wall in southern Israel stopped illegal drugs and immigration from coming into thier country. Fast forward to today and Kamala Harris now supports a wall, I think. Maybe an apology from the media and democrats for gaslighting Republicans for years would help? When somebody is pissing on you and calling it rain eventually you're going to punch them in thier face and tell them to stop. Yes, Trump is an asshole but democrats are assholes that are nice to your face but then stab you in the back. It's about seeing the other side as Americans (hell, maybe even just human beings) and BOTH sides are equally guilty. Until that changes I don't see things getting better anytime soon.
First, no she doesn’t support a border wall. She supports the border bill which republicans insisted funding be carved out for the border wall. It’s called a compromise. Regardless any complaint about the border or immigration lands on deaf ears because Trump killed the bill. So no I don’t think I will apologize to any republicans. The border wall will always be a waste of time and money because anyone and their mother can scale those things after a $50 trip to a hardware store.
Second, comparing the effect of illegal immigration on a country the size of Singapore to that of the US is laughable if it weren’t a bad faith argument. Singapore is the size of a postage stamp (I lived there for two years) there’s only so much room and resources to go around so it would obviously have a larger effect. But the larger argument, at least in the US, is that immigration has a positive effect on the economy. More people paying taxes, buying goods and services will lead to more growth.
You’re free to call who you want an asshole, but if your going to complain about a political party not seeing the other side as American then you should start with the Republicans; they have been calling democrats a litany of things over the years. Communist, anti-American, evil, radical. The Republican Party gave us Trump who is clearly the bigger danger to democracy. If democrats are guilty of anything right now it’s not having a backbone and actually fighting for the things they believe in.
I’ve always been a registered republican but I’ve only voted for democrats since Trump started running. He’s ruined the Republican Party and if we elect him again who knows what will happen. Nothing good.
Oh, and just for the record, walls or fences do reduce illegal immigration. The point is to slow people down. Yes, you can still climb the fence but it takes significantly longer to climb a fence than if there isn't one there. Border patrol is then given time to go and intercept the illegal immigrants before they finish crossing the border.
I'd address the rest of your comments but honestly it's not worth my time. Hopefully this is enough of a response to show other readers why Republicans are fed up with being gaslighted by democrats and just vote for the guy that doesn't hate us.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/
First, if you read the post you linked, you'll find towards the bottom that comparing Israel's border to the US-Mexico border is very difficult because there are significant differences between the two. The two biggest ones are terrain and distance. I'm meh on Senator Sinema, but she did have a good fact sheet (1) on the border bill. And most of what you're describing was in the bill. After the election, I hope Congress revisits the bill and passes it.
Second, what you said at the end was exactly what I was talking about. Democrats don't hate you. We must get past this childish notion that the opposition is evil for wanting different policies. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. For years, this country has had politicians who disagreed with one another find ways of working together. We can get there again, but we must stop with this idea that it's a zero-sum game.
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bipartisan-Border-Security-Package-Myths-vs-Facts.pdf
Thank you. Responses like this are the perfect explanation for why Republicans vote for Trump. I just wanted you to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a legitimate political issue and that building the wall is a reasonable proposal to deal with it. I didn't ask you to agree, just acknowledge that it is a real problem and a reasonable policy proposal to deal with it. You couldn't do that and neither could the media or democrats in general.
We have a problem of perspective here. Is illegal immigration a problem? Sure. As Trump said in the debate, is it to the tune of "millions and millions of people" or 21 million? Not even close. The highest monthly number of border crossings since 2019 was 370,000 in December 2023 (1). As of July this year, it was down to 56,408, the lowest total since September 2020 (2). But let's talk for a second as to why he says it. What is the point of expressing a number that takes all 5 minutes to Google and see that it's not true? Fear and outrage. Trump has manufactured outrage over the border by inflating the numbers and pointing his finger, saying, "You should be afraid." The unfortunate side effect of this is that Americans who listen to him start to be fearful of their neighbors. This constant division will ultimately hurt America because it only leads to a hierarchy where some people believe they are entitled to more say in what happens than others. And, as I said before, the bipartisan border bill did have funding for a border wall, more CBP agents, and additional equipment to detect and prevent Fentanyl from crossing the border. Republicans and Democrats compromised on legislation, giving Republicans much of what they wanted and leaving little for Democrats. Yet Trump asked, and Senate Republicans killed the bill (3,4 TS21:31) because he wanted to campaign for chaos rather than solutions.
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-can-the-data-tell-us-about-unauthorized-immigration/
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-july-2024-monthly-update
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/gop-senators-angry-trump-immigration-deal/index.html
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/10/presidential-debate-live-fact-check-harris-trump/
Most Dems and Reps just follow whoever is the party nominee. Dick Cheney could get the Dem nomination and most dems would still vote for him and vice-versa
🤣
I think Democrats did do this to some extent back in 2016-2017. However I think the real answer is that it’s got less to do with the Democrats and much more to do with the Republicans super-competence when it comes to media and messaging to their own base. It literally does not matter what Democrats do or propose for the average conservative media consumer because they typically only or nearly only consume media from that conservative space and so will only be (mis)informed that the Democrats plans are evil, un-American, and Marxist, and whatever accurate information they are given will be sandwiched between so much editorializing they’ll never be given the chance to absorb and consider that information themselves.
You hit the nail on the head, David Eskin. I would like to see more reporting and research on the extent to which voters become "inelastically" conservative if they're immersed in the rightwing media ecosystem (or the left -- although I don't think it's as much of a phenomenon on the left).
If a voter is convinced that the 2020 election was stolen or that Democratic politicians are practicing pedophilia in the basement of a pizza shop, there is nothing a Democratic candidate could say to change the voter's opinion.
It puzzles me that this isn't more of a topic in the mainstream media, and particularly among data-based journalists. The ideological sorting of much of our media (particularly the "alternative facts" universe that RW media has created) has gone hand-in-hand with the extreme partisanship of Republican politicians.
Frankly I’ve come to expect very little from the mainstream media. They tend to only but weakly counter disinformation from conservatives, meekly acquiescing to the skewed framing from Republicans and forcing Democrats to constantly deny that they are socialists while ignoring the truly radical nature of the modern Republican Party.
The serious errors in factual reporting and the sheer credulity with which the NYT took Hamas propaganda at face value during the last year highlight to me how morally bankrupt the entire mainstream media has become. The fact that no one at the Times realized how little sense it made for the Israelis to strike a Hospital with JDAMS or to wait for independent verification before running to the proverbial presses at the word of terrorists openly committed to global jihad was truly disgusting and shameful. While this may seem an unrelated example I think it is highly relevant as it shows the extent to which even storied journalistic organizations have allowed individual or institutional bias to override policy, procedure, and common sense in all areas of reporting. We truly do live now in a world where nothing can be simply accepted without serious scrutiny and skepticism, no matter how reputable the source or welcome the information is to our own sensibilities.
I truly balk in horror at what generative AI is going to do to our ability to discover and discern truth from fiction in the very near future.
This is a result of the liberal media bias. They created their own spaces because they felt they weren't being treated fairly.
It’s the result of a concerted effort to become unburdened by reality & reason. This was Gingrich’s plan, Reagan & then Rush were the primary vessels. Once you move from the logical to the emotional you can dream up whatever rationale you like to move people.
“Biased media” was the prime excuse used to sell it.
It's the result of Rupert Murdoch. Fox News viewers have been shown to be less informed than people who view no news.
To be clear, the last time Donald Trump won an election was in 2016 so I think the country has shown they are not interested in his policies for quite some time now. And, at no point did he win half the country's vote, having had fewer national/popular votes than his opponent in every election. America wants a Democrat as president despite the will of some random 100,000 swing voters.
Biden barely, barely won in 2020 (if he did) and Trump is even or ahead now, so I think you are overoptimistic.
The data (and objective reality, and like 10 circuit court judges) completely disprove your first assertion, and the second has yet to be observed, but I have no doubt you'll make up your own reality separate from the rest of the universe for that too.
“ if he did”
🤡🗑️
Ahhhh....Yes, the vast policy apparatus of Trump that attracts all the policy-minded voters! Okay, that was a bit unfair... But, the point still stands.
We know why they vote for him, they told us. They think Washington hasn't worked for them and they vote for him as payback to the elites and the politicians that they think have ignored them for so long. So, on temperament... His being patently unqualified was always the point for large swathes of voters.
Obviously, they aren't the only ones supporting Trump... The intellectual and ideological right has endorsed Harris--an insurrection was a bridge too far and they see he makes us weaker (as any self-disruptive force propped up by self-revenge would). The folks for whom social issues, like abortion, are paramount vote for him because of his Supreme Court picks. And the corporate elite support him because they are historically Republican and Trump is ultimately transactional--it is his *lack* of deeply-held stances of policy that they support. And the low-information voters or politically disengaged voters support him for the same reason a lot of people vote for the party currently out of power--something over the last four years was less than ideal and they want to shake the Etch-a-Sketch. Many are willing to give him a mulligan on the pandemic, otherwise he would probably be dead in the water. Why so many are able to forgive January 6th and the insurrection, that I don't understand.
In fact, the few *policy* positions he has or can be seen from his 2016 term are *against* the interests of most of his voters. Supporting massive tariffs as a solution to inflation is, at its core, tautologically nonsensical.
So, half the country is--in polls--saying they prefer Trump over Harris for a variety of reasons, but the best way to bring more of them over is to show the contrast. If you care about abortion, then here is his answer vs. hers. If you care about healthcare, here is his answer vs. hers.
one man's insurrection is another man's freedom protest is another man's FBI honeypot
Good point, and this: When will Republicans do some self reflection and wonder why they are so detached from reality that their voters follow this loon
If that were the case then why when MAGA is asked about a Biden policy but it's attributed to Trump do they like it and vice versa?
they'll still be saying he's clearly not qualified to be president after he was president for 8 years. I mean I agree, I'd rather someone more qualified than Trump and whatever the 'machine' is that is currently running the executive branch
Let's wait how post debate polls turn out, shall we? :-)
I think you might be underestimating trumps self inflicted wounds here. The horribly racist “eating pets “ comments will likely turn off some moderate swing voters. Most people don’t pay attention to rallies so to say this with an audience this big will not help.
At this point, after the countless crazy, insulting, etc. things Trump has said (and have been national news), I just have trouble believing that anything he _says_ can really hurt him all that much.
Although I guess it's true that enough people were done with it not elect him in 2020, so maybe they just need to be reminded what he's like after being (comparatively) out of the news for a few years?
I dunno. I'm just reflexively doubtful of the class of claims of "latest thing Trump did/said will finally be the thing that does it"
'I dunno. I'm just reflexively doubtful of the class of claims of "latest thing Trump did/said will finally be the thing that does it"'
True. I think we already reached the point where Trump could truly shoot David Muir in the head during the debate and his popularity would not drop below 40 points. Still, I think his BS still affects the race, yet much less impactful.
If he has shot Muir in the head he would have probably won the debate. He was annoying.
I guess it’s because there’s a lot of Trump voters who aren’t really in tuned with politics. They might not watch the debates or even actively watch conservative TV, but they know Trump, they like Trump, and they will end up voting for Trump. And right now, he has a bigger hold on likely voters who don’t follow politics.
That did make him seem really bleeping weird.
Trump is a super strange fellow, I think everyone knows it, that's not news. The VP debate will be more interesting in that both are relative unknowns with the general voter
I agree, but I cannot imagine anyone voting for him (so I am biased). Harris did great. I only wish she would have reminded us that this person, who seems to actually believe what he spews about eating pets, would be entrusted with the nuclear codes. I also totally disagree with Nate's #10. I was too distracted by Trump's horrific facial expressions to care about "stature". BTW, someone who is not turned off by that type of nonsense is probably not "moderate" and it is truly scary that such a person might be considered a "swing voter".
>The horribly racist “eating pets “ comments will likely turn off some moderate swing voters.<
I'd have liked to hear Harris say something like: "Both Donald and I are the children of immigrants. It's thus especially shameful he's constantly demonizing them. They're Americans by choice, and their contributions to our national life are huge, and critical."
I'd like to agree with you, but it's hard to say this was anything out of character or any sort of new low for him. At best maybe it will serve as a reminder of what he was like for people who have started viewing the first term with rose tinted glasses.
I wish you were right but this will still be a vet close race.
How much will the polls move in the next week? More or less than after the 34 felony convictions. I have no idea.
probably no move. I thought it was a stale-matey debate. Not sure what the independent thinks
No mention of the incredible visual difference between a glowering, angry old man and a younger woman who spoke to the audience? Trump never once said "I'm doing this for you".
If I'm a voter, I want someone who is running for me, not running for him. Harris pointed it out repeatedly.
Did she speak to the audience? It was so scripted and she deserves an Oscar for that performance. She would impress me if she could form a complete thought by going off script. Trump may have taken the bait but she by no means swayed voters the way this is being spun by the media. People see through her lies and people will see through the atrocity that is ABC News. These moderators should be ashamed of themselves.
Ma'am, this is an Arby's.
We shall see.
You’ve always believed the same thing is the right thing? Nothings ever changed your mind after getting more information or jacked different experiences ?
Have I always believed the same thing is right? Absolutely my mind has changed throughout the years on many different viewpoints based on experiences and the willingness to hear others opinions or as I gain more information on a certain topic. If you’re asking if that happened tonight with VP Harris, the answer is no. I don’t feel like I walked away gaining much more information about her.
"Absolutely my mind has changed throughout the years on many different viewpoints based on experiences and the willingness to hear others opinions or as I gain more information on a certain topic."
I can't have been the only one who has read this with Kamala's voice :)
You’ve been gaslit into a cult 🤷♂️
I agree. She always seems fake and polished. Like she is never spontaneous or real. Doesn’t mean Trump is better, just that she seems really fake
Yes. Completely. She will not come through with any of these false promises. I wish she was questioned more on her flip flopping of policies. I am not fooled by her performance.
I think you mistake preparation for 'fakeness.' Being prepared, knowing facts and figures, being versed in a number of different topics takes a lot of preparation and work, so it's inevitable that her answers will sound rehearsed. Because she has in fact, rehearsed them. It's debate prep- anyone who took civics and a debate course, or even theater knows this. Trump on the other hand, who speaks off the cuff may sound more genuine but it's simply because he refuses to prepare and won't even listen to the advisers who try to help him. And the result is that he doesn't answer a single question coherently or directly, can't outline a single policy, and just ends up spouting falsehoods and conspiracies.
I haven’t mistaken. Her “preparedness” didn’t leave me with more insight into what she plans to do. How can her answers be believed when she has flipped policy changes to appeal to a wider audience base. I don’t believe these are her stances, these are selling points to garner more votes.
Excuse me but Trump used to be a pro-choice amd voted for Bill Clinton. He has been consistent about being a racist and misogynist so I'll give you that. I'd rather have the typical politician flip flopping than the chaos and darkness Trump represents. You said yourself your views can change. Can't hers?
>>Her “preparedness” didn’t leave me with more insight into what she plans to do.<<
Please. She's a mainstream, establishmentarian liberal Democrat. I think we all know the broad brush strokes of what her political class tends to aspire to in terms of policy: safety net expansion, tax code progressivity, environmental regulations, the appointment of liberal jurists, participation in international organizations and military alliances, decarbonization initiatives, immigration-friendly laws, and so on.
Maybe that's not your cup of tea. That's fine! But no need to go spouting on about how you "don't know what she'd do" as POTUS. What she would do is pursue mainstream Democratic Party policies and sign bills into law sent to her by Democrats.
You're a conservative and you don't want this from your president. It's ok to say that!
She has policy outlines on her website, if you are at a loss. And also, people are allowed, even encouraged to grow and change as they advance through life. Is it hard to imagine that her experience in all her positions has broadened her perspective over time? Sure, politicians still do have to make decisions based on voter blocks, but turn and look at your guy, as I assume Trump is, who can't even decide how he feels about abortion for instance, much less other topics. But it's fair to just admit you don't like her, and/or you don't agree with her policies. I find it shocking though, for someone to 'not be fooled' by her performance, yet somehow be swayed or impressed with his, if that is the case, because, wow.
That’s because you closed your ears, you are in a cult
But I'm convinced by Trump's performance that he belongs nowhere near the Oval Office. So there's that.
That’s your choice and I can respect a differing opinion. Even if I disagree.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trump never built the wall nor finished infrastructure week. The only promise he kept was a tax cut for the rich. Why are you not feeling betrayed?
probably cause he didn't start 2 new wars, set off hyperinflation, or open the border. It's a low bar, but still
I remember the border being a complete disaster when Trump was in office. That was before he torpedoed the border bill to score political points.
Sure, there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war right now if Trump was in office. Putin would be in Kiev. And what does Harris have to do with Israel?
Hyperinflation: core inflation is down to what, 3%? What the heck are you talking about. You know full well that our inflation was one of the lowest in the developed world and most was supply chain related. Most of the $ stiumulus was passed under Trump's watch. You also know full well that his tariff policy might as well be called the 20% Trump sales tax. Tariffs set of hyperinfation leading to WWII and helped usher in the Great Depression, in case you weren't paying attention in history class.
>I am not fooled by her performance.<
She came across as intelligent, poised, disciplined, and well-prepared. In other words, the anti-Trump.
what trump policies do you prefer to harris?
“She will not come through with any of these false promises”
You say this like it’s a bad thing. A president with Harris’ temperament who doesn’t get any important policies passed is the best case scenario for the country right now.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Quick question - who won the 2020 election?
Oh I see you think I will say it was a stolen election. I’m all for a fair election and can acknowledge Biden won in 2020. Now let’s “turn the page”
I understand that we all tolerate some level of dishonesty in our political candidates, but for me Trump's rampant election loss denial is on another level. Disqualifying gaslighting, no matter what other positions he puts up that I might be open to support.
Actually no - I was really curious.
So you are part of the 17% who know Trump lost but still like him.
Of course she wasn't trying to reach you, but your opinion is still interesting.
Do you agree transgender illegal migrants should have taxpayer-funded sex change surgeries?
Yes. People in our country who need access to healthcare as determined by that individual and medical professionals should receive it and it should be affordable if not free for anyone to receive the healthcare they need. We live in societies for a reason and I believe in mutual aid and support in our communities and nation as a whole.
Do you think this is a real issue that anyone should care about? How many illegal immigrants are currently in prison seeking such surgeries?
Yes if a doctor find it to be necessary. Just like I think an incarcerated person with breast cancer should be able to get post mastectomy reconstruction. You can call it giving criminals boob jobs, it doesn't make it less valid.
How do you feel about Trump still claiming the election was stolen?
how did you feel about Democrats consistently talking about a stolen election in 2016 and hounding Trump throughout his Presidency with a lot of fabricated bullshit they knew was fabricated bullshit?
It is not quite as big a "gotcha" as you think (though there is for sure something there).
The Democrats have way too much mod on themselves to be the purity police even if they can reasonably argue the Republicans were down there first.
Both sides come off as embarrassing misbehaving children pointing fingers at each other instead of listening.
C'mon, Democrats might have whined about the 2016 electoral college bias to Republicans (which is a legitimate debate to have) but none claimed Trump's win was based on fraud.
Yeesh, talk about a false equivalence. Did Democrats file dozens of lawsuits in courts across the country claiming it was fraud without any evidence? Did Dems send false electors to state legislatures to try and orchestrate an illegitimate electoral count? Did Dems rally outside the white house en masse and march on the Capitol to try and prevent Trump from being officially confirmed as the winner? Did Hillary Rodham Clinton talk outside of both sides of her mouth about how those "protestors" were truly heroes that will be pardoned by her administration while ALSO saying that the horrific events of that day were totally Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser's fault because he knew how violent it would be and offered 10,000 national guard troops before the Jan. 6th (a literal lie)?
Honestly, this is a shockingly lame attempt to conflate two things that are virtually unrecognizable to one another. What are you even talking about?
To be clear- I thought the Dems claims that Russian interference had an impact on the election to be overblown and silly cope, and I rolled my eyes when it came up. But it's not in any way similar to what Trump did in 2020, has done since 2020, and continues to do to this day.
Russians actually did interfere with the 2016 election. The FBI and special council investigation ended up indicting 26 people. The Office of National Intelligence said "President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for president-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." So, like, it was true.
It was not true, OTOH, that Trump won in 2020 in any way. Nor was there any evidence of election fraud, except by the Trump campaign which tried to pressure state officials and interfere with election results, for which, you know, there is another ongoing investigation.
A major difference is that one actually happened and the other didn't. I feel like it's ok for Democrats to have "whined" about the election manipulation that happened and fraud for Trump to continue to whine about election inference that didn't while simultaneously being under indictment for interfering himself.
🤪🤪🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It was stolen.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You lunatic
it wasn't stolen as much by outright voter fraud as intentional supression of the Hunter Biden laptop story and severe skewing of the search results by tech companies in the final weeks and months leading up to voting day - Zuck and the twitter files and many more have shown this. It's also been shown that in many cases people's minds can be made up with a single google search
Yes, I want to reiterate what Ash Dorsey just asked you. How do you feel about Trump still claiming that the election was stolen?
That he is a disgusting petty stupid human being?
Look trump is like a 5/100 on suitability for office. It Harris and the Dems generally are like a 35/100, when below 60% is failing.
But to listen to you partisan tribal idiots be like “haha the right has a bad candidate who does stupid shit hurting the country” when the main difference is one of degree is not something I have much sympathy with.
Where were all these principled defenders of election sanctity in 2017 on the left?
I was alive then, I remember what people on the left said.
Fine fine, I wasn't arguing against any of that. I was reinforcing a striking double standard that I saw in the comment I responded to.
Peace.
If that’s the case why are you supporting someone that attempted to defraud & literally “steal” 2020 election? Who went so far on that as to violent insurrection?
Completely disagree with Nate’s take that Trump did better with the sound off. In what way? Almost all other commentary is saying the opposite., partcularly mentioning his refusal to look at Harris.
Please don't tell us tomorrow that the model is going to penalize Harris for not having a bigger debate bump
Normally I like to respond with something intelligent, but I'll stick with congratulating you for making me laugh out loud pretty hard with that. What a great comment. :D :D
Man, you sound retarded.
Hahaha. I guess you weren't following the criticism against the convention bounce penalty in Nate's model. Michael's comment above was pretty funny.
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it's more like like "good debate for Harris, but not going to change the game", which is fair enough. Nate is writing to a mostly Dem-leaning audience who will be excited about a good Harris performance and mostly reading good stuff about it, but it is worth staying grounded and knowing that debates only ever have marginal impacts. Clinton was generally agreed to have won all 3 debates against Trump, which probably helped her, but wasn't enough to seal a win.
Nate himself wrote under every prediction update that "Harris can turn this around with a great performance in the debate!"
"Turn this around" meaning her polls stop going down and start turning back up again, not that she's going to become a lock to win or even a heavy favorite. It was necessary to have a good debate, but there's more still to be done.
Yeah, it was a win for Harris, apparently, but not good enough. Trump ALWAYS "loses" debates, doesn't he? Has he ever won one, according to the media? And yet ---------- he was president once and nearly won in 2020, even after COVID, and here he is again, doing well in the polls. Don't get over-optimistic, Dems, I'd say.
I think it was more that Biden lost than Trump won --- interesting point, though.
The presence of so many middle class and wealthy MAGA supporters is the greatest showcase of American exceptionalism. In what other land could such dim, credulous people acquire such personal wealth? The size of the market for grift is an incredible testament to the American system’s ability to boost the stupid beyond the confines of their intellectual circumstances.
And this comment is exactly why Trump remains competitive.
It is hilarious that they don't see it. There was such a simple path to the just evisceration of the Republican party and the Democrats would rather call names, go all in on DEI, and cut off kids tits than take it.
Republicans saying “kids tits” definitely bullish for Harris
If you don’t think the issues around “gender affirming care” and kids are winning republicans lots of extra flirtation from moderate and centrist parents you are super delusional. It is a big issue to a lot of people, and yes they have absolutely been doing surgeries on minors. Often with little actual process.
To be clear I’m making the much less substantive point that the phrasing you chose was very odd to me.
I repeat myself from my original reaction...'and this comment is exactly why Trump remains competitive'
It was just meant to be brief, colloquial, and inflammatory. Do you prefer excised mammary glands?
Also FWIW definitely not a republican.
Keep people focused on irrelevant niche issues (obviously not irrelevant to effected people, but irrelevant to the vast majority of everyone else) and then they can’t focus on the economic issues, Supreme Court insanity, or criminal acts and sedition.
You should look at the data then. It is a lot more common than 1%, and has been seeing huge year over year increases.
Not surgeries, those are still thankfully quite rare, But just the general identification. Which in some larger set of cases set kids on a paths to puberty blockers and possibly a lodestone of severe medical problems and constant need for expensive drugs.
For what is in essence the 2024 version of being a goth.
Funny you mention furries because that is exploding too, 2 of the ~8 5th and 6th graders on my block where ears and a tail more often than not. Thankfully at least when in however many years they decide that is silly they won’t have made any permanent changes.
I don't think so: mutilating children's genitals and calling it "gender affirmation healthcare" is probably not fooling anyone. MAGA supporters like to say what is really going on, not use the leftists' fake coverup descriptions.
The American system
Agree generally, except #10. I think Trump came across, in the later portions, as sweating and angry. There were flecks of light coming off his face and he was gnashing his teeth. She, having undoubtedly been through many closing arguments against defense lawyers, was 100% in control of her expressions. She's not always a great orator, but 1-on-1 against an angry, sweat-flecked old man, she dominated.
"She, having undoubtedly been through many closing arguments against defense lawyers..."
To be fair, Trump has sat through many closing arguments from prosecutors.
I think you mean “slept through” 😂
Just insane Nate doesn't think it is important that the former president either (1) thinks people are eating their pets or (2) would lie about something like that on the national debate stage.
That was straight up some mid 20th century anti-Asian racist stereotype stuff. I couldn't believe it when I heard it. Immigrants are coming in and eating your pets? Seriously?!
What's even more bizarre is that the original comment stems from something JD Vance said about Haitians. He's too stupid to even do racism right.
Flat out blood libel, if I can appropriate a term.
I'm so ready to be done with this stupid asshole.
Hilarious that this would come up so fast (truth social to JD Vance to prep'ed debate material for Trump).
AND
that the moderators would be so well prep'ed to be able to fact check it in real time.
It doesn’t matter what Nate believes or doesn’t believes.
hm, you say that, but you're also here... lol
Does that mean that you think “being here” means you shouldn’t criticize anything Nate writes? Because that would be kind of a weird take, especially on debate night.
What matters is the effect on polls and the model. Nate is always focused on trying to enumerate and explain the factors that will be causing changes in the model.
I have no doubt Nate finds Trump's comments totally insane/serial killer-esque, but unfortunately, Trump is given a pass by the American people to do and say whatever he likes. So, Donald Trump lying and saying that black immigrants are eating cats and dogs in a presidential debate will likely not change the outcome of the election. Don't you just love living in America?
Trust me, Republicans don't care. We like him colorful. We just want him to be president.
I think I disagree with #10. I didn't notice the stature gap (only so many views where they would be clear), but I did notice that Kamala watched Trump when he was talking, but Trump didn't look at Kamala. Gave me the feeling that Kamala was in the driver's seat. And with ABC's split view that was much more noticeable.
I thought maybe that was bad for her, because she wasn't looking at the camera etc. But who knows.
I think it worked.
It's like smiling in a performance -- the moment the audience wants to see is when your smile emerges, so you don't leave it on all the time. You have to stop smiling in order to start.
Same with looking directly into the camera. If you do it the whole time it's not as effective. You've got to be looking away so that you can have more moments where you turn to face it.
Debates don't matter (except Biden's) because everyone who watches them hs already decided. But don't even play around or try to stretch to sound unbiased and cool. She wiped the floor with him. She was completely in control of herself, her talking points, her attacks, and her message. He had zero emotional control or discipline, he was on her turf and rocked back on his heels the whole time, he was reactive and never on point, and she was pulling his strings like a master. Forget about policy or lies or any of that...SHE was controlling him, not the other way around, she dominated him, and it was obvious. To the extent debates are essentially prize fights for wonks and nerds, she knocked him out and this is perfectly obvious. Whining about the refs just makes it even more obvious.
You may be right about people watching debates having already decided. But there is a treasure trove of unhinged Trump moments that will get lots of social media and ad play. I can't think of much the opposition will find in potential Harris memes.
They won't, they're just complaining about the moderators, as if they really matter (and is it wasn't primarily Trump's job to hold Kamala's feet to the fire). Though I wish the moderators would not have seemed so favorable to Harris, because it gave them something to complain about and try to distract from Trump's performance, which was awful. The part where he basically admitted they had no plan about healthcare but if someone came up with something, he'd consider it, was actually shocking to me, because it almost seemed like he'd given up at that point. Didn't bother with the usual lies about having a big beautiful best plan ever.
As a thought exercise, I found myself wondering whether 2016 Trump would have been able to restrain himself from leaping at every single piece of bait she threw out there. It's hard to imagine he would have looked so childish and manipulable back then. I mean, he lied back then, too, but this time it was just so painfully obvious what she was doing, and he lashed back like he was 7 years old, max. Throughout. Self-obsessed, but not at all self-aware.
You could see his eyebrows go up at every single emotional trigger word for him, which you know she had ready and down pat. "Weak", "laughed at", "you were fired by 81 million Americans", "exhausted and bored crowds". He can't control his vanity, it's always been an enormous gaping weakness and she fully exploited it. Sliced his Achilles tendon...problem for him is he has no idea what her weakness is, and it shows.
My 7 year old looked up at debate and said “I see a grumpy old mad man and a smart lady.”
7 year olds, oranges, toddlers, and mangos don’t deserve to be put in the same muck.
Yeah, Nate said this morning that whining about the refs is a bearish sign (for the MAGA side). Agreed: because I've noticed forever that the people who are angry are the people who are losing. Here, it's the Dems who are angry, I'd say, so that's a good sign for my side.
Dems are angry? Where are you seeing that?
Here, certainly. Migod.
This is how folks like you get euphemistically tagged as “low information voters.”
Guess Tulsi wasn't much help in the debate prep
I’m guessing she didn’t try to make Trump angry
I mean, she's not going to be able to ride his coattails for much longer if she actually gives him serious debate prep that might piss him off
And even if she and Trump's team had seen those lines of attack coming (which I think is a possibility),
1) there's a difference between a friend/ally saying something mean to you that they obviously don't believe (and in a prepared setting) and an enemy saying the same thing and meaning it;
and 2) at the end of the day Trump is going to do what Trump wants. They could have spent hours upon hours whispering soothing words to him, telling him "don't get angry don't get angry," giving him a Xanax, playing him ASMR, whatever, and it would not have changed anything. Once he's opened his mouth he cannot resist his in-the-moment gut instincts to veer off course to whatever he prefers to talk about. He probably consciously stopped himself from calling Harris a racial slur but that's about it.
I mean gorsh, Tulsi's a woman, she's not lily-white, what more could even be necessary to exactly duplicate Kamala Harris's incipient performance???
(this is sarcasm)
Incipient?
Words don't just fall from coconut trees.
Incipient: “beginning to happen or develop,” as in “Its Happening!” *waves hands in air*
Tulsi wants a slice of the Trump money. She doesn't care if he wins.
And you know this how? Gossip?
She is a Fox News pundit and writes books targeting that audience.
If she doesn't support Trump she would need to start working for a living.
Trump couldn't handle Tulsi (or anyone) taking real shots at him in prep. No way did she mention crowd sizes, eating pets, or any of his most indefensible lies. Can you imagine being tasked with advising him? Anything critical would simply get you replaced. It's a true stereotype about strongmen and their sycophants. He is incapable of self-reflection or receiving any critique.
Tulsi 2028
My man said people are out there eating cats, getting illegal alien sex change prison surgeries, performing post birth abortions, and escaping insane asylums by the millions to invade our cities and we're supposed to take him seriously lmao.
Don’t feel sorry for me. Just don’t be blind to the lies on your side. It goes both ways. But while I’m here…
Kamala Harris filled out an ACLU questionnaire stating she supports government funded sex re-assignment surgeries for illegal immigrants and prisoners.
The former governor of Virginia in an interview stated that, as a physician in the scenario of a failed abortion where a viable baby was delivered, he would make the baby comfortable while deciding with the mother what to do
A Venezuelan prison gang ‘Tren de Aragua’ is growing in many cities as a result of Biden’s open border policy. This policy has resulted in 8M+ illegal immigrants parolled into the US +2M+ known gotaways + God only knows how many undetected gotaways. 70% of NYC criminal reports/cases are linked to illegal immigration. You can ignore all of this, but it’s real.
Also while I’m here, Trump never referred to neo-nazis as very fine people, nor did he say there would be a bloodbath…both disproven lies that Kamala brazenly repeated this evening. I turned the TV off at that point…I’m sure there were many more.
Nah still feel sorry for you that you had to waste your time trying to distort and reframe reality and actual events to somehow support Trump's stupid claims lol.
When exactly was Kamala Harris Governor of Virginia? And she is a MD also?
There is a total of about 12M "illegal" immigrants. Amazing that one gang is responsible for over 80% of them.
the two sides talk past each other on this 10-20M illegal migrants question. One says, 'they're mostly good people, they work hard and have low crime rates on average' - which is true. The other says 'those 10-20M include killers and gang members, they drive down the cost of labor by competing for entry level positions across the country, making it harder on the working poor', which is also true.
About “very fine people”, here is an in depth fact check and timeline.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/what-trump-said-with-his-very-fine-people-comments-vs-what-he-meant/
MU2002, I found this one comment of interest as have not followed the Venezuela story. I believe we can learn from the debate points (when true), from the opposing side.
A good summary quote (from Jake Tapper):
---
“Again, he didn't refer to Nazis as very fine people. He referred to the people protesting with the Nazis,” Tapper said. “And I don't know who are the good people there. Friday night was 'the Jews will not replace us.'
---
So MU2002 is riding the coat tails of this argument that Trump was not saying the neo-Nazis were fine people, just the people protesting with the Neo-Nazis.
Personally, I think it's fair to suggest that these hypothetical people protesting alongside neo nazis and white nationalists who are not neo-nazis or white supremacists are still less than very fine. But that's just me.
theres actually a convenient name for people who protest alongside neonazis, which is of course neonazis. If you march in the Nazi group, you are in fact a nazi.
Don't you have to have a little card that says you're a Nazi? They definitely got a card in 1930s Germany --- and the communists here got cards, I suppose they still do. I'm not convinced that protesting in a demonstration with Antifas or Nazis turns anyone magically into a member of an organization. How about at the colleges? Does protesting something Israel does turn someone into a Palestinian or Hamas? Only people who have a barrel of tar and a brush and a great desire to tar people up.
Antifa isnt an organization
You don't have to be a card-carrying member of a political party to be a supporter of its ideology
Someone who supports Nazi ideology is a Nazi
Trump has done 1000s of appearances and 10000s of hours on air unscripted. He says what he believes with no filter. The fact that people zone in on a specific remark years ago to try twist it into some secret nazi-loving agenda is hilarious. Just focus on the things he actually clearly says all the time. If loved Nazis he would just say it, it's trump you're talking about, and it probably wouldn't hurt him in the polls anyway
You can’t possibly believe that 70 percent of the criminal reports in NYC are linked to illegal immigration.
As with all Trump ‘lies’, there is a nugget of truth to each of these.
Lol imagine having to come online every night to defend this buffoon and his idiocy. Feel sorry for you brother.
Sorry. All of that is utter, complete nonsense. Absolutely devoid of evidence. And even if YOU can find nuggets, which I cannot, do those nuggets justify the lies? Or are you saying the nuggets mean they aren't lies at all? If the latter--and your use of quotation marks here is a tell--then you have truly jumped the shark.
As is there a nugget of truth to the charge that Trump voters hate immigrants.
What a biased framing. “Isn’t buying what she’s selling” puts all of the fault onto Harris and Democrats and none on republican lies.
It's implicit in a marketplace metaphor that there are other competitors in the marketplace that (fairly or unfairly) are either beating you or losing themselves. It's not placing any fault on Harris or Democrats to say that they might be losing if Harris doesn't gain in the polls, it's just stating a fact.
Nate is bought and sold as a republican/russian asset and paid for the same guy funding JD Vance, don't expect fairness or parity from him on this issue.
You believe that... *and* you are a paying subscriber to his Substack?
OK then.
I already cancelled my subscription two weeks ago. Not to mention he surged his price and is asking 20$ for his spin Model.
Where's your money going?
I guess the part where current subscribers kept the old rate confused you?
Let me guess - you read at the 4th grade level, right?
The real story is brandon signed up when Kamala was surging in the model and now he's taking his toys and going home because the model isn't just a jpg that says "Harris wins"
If you'd like to doompost believing the election will be decided by Wick or twitter surveys like Patriot Polling run by two teenagers and weigh them higher than established polls, I don't mind. Some of us have better things to do than follow a Model which cannot vet its sources.
Petty insults. You must love Trump as a candidate huh!
Sorry - you don't know the underlying data.
Here you go :
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169
And you descend to insults?
Lol
I have seen stories that Thiel is an investor but don't believe Nate is asset for anyone. He is going to be honest in what he believes will sway electorate and we may not like how people react, but better to be informed.
Might be true. But he could do better informing us fully how his model works by making it public/available for dissection and why he's weighing certain polls the way he does.
Instead of getting in salty slapfights on Twitter. Just completely unprofessional.
Wow you are very wise and no doubt very desirable! I feel blessed to be alive at the same time as you!
I don't know if it's doing that. It's not ascribing blame, just saying that *if* (emphasis on if) this performance didn't win people over, then it seems like people are just calcified against her and it's hard to see what else she could do.
She gave probably one of the best versions of her own case and had no major missteps or embarrassing moments, so it won't really be credible to explain it as being down to a bad performance on the night that could be turned around.
Thought it was accurate statement in that she is the more competent human, the 50k swing voters that will decide the election may prefer emphasis on border, economy and non-dei.
Trump spoke to his base: people that hate immigrants, who want to believe the worst of their neighbors, and believe America is a dying country. Harris spoke to people who still have a belief that America is a great country, that still has room to grow and become even better. I know which America I want to live in. I much prefer Harris’s vision.
Cool story, but you have zero understanding of the Trump voter.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/politics-fear-itself-trump-maga/678311/ “Fear is not what’s driving Americans to support Trump—it is, instead, how many justify their support.”
Not zero. Not complete, but clearly not zero.
Point 16 is the most important point of all. If there aren’t any changes based upon the difference between the candidates then America just isn’t going to support Harris
yes. I thought both candidates got their message and personality across. It wasn't much of a debate but rather both speaking into a microphone with their canned responses. Trump's more or less the same for 8 years now. Harris' vibe was a mix of 'I care about the middle class with these 3 tax breaks' - which Congress, not Harris, would need to pass, and 'look at this guy, he's not fit, let's turn the page'. The latter was Hilary-esque without the Hillary-vibe.
Overall, it may end up being better for Trump. He lost in 2020 as the voters wanted something new - that's not playing against him this time. He's not going to turn undecided's away with his personality or tangents - those are known quantities at this point. Harris didn't give the voters much to sink their teeth into - she basically says - a vote for me is a vote for the machine, which is who is running the executive branch now anyway with Biden's senility.
If you love the machine, you're a Dem. if you hate it, you're a Rep. If you're undecided, it depends on your thoughts on abortion, but if Roe v Wade isn't swinging your vote - it's probably trump or third party/stay home at this point.
Harris didn't win but Trump definitely lost. He defeated himself. Harris was clever enough to set him up and allow him to do it, and amazingly, he delivered every time. If he was disciplined she would be in very hot water but he just.... can't.
It makes you wonder: if Trump so predictably takes the bait on comments on his rally size (during the portion of the debate that should be strong for him: the border), how does he actually do with other international leaders like Putin and Xi? Can he actually be trusted to effectively negotiate? I don't know how someone can watch him debate and think he could be strategic under pressure.
If you can't handle Kamala Harris you definitely can't handle Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. That's a fair logical conclusion
Except he actually did…he was President for 4 years. Xi and Putin were largely kept in check.
I guess you missed the spot where Xi told Trump about the dangers of Covid and Trump ignored the information?
3 weeks before any US deaths?
Woodward has actual tapes.
Your point?
Four years is a long time for people in their 70s. Just ask one.
Putin dominated Trump at the 2018 Helsinki summit.
All the evidence that Trump is susceptible to flattery was provided by Trump himself during the debate when he went on a long, rambling tangent about how Victor Orban told Trump he was doing a great job with foreign policy.
I don't doubt that all those dictators tell Trump he is doing a great job - they know Trump is gullible enough to believe it.
He was president for four years. Rather than speculate, we can look at what actually happened in international affairs and foreign policy during his presidency vs. Biden's.
I think that's mostly true (for example, the deal he negotiated with the Taliban was debated tonight). But he would also be the oldest person ever elected, and I think his debate tactics are noticeably worse than say 2016. He's running for president for 1/2025 - 1/2029, not 2017-2021.
I’d welcome articles on how one admin’s foreign policy sets up wins or losses for their successor. If the Afghan deadline led to a disastrous departure, could a relatively peaceful Trump term be due to groundwork by the Dem before him?
Yes, it can be hard to say who should really get the credit or blame. That's also the case for the economy; if the economy is good during one president's term, is it because of what they did (or what Congress did during their term) or what the previous president and Congress did?
I mean to take the line Harris and the Dems are selling right now...the president isn't really the one in control of any of that. Sure they say some words, but the staff work out all the details.
But I agree he is totally unfit for office, but that isn't really a change in circumstance, that is the past 8 years writ large.