It’s hard for me to know what is in the mind of undecided/swing voters, but I can tell you as a generally moderate, independent in DC, the way Trump is coming across in podcasts I regularly listen to with people like Andrew Schulz and Joe Rogan is worlds different then he is portrayed in the legacy media, in a good way. JD Vance comes across much better too; just listen to his recent appearance on Tim Dillon’s podcast. However, I recognize that I am a 37 yo male (though a highly educated one), and my wife, who doesn’t listen to any of these podcasters, thinks Trump/Vance are basically scumbags who hate women. Thus, I just really have no idea how this election is going to go. I do think the gender split will be massive.
Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women. I say this as a 47 year old, highly educated, man. And, are you truly surprised that Trump and Vance come off better in the completely friendly environment of a dumb podcast, where they are not challenged or called out for their various vile actions and statements?
Vance is owned by Peter Thiel, and both of them endorse Curtis Yarvin's garbage about how what this country needs is a king. How well does that "come across"? Trump is dumb, senile and filled with nothing except self-aggrandizement. It doesn't matter the venue, he just rambles nonsensically, trying to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear, while being sure to throw in some anti-immigrant stuff and claims about economics that are obviously absurd to anyone with more wisdom than an 8 year old. If you are as "highly educated" as you claim, you would know this already.
Besides the racism, misogyny and bigotry towards our LGBT fellow citizens, the worst thing about Trump/Vance (and indeed, all conservative parties the world over) is their violently anti-worker stance and actions. If you are a working person, then there is simply no reason at all to hold any view of a Republican besides contempt and disgust, as their entire raison d'etre is to make your life worse.
So, what you are saying is, you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts. Every word I wrote is true and extensively backed by the candidates' own statements and (more importantly) actions. Pardon me for assuming a highly educated person would do the bare minimum of research, instead of just buying unquestioningly into "vibes". Your wife may not bother with the podcasts, but she seems to be able to read.
“you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts”
I'm sorry, but this sounds like the Iron Law of Woke Projection.
How often do you listen to Newsmax or ONN? How often do you listen to Daily Wire podcasts? How often do you read Poso or Scott Adams or BAP?
You don't need to tell us: never; never; never.
YOU are the one who never leaves their epistemic bubble. Every conservative does constantly: they can't avoid it because liberalism is the default position of the establishment. But you are so immersed in the miasma of liberalism that you can't even notice it surrounding you.
Wrong on all counts! I don't watch TV at all. The only news site I visit every single day is Breitbart. Yeah, the opinions expressed are right wing bullshit, but they have good coverage of topics like the border. For hard news, I take Noah Chomsky's advice and read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times of London.
Newsmax, ONN, Daily Wire: I'm not going to bother with, because Breitbart covers the same stuff. And I'm above caring about COVID or election conspiracy nonsense. Ah, Jack "PizzaGate" Posobiec. Obviously a reputable and useful source. Scott Adams? The Dilbert guy turned right wing grifter, who is also an open racist, claimed Trump is a "super persuader", and is just trying to peddle his stupid online classes. And BAP? The fascist bodybuilder? Lol, why not throw in Alex Jones, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and Mike Enoch while you're at it? I know who all these people are, very well. Well enough, in fact, that I know they have nothing of value to offer. Unless, of course, you are into racism, sexism, obviously stupid and deranged conspiracies, and phony supplements.
"Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women."
Can you list three specific incidents to support that? I hope you go belong "grab your pussy" and the rape accusation. Even if he did those things, that doesn't mean he hates women.
"Weird"? Clearly you are mistaking me with a conservative. "MSNBC"? I have not watched that channel in probably 15 years. What "coolaid" (by the way, it is spelled "kool-aid")?
Again, every word is true and the evidence is the public words and deeds of Trump/Vance. Not a thing I stated is even controversial. I would LOVE to have it intelligently disputed - I want the other side's STRONGEST arguments. This stuff, it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Or, if you like, as easy as shooting a dog in a gravel pit, like Trump fave Kristi Noem.
Sorry, Man, but it's irrelevant whether it sounds like a sound bite from the liberal media. How about what the Man says? Are you capable of understanding how offensive his speech is to many other People? Do you care about other people's feelings or is it all about You? Your wife, for instance. Did you ever bother to ask yourself why she and so many other women find Trump so offensive? What's that all about? PMS? Female Hysteria? Weakness? Hormones? Aren't you a little curious about that? Nah!
Eh. I don't think Josh or Paul did anything egregious here with their comments.
This is an election where votes are not unlikely to break down across educational lines (as they have in past Trump elections). Pollsters are specifically weighting for it.
But you can't show a piece of paper on an Internet forum. Your words are you, that's it. Sometimes (mostly young) people try to claim credentials on the Internet, calling themselves highly educated or a lawyer or whatever, but it's unproveable and people ignore it, properly.
We are all supposed to remember the famous New Yorker cartoon: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
You can be educated in a useless skill. It's useless, but you're still educated in it. It's like being really good at paper football. That skill won't help you in any way, but it's still technically a skill that you could have.
Also, the "underwater basket-weaving" thing is mostly said by people who look at a list of degrees they know nothing about and conclude "if I haven't heard of this, it's probably dumb."
There are many weird and discouraging things about the electorate, but the fact that Trump made significant gains after the assassination attempt is up there. Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment.
Love seeing all the dipshit trump supporters spining and running scared, mark my word this was a huge campaign mistake and frankly you don't even need to turn off that many people to lose.
I don’t think it sounds that way AT ALL. Stop pigeon holding other people’s views just because it irritates you. We all have a right to an opinion without having to be famous.
I'm not as confident about Vance as I am Trump regarding misogyny. For Trump, we have the Access Hollywood tape, which is pretty solid evidence that... a lot of the accusations around sexual harassment/assault are probably true. A lot of this stuff has been out in the open for decades. This is a guy who would be one of the top answers on Family Feud if there was ever a prompt like "celebrities who disrespect women". And this was the case long before he entered politics.
It is true that Vance did not grow up in an environment of grotesque wealth and privilege that makes Trumps (and Kennedys! Look at RFK Jr as another example of how warped a person raised like that becomes) into disgusting woman haters. However, Vance is foursquare on the side of the worst anti-abortion nutjobs. And we have decades of this in the real world, which shows us how this inevitably leads to the right wing trash wanting to track women's movements and fertility. Imprison them for miscarriages. There is no more pure expression of misogyny.
Vance also used several dog whistles for Christian nationalism in the debate, and the one vote per household comment, ie headship and abolishing the 14th, and the single cat ladies comment.
Does believing (or courting those who believe) that women should be *subject* to men equate to hating women? I believe it’s bad for society, both men and women, and it’s definitely Patriarchal, but I’m not sure it’s hate.
Vance doesn't hate all women, just single women. I mean, should they even be allowed to vote? Also cat ladies, they are the worst. And allegedly couches.
What policy is that? Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Massive deficit spending? Intervention in Fed policy to accelerate interest rate reductions/try to juice the economy? Mass deportations? All of these will increase prices/inflation and not be helpful to blue collar workers.
Or is it his initiative to root out the 40 trans athletes in women’s collegiate sports (out of 500,000)?
I am skeptical that Trump’s appeal is about “the issues.”
Exactly right. It was only a few months ago, when the stock market took a sudden drop due to Japan raising interest rates, then recovered a few days later. But the week prior, Trump had been babbling about how the high stock market was due to his brilliance. Then the crash happened, and he immediately started stupidly raving about how this was now the Biden/Harris market. Then the market bounced back and it was back to how it was high because he was going to win.
Issues and, you know, little things like reality have no bearing whatsoever on Trump's support.
I hate the go to "huge tax cuts for the wealth and corporations". I am a retired senior on a fixed income and surely not wealthy. Yet my taxes went down under Trump and will raise under Harris. Why? Because Trump adjusted the TAX BRACKETS which lowered my marginal tax rate. Harris has said she would not renew the Trump tax plan as it is soon to expire which will raise my taxes. So Harris brags that she is not raising taxes on the middle class? It is a lie. She is not raising the TAX RATE but she is moving the TAX BRACKETS lower which will raise taxes for many in the middle class.
Before Trump, our county had one of the highest tax rates in the world for Corporations, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and encouraging them to expand or relocate their business to other countries. Trump's tax break made our businesses competitive in world markets and encourage them to keep their businesses or move their businesses back to the United States.
The problem with our tax code for businesses is not the tax rate, it is the tax loopholes. Some of the largest Corporations in our Country are paying little or zero tax. So the Dems can make the ratee 50% but it will not matter if the loopholes are not eliminated.
Who enacted the loopholes and why doesn't eliminate them? They were enacted by members of Congress who do not want them eliminated because it will make their big donors unhappy.
The lower a person’s income the higher the chance Trump’s “tax cuts” actually increased your tax bill. Our family’s taxes went up $1000-$2000/year (our accountant actually proactively worked it out that year, to warn us so we wouldn’t get surprised by the bill). There was a great feature, where withholding amounts were adjusted down, but that did NOT reduce your tax bill at the end of the year. It reduced the refund amount. It’s modestly good in that the IRS isn’t holding onto my $ (interest free) for several months, but that doesn’t reduce the tax paid.
Further, the personal taxes part (unlike the company tax reduction) was backloaded so personal taxes were designed to go up over time. A cynic shell game con. :/
And the price of tea in China is $3.20 (damned inflation).
We're not talking about electability here. We're talking about Trump's character relative to his media portrayal. The idea that Trump's misogyny is a figment created by the mainstream media is ridiculous.
Trying to turn a marginal issue like Trump's relationship with women into an election winner did not work for Clinton in 2016. Even women are not unified on this misogyny stuff. Negative campaigns basically don't work against a well defined persona is another lesson. Driving up the negatives of Donald Trump at this time is not really possible. In addition, harping over and over on the negative points of your opponent is deleterious to whatever other message (hopefully a positive one, if you want to win) that you might have.
The problem with the Harris campaign, which was inherited from the Biden one, is that there is basically no positive message. Nothing to pick off stragglers from the other side. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be banished from electoral politics. There had to be something that could have been crafted. Maybe lose the "green" and just another New Deal for people who got shafted by the inflation.
So character is irrelevant? What if the man's character, or lack thereof, is that he lies, cheats, steals, cares only for himself, throws everyone else under the bus, and breaks promises? But you like his policy? His policy is what, something he told you? He told you? And you rely on something he SAYS? Good luck with that!
I submit that the character argument was lost in the 1990s with the full throated defense of the serial perjurer, Clinton. At this point, the argument is meaningless. Words mean things, and since he was just lying about sex...obviously criminal activity doesn't matter. We took the lesson to heart.
You are the perfect example of why your candidate is struggling. Rather than debate the policies of these candidates you resort to vile and disgusting personal insults and lies. JD Vance has appeared on any number of left-wing podcasts and interviews. Kamala has not had a press conference and has appeared on only one interview who posed tough questions. Otherwise, she has hidden in the basement with Joe and emerged for sycophants' shows like The View. l
You come across as an unhappy angry person hurling wild rants, insulting roughly half the country with your hateful language. and using your credentials to try to establish yourself as some kind of expert? JD has appeared in the most challenging of interviews on Face the Nation, CNN, CBS News, MSNBC Rachel Madow, Jake Tapper, Martha Raddatz and more.
Not a fan of Trump, but really don't see Vance as a scumbag. More guilt by association. While we hear of a lot of women turned off to Trump, I know plenty of women who are centrist (like my wife) who like Harris even less and especially despise the insinuation that all women MUST vote a certain way, and are voting Trump. The election is going to be quite close, but the idea that women are voting for Harris misses the large number who are actually going to vote for Trump. BTW as a male, there are a lot of us who don't like Trump but still voting for him anyway as Harris/Walz come off as inept for us. Saw a good quote, voting for Trump brings risks (agreed) but voting for Harris/Walz is voting for continued decline. Again, my view, as I fully understand those who feel the opposite.
If your wife is a "centrist", then she would vote Harris. If she favors Trump, then she is a far right conservative. Nothing else makes sense. Trump governed as a far right conservative when in office the first time and he, and everyone around him, is even more extreme this time around.
The "insinuation" that "all women MUST vote a certain way" doesn't actually exist. What does exist is the fact that conservatives want, and are actively seeking, to ban abortion and contraception. And just bear in mind that that means women having their bodies tracked by the government. And it is this extreme misogynistic activity that ought to lead women who don't want this away from voting for Republicans. The "insinuation" you are referring to is simply pointing out that this reality would make it crazy for a woman who is not an anti-abortion extremist to be pro-Trump.
You say that you don't like Trump, but Harris/Walz come off as inept? I just don't even know what to say. Trump is such an inept human being, he cannot even speak or write coherently. As president, he was absurdly incompetent. He was a bad joke. And then finished his term by trying to violently overthrow our democracy. I suppose if you think that firing off sub-grade school level tweets in between golf to be effective leadership, then you would reach the opposite conclusion.
If you are at all honestly concerned with the lot of working people, then there is simply no way you would vote for Trump, whose administration was one of the most anti-worker we have ever seen. And he has not changed in any way.
Finally, you have your money quote about Trump being risky and Harris being for "continued decline". Again, do you actually know anything at all about Trump's administration and policies? You claim to be against "continued decline", but don't say what exactly is declining. The fortunes of the middle and lower classes? If that is the case, why don't you take a look at Trump's NLRB, and then tell me that he means well in ANY way for working people. Do you mean of our political system? As I mentioned above he tried to end democracy when his ego would not allow him to accept defeat in 2020. Is that aptitude and competence? Do you operate on reality and evidence at all? Or is it all just vibes about "decline"?
And all of that is without even addressing the MAGA people in Congress. They are the "Jewish space lasers" caucus. Absolutely nothing except incompetence, ineptitude, insanity. I suppose you think that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tommy Tuberville, and Lauren Boebert are moderate centrists and paragons of competence? I would say that if it is "decline" you are looking for, their picture would be under the entry in the dictionary.
It is hard to take comments like this, from self-proclaimed "centrists", as anything other than an attempt by an extreme conservative to try and sanewash Trump. But, I suppose I can always be surprised. Can you tell me how Trump represents anything other than right wing extremism?
I think a few other people who have noted why your side is not doing well and the way you come off is an example. I simply explained why and yet you act as if we are frankly idiots. You don't seem to understand that not everyone fits into your view of centrist, far right wing, etc. Yes, you can be a centrist and vote for Trump whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a libertarian. I'm not a fan of everything R's are doing. Same time, the things most important to me are not wht the D's are doing at all. I'm not anti-abortion but do believe in limits. I don't see an issue with people in states deciding what that is. I do have a problem with Harris saying no exceptions for people who don't want to perform one, even if they have a religious view that it is morally wrong. There is a problem with the left where it used to be for dissent, even saying things the majority didn't like, yet, now it appears to be the group who want to shut those up that disagree. We disagree, it's totally fine. But the whole treatment of others as if there is something wrong with them, or are unintelligent (FYI my wife and I both have advanced degrees FWIW) for not seeing things the way you do is why left continues to push more and more away.
Words mean things. You can't claim "centrism", and then favor extreme conservatism. Either you are not a centrist and are being deceptive, or well, idiocy is the only other option. Take abortion, since you brought it up: Democrats want it to be safe and legal. Republicans want to put stop it entirely and through the harshest possible state violence. You claim to be a libertarian and yet the Democrat position IS the libertarian one, and the Republicans are the precise opposite. It simply does not add up.
You did not explain anything, and that is why I examined each of your points: an attempt to get at the truth. Which you keep obscuring. Why is that? I am being completely open. I know what my stances are and how the parties/candidates line up with them, and it is entirely consistent. You, and really, this applies to every "centrist" I have ever encountered, are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
What is it that I'm obscuring? I stated some of my views. I don't feel the need to give you a thesis. I disagree with you and I really don't feel like "explaining" to only have you come back with your views and opinions of how I'm wrong. You know what, if you want to think I'm an extremist, whatever. I honestly don't care if you aren't even willing to listen without telling me how you are right. This is why the left is losing to Trump. You're just seen as more of a threat than him. Since you are so freaked out about him, that should tell you something about how many of us view the left (even those that don't like Trump as a person). The scare tactic of calling anyone who disagrees an extremist, Nazi, racist, "you name it"-phobe, just really no longer works. When you no longer care what others call you, even if its something terrible, simply for having a different view, there is a sweet freedom to that. So... Good luck to you and your candidate. But if you do lose, perhaps think about what I said as to why, as I guarantee you half the country isn't a pack of extremists.
And yet even on Rogan, Trump denied that he lost the 2020 election. It seems pretty alarming to me that that is Trump at his best and most calm and rational!
Also worth noting that many of the crazy things Trump he is saying in his speeches, where he can literally say whatever he wants. No one is forcing him to call Democrats the enemy from within, or to muse constantly about revenge, or to continuously propose a blanket tariff that would tank the economy.
100% this. Trump is a traitor who tried to violently overthrow American democracy on the most spurious grounds imaginable. It is a sign of how broken our system is that he was even allowed to run again. And your point about the crazy shit he constantly says is spot on. Any adult with half a brain would reject him outright just on that basis alone.
Why do you always have to insult and belittle people who do not agree with you. I can understand why you do not like Trump and would never vote for him. But I do not understand why you constantly put half the Country down with personal insults and obscenities who do not share your points of view. It destroys your credibility
Hillary constantly denies that she lost the 2016 election.
Not a single Democrat who pretends to be oh-so concerned about “election denialism” undermining America's “sacred democracy” has ever even once made the wild insinuations about fascism from that fact that they do about Trump.
And that's how everyone knows that you don't really believe it, but are instead cynically trying to manipulate others who really do care.
The comparisons to Hillary Clinton don't withstand scrutiny here.
Hillary Clinton conceded defeat publicly, and made a phone call to Trump regarding her concession. And she attended his inauguration. Whenever I think about the definition of misery, I consider Hillary Clinton attending Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
All of this was indefensible, and I criticized it at the time, and it should be criticized by everyone, on both sides of the aisle.
But this is not the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
There is a reason that, for example, January 6th happened on Trump's watch, and that nothing like it had happened before. It had a lot to do with the specific things Trump said, when he said them, and what he didn't say.
The reason DisruptJ20 is a barely a footnote is because it did not turn into an assault on the very seat of our democracy. And a major reason it did not do that is because leaders like Hillary Clinton had nothing to do, and wanted nothing to do, with it. And that is a good thing.
Yes! I'm just staggered at how hard some people try not to see this. There is just so much avoidance on this issue among Trump supporters, and even among people who attempt to stake out a moderate position in our politics.
Even if January 6th had not happened, we should still find what Trump did to be... objectionable to the point of *obvious disqualification from our politics*! Ideally, it should be nearly to the point where an endorsement from Trump is the same as an endorsement from David Duke: toxic to all but the worst parts of the right wing.
I blame the electorate, of course, for losing the moral core that makes democracy possible. And I blame elites in the media and our political leaders for failing to articulate clearly why Trump's behavior was special.
I can see that on Jan 6th and the few months that followed but we're 4 years on, Biden has been president all that time, the riots stopped. Some people still maintain he won, there probably people who believe the 49ers won the Super Bowl. What difference at this point does it make? To quote Hillary Clinton about a completely different thing.
The subject wasn't which crime is being ignored. The subject is why the obsession with wanting Trump to admit he lost? I think it's vindictiveness. To humiliate and belittle him.
It was written in late 2021. The basic idea of it is that there is no longer a "conservative" party in the US, and it is an attempt to extol the virtue of that ideology.
Conservatism is a political philosophy that rose in opposition to Rationalism. Rationalism contended that humans were intelligent, and could use their intelligence and evidence to improve their lives, government etc. Conservatism, on the other hand, held that human knowledge and reasoning was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in the existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc that isn't necessarily noticeable at first... but it does exist. And so there should be caution in changing existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc. Because you have rather little idea what the redounding effects of changing any of these will be. This is what I took away from that essay. It was very interesting.
Now... that we have people, intelligent people, on the political right asking the question "why is he denying he lost such a big thing?" is proof that there's virtually no mooring over there anymore.
But it's so much worse than that. He didn't merely refuse to admit he lost. He claimed that he *won*, he claimed that democracy was under attack, and that if he did not stay in office, democracy would be lost. In fact, he said *the country itself* would be lost. It should surprise you that he did all of this.
It should, unfortunately, not surprise you that some people would *really* believe him, and would act violently to prevent what they believed was a death blow to their democracy.
If that's not a good enough answer, I'll try again: Our election system is the result of thousands of years of smart people trying to figure out how to have a solid, just government that is responsive to the needs of its people. At some point (actually at multiple points), we decided on this very basic principle:
The people who win power win not by winning a battle, but by having the most people willing to raise their hand in support. We have to count the hands. Sometimes there are issues with this, in which case you go to the village elders who know the law (these are courts!), and both sides argue their case. When the loser has exhausted their options, they concede. The concession makes at least 2 things clear:
1. The loser respects the system, ensuring that it continues to be revered by those to whom it has given much prosperity heretofore
2. The loser will not tolerate any of their own supporters who abandon the system by resorting to violence, causing a battle that will destabilize society and squash prosperity
This is why concession speeches almost always involve something about "respecting the will of the American people". This is why Ronald Reagan talked about peaceful transfer of power in America being "the envy of the world". The reason, the main reason, that we are not a "****hole country" is because in America, the loser admits they lost!
If you mess with this stuff, you mess with it *at all of our peril*. Kindly, don't.
Finding out the truth about the 2020 election, that Biden's win was questionable, would destroy a lot of worldviews.
Trump is potentially not wrong, inasmuch as there are sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two. Finding and squashing those is beyond the capabilities of the US with 50+ separate election systems and about a month and a half to actually investigate. Mostly the reason Nixon gave up in 1960.
In essence, the person declared the winner in any national election is going to get the nod, regardless of what happened to get there. It's only later that people might pay the price.
Those who remember the 2000 election should agree. Gore actually won Florida if you trust later analysis. But he eventually accepted reality also.
Well first, you wouldn't need millions. Just tens of thousands at the outside in the right places. I know for a fact that (political) machines regularly are padding the counts to their benefit. The truth is that most of this crap tends to cancel out, more or less. I grew up in NJ, where such practices were common, at least in urban districts. These benefited Democrats, but the Republicans have their own forms of cheating. The stuff about the dead voting is not new, it's gone on in every election I am aware of in NYC at least, and is relatively easy to confirm by comparing the people voting to the Social Security death rolls. NYC gets picked on because the numbers are big there compared to Bumfuck, IA. But this is happening all over.
Some of the other forms of cheating, such as forged absentee/mail ballots, are harder to confirm. But that kind of fraud is not new either, and not confined to one political party. The 2020 election, with the mass use of mail ballots, offered particular opportunities for such things.
A current example is here in MD, where I am, there have been text messages offering a "vote by phone" service. Essentially, filling out a ballot on behalf of a voter without any personal contact. If performed, this would be grossly illegal, but very difficult to detect.
On a small scale, having poll workers that cast a blind eye to certain violations is not unusual. But we're talking relatively small numbers of votes, as compromising a single precinct's tally is not sufficient to turn say a statewide election.
Anywho I stand by the assertion that there is sufficient fraud in any election to turn it a point or more. Whether it does turn would be a hard road to travel to find all the irregularities. So if you want to pretend that this doesn't exist, have fun with that. But I know better. My stepfather was a politician at the county level in Jersey (Democrat, not that it mattered - party politics hardly mattered when it came to friendships and such). He knew, so did everyone else in his circle.
No, he’s flat out wrong. As is the rest of your post. There is NO reasonable way to make the case that there were discrepancies amounting within even an order of magnitude of the amount required to make it questionable.
It was a lot worse than 2000. But your guy got to serve his 4 years. I was in the tank for Bush in 2000, knowing a lot less than I do now, and I admit he lost and shouldn't have been inaugurated. Gore was robbed. I'm hopeful someday someone will write the book that explains what actually happened in 2020. Admitting the whole scenario was fishy is reasonable. The margins were implausibly close in too many places. I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences.
"I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences."
Put that on the gravestone of every conspiracy theorist. First of all, yes, there absolutely are coincidences.
Second... "the margins were implausibly close in too many places"? What do you mean? Are you asking yourself "what were the chances that the election would be decided by 4 states, all within less than 1.3 points?"
This isn't serious in the first place, but I'll humor you for a moment by asking a similar question:
"What were the chances that the election would be decided by 3 states, all within less than 0.8 points?"
Sounds pretty unlikely, right? Perhaps even crazier than that other scenario. This is what happened... in 2016. You should demand the truth on 2016. You should be waiting for the book... on the 2016 steal!
We've had 2 very close elections in a row now. This does not mean one or either of them were stolen. It just means they were close.
It was worse only in one of the 2020 candidates was (and remains) a sociopathic sack of shit loser, willing to spout wild lies.
The vote count gap in FL was literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller, and the legal issues real (rather than nonsense dreamt up by inane lackeys of the sociopath).
My wife doesn’t really pay any attention to politics, this is just what she hears from the other women attorneys at her law firm, though her mind was made up when Roe was overturned. I do totally get why people would vote Harris based on the abortion issue alone, so that’s why I tend to think she might come out on top. I don’t think the Trump is racist/fascist stuff plays, however, with anyone who wasn’t already voting for Harris. If I were Harris, 9 out of 10 ads I’m airing in battleground states would be about abortion rights.
You may be right, although I think sprinkling in more economy/immigration messaging would help to shore up that flank.
One small note: it sounds like your wife pays plenty attention to politics. Getting news from coworkers as opposed to podcasts is just a detail, in my mind.
Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?
Seems more gullible than highly educated. By all means fight for expanded rights to kill babies in the womb for as much time as possible in your state legislature or constitution, but who is prez for the next four years has literally nothing to do with it.
I agree with you that the fascist angle (and the abortion angle) isn’t about appealing to Harris voters but more about dissuading white suburban women from voting for Trump- placing him beyond the pale in polite society. This appeal (or better said, threat of shame) to rich white suburbanites worked for the Dems in 2020 and 2022, so no surprise they are using it again (pols aren’t very creative - stick with what works). A new twist is having the Obama’s out there telling black men they should be ashamed to vote for Trump and black women that they should be ashamed of their boyfriend, hubby or baby daddy votes for Trump.
Shows you they are worried the rich white suburbanites of polite society might not be enough. Everyone must be shamed and “other” Trump and his supporters. Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy while the Dems make half the country the enemy. Great vibes!
"Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy."
Actually, Trump has made any Americans who don't support him the enemy--"the enemy from within" in fact--and he has said in interviews that he's willing to use the military to subdue them. As the old expression goes, when someone is telling you who they are, you ought to listen.
It’s hard for me to know what is in the mind of undecided/swing voters, but I can tell you as a generally moderate, independent in DC, the way Trump is coming across in podcasts I regularly listen to with people like Andrew Schulz and Joe Rogan is worlds different then he is portrayed in the legacy media, in a good way. JD Vance comes across much better too; just listen to his recent appearance on Tim Dillon’s podcast. However, I recognize that I am a 37 yo male (though a highly educated one), and my wife, who doesn’t listen to any of these podcasters, thinks Trump/Vance are basically scumbags who hate women. Thus, I just really have no idea how this election is going to go. I do think the gender split will be massive.
Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women. I say this as a 47 year old, highly educated, man. And, are you truly surprised that Trump and Vance come off better in the completely friendly environment of a dumb podcast, where they are not challenged or called out for their various vile actions and statements?
Vance is owned by Peter Thiel, and both of them endorse Curtis Yarvin's garbage about how what this country needs is a king. How well does that "come across"? Trump is dumb, senile and filled with nothing except self-aggrandizement. It doesn't matter the venue, he just rambles nonsensically, trying to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear, while being sure to throw in some anti-immigrant stuff and claims about economics that are obviously absurd to anyone with more wisdom than an 8 year old. If you are as "highly educated" as you claim, you would know this already.
Besides the racism, misogyny and bigotry towards our LGBT fellow citizens, the worst thing about Trump/Vance (and indeed, all conservative parties the world over) is their violently anti-worker stance and actions. If you are a working person, then there is simply no reason at all to hold any view of a Republican besides contempt and disgust, as their entire raison d'etre is to make your life worse.
Sorry, man, but this sounds like a sound bite from MSNBC or Keith Olbermann’s unhinged twitter account. It’s just bs to me.
So, what you are saying is, you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts. Every word I wrote is true and extensively backed by the candidates' own statements and (more importantly) actions. Pardon me for assuming a highly educated person would do the bare minimum of research, instead of just buying unquestioningly into "vibes". Your wife may not bother with the podcasts, but she seems to be able to read.
“you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts”
I'm sorry, but this sounds like the Iron Law of Woke Projection.
How often do you listen to Newsmax or ONN? How often do you listen to Daily Wire podcasts? How often do you read Poso or Scott Adams or BAP?
You don't need to tell us: never; never; never.
YOU are the one who never leaves their epistemic bubble. Every conservative does constantly: they can't avoid it because liberalism is the default position of the establishment. But you are so immersed in the miasma of liberalism that you can't even notice it surrounding you.
“You’re in a bubble” can only come from someone in a bubble?
JFC, it’s projection turtles all the way down. :/
PS Although if you didn’t notice Rogan calling out his never providing evidence for his wild election fraud claims…
Wrong on all counts! I don't watch TV at all. The only news site I visit every single day is Breitbart. Yeah, the opinions expressed are right wing bullshit, but they have good coverage of topics like the border. For hard news, I take Noah Chomsky's advice and read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times of London.
Newsmax, ONN, Daily Wire: I'm not going to bother with, because Breitbart covers the same stuff. And I'm above caring about COVID or election conspiracy nonsense. Ah, Jack "PizzaGate" Posobiec. Obviously a reputable and useful source. Scott Adams? The Dilbert guy turned right wing grifter, who is also an open racist, claimed Trump is a "super persuader", and is just trying to peddle his stupid online classes. And BAP? The fascist bodybuilder? Lol, why not throw in Alex Jones, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and Mike Enoch while you're at it? I know who all these people are, very well. Well enough, in fact, that I know they have nothing of value to offer. Unless, of course, you are into racism, sexism, obviously stupid and deranged conspiracies, and phony supplements.
"Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women."
Can you list three specific incidents to support that? I hope you go belong "grab your pussy" and the rape accusation. Even if he did those things, that doesn't mean he hates women.
You read it here, folks: Robert says raping a woman is not grounds for calling the rapist a woman-hater.
"Weird"? Clearly you are mistaking me with a conservative. "MSNBC"? I have not watched that channel in probably 15 years. What "coolaid" (by the way, it is spelled "kool-aid")?
Again, every word is true and the evidence is the public words and deeds of Trump/Vance. Not a thing I stated is even controversial. I would LOVE to have it intelligently disputed - I want the other side's STRONGEST arguments. This stuff, it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Or, if you like, as easy as shooting a dog in a gravel pit, like Trump fave Kristi Noem.
Sorry, Man, but it's irrelevant whether it sounds like a sound bite from the liberal media. How about what the Man says? Are you capable of understanding how offensive his speech is to many other People? Do you care about other people's feelings or is it all about You? Your wife, for instance. Did you ever bother to ask yourself why she and so many other women find Trump so offensive? What's that all about? PMS? Female Hysteria? Weakness? Hormones? Aren't you a little curious about that? Nah!
Oh, I think most husbands have a pretty solid idea of where their wives get their ideas from, and vice-versa.
JFC
🙄
Isn't "highly educated" like "artist," something other people can say about you but you can't say about yourself?
I mean, no? If you have an advanced degree, you're highly educated, objectively.
That's what that piece of paper means, "We're an institute of higher learning and we educated you to these standards."
I think the point was that generally it’s not a good look to post your CV in internet comment sections in support of your opinions.
Eh. I don't think Josh or Paul did anything egregious here with their comments.
This is an election where votes are not unlikely to break down across educational lines (as they have in past Trump elections). Pollsters are specifically weighting for it.
Self described education is relevant.
But you can't show a piece of paper on an Internet forum. Your words are you, that's it. Sometimes (mostly young) people try to claim credentials on the Internet, calling themselves highly educated or a lawyer or whatever, but it's unproveable and people ignore it, properly.
We are all supposed to remember the famous New Yorker cartoon: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
🤣🤣🤣
What if your degree is in underwater basket weaving?
Then you are highly educated in that narrow field!
You can be educated in a useless skill. It's useless, but you're still educated in it. It's like being really good at paper football. That skill won't help you in any way, but it's still technically a skill that you could have.
Also, the "underwater basket-weaving" thing is mostly said by people who look at a list of degrees they know nothing about and conclude "if I haven't heard of this, it's probably dumb."
Have you ever bothered listen to Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
There are many weird and discouraging things about the electorate, but the fact that Trump made significant gains after the assassination attempt is up there. Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment.
Zuckerberg specifically referenced Trump jumping to his feet and yelling "Fight!" As "The most badass thing i have ever seen".
"Brilliantly staged, sir. Right on cue! Better than Cats!"
Now this is just the foil hat territory.
Yup, it was.
Too bad the rest of the package is a con artist garbage.
"Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment."
Being shot at is not an accomplishment. Living is.
Not particularly in this case.
Somebody call the Secret Service.
Love seeing all the dipshit trump supporters spining and running scared, mark my word this was a huge campaign mistake and frankly you don't even need to turn off that many people to lose.
I don’t think it sounds that way AT ALL. Stop pigeon holding other people’s views just because it irritates you. We all have a right to an opinion without having to be famous.
I'm not as confident about Vance as I am Trump regarding misogyny. For Trump, we have the Access Hollywood tape, which is pretty solid evidence that... a lot of the accusations around sexual harassment/assault are probably true. A lot of this stuff has been out in the open for decades. This is a guy who would be one of the top answers on Family Feud if there was ever a prompt like "celebrities who disrespect women". And this was the case long before he entered politics.
It is true that Vance did not grow up in an environment of grotesque wealth and privilege that makes Trumps (and Kennedys! Look at RFK Jr as another example of how warped a person raised like that becomes) into disgusting woman haters. However, Vance is foursquare on the side of the worst anti-abortion nutjobs. And we have decades of this in the real world, which shows us how this inevitably leads to the right wing trash wanting to track women's movements and fertility. Imprison them for miscarriages. There is no more pure expression of misogyny.
Vance also used several dog whistles for Christian nationalism in the debate, and the one vote per household comment, ie headship and abolishing the 14th, and the single cat ladies comment.
Does believing (or courting those who believe) that women should be *subject* to men equate to hating women? I believe it’s bad for society, both men and women, and it’s definitely Patriarchal, but I’m not sure it’s hate.
Vance doesn't hate all women, just single women. I mean, should they even be allowed to vote? Also cat ladies, they are the worst. And allegedly couches.
People are voting on policy not his character.
What policy is that? Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Massive deficit spending? Intervention in Fed policy to accelerate interest rate reductions/try to juice the economy? Mass deportations? All of these will increase prices/inflation and not be helpful to blue collar workers.
Or is it his initiative to root out the 40 trans athletes in women’s collegiate sports (out of 500,000)?
I am skeptical that Trump’s appeal is about “the issues.”
Exactly right. It was only a few months ago, when the stock market took a sudden drop due to Japan raising interest rates, then recovered a few days later. But the week prior, Trump had been babbling about how the high stock market was due to his brilliance. Then the crash happened, and he immediately started stupidly raving about how this was now the Biden/Harris market. Then the market bounced back and it was back to how it was high because he was going to win.
Issues and, you know, little things like reality have no bearing whatsoever on Trump's support.
I hate the go to "huge tax cuts for the wealth and corporations". I am a retired senior on a fixed income and surely not wealthy. Yet my taxes went down under Trump and will raise under Harris. Why? Because Trump adjusted the TAX BRACKETS which lowered my marginal tax rate. Harris has said she would not renew the Trump tax plan as it is soon to expire which will raise my taxes. So Harris brags that she is not raising taxes on the middle class? It is a lie. She is not raising the TAX RATE but she is moving the TAX BRACKETS lower which will raise taxes for many in the middle class.
Before Trump, our county had one of the highest tax rates in the world for Corporations, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and encouraging them to expand or relocate their business to other countries. Trump's tax break made our businesses competitive in world markets and encourage them to keep their businesses or move their businesses back to the United States.
The problem with our tax code for businesses is not the tax rate, it is the tax loopholes. Some of the largest Corporations in our Country are paying little or zero tax. So the Dems can make the ratee 50% but it will not matter if the loopholes are not eliminated.
Who enacted the loopholes and why doesn't eliminate them? They were enacted by members of Congress who do not want them eliminated because it will make their big donors unhappy.
You’re an oddity….if it’s even true.
The lower a person’s income the higher the chance Trump’s “tax cuts” actually increased your tax bill. Our family’s taxes went up $1000-$2000/year (our accountant actually proactively worked it out that year, to warn us so we wouldn’t get surprised by the bill). There was a great feature, where withholding amounts were adjusted down, but that did NOT reduce your tax bill at the end of the year. It reduced the refund amount. It’s modestly good in that the IRS isn’t holding onto my $ (interest free) for several months, but that doesn’t reduce the tax paid.
Further, the personal taxes part (unlike the company tax reduction) was backloaded so personal taxes were designed to go up over time. A cynic shell game con. :/
And the price of tea in China is $3.20 (damned inflation).
We're not talking about electability here. We're talking about Trump's character relative to his media portrayal. The idea that Trump's misogyny is a figment created by the mainstream media is ridiculous.
This is a politics website, not religion.
Trying to turn a marginal issue like Trump's relationship with women into an election winner did not work for Clinton in 2016. Even women are not unified on this misogyny stuff. Negative campaigns basically don't work against a well defined persona is another lesson. Driving up the negatives of Donald Trump at this time is not really possible. In addition, harping over and over on the negative points of your opponent is deleterious to whatever other message (hopefully a positive one, if you want to win) that you might have.
The problem with the Harris campaign, which was inherited from the Biden one, is that there is basically no positive message. Nothing to pick off stragglers from the other side. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be banished from electoral politics. There had to be something that could have been crafted. Maybe lose the "green" and just another New Deal for people who got shafted by the inflation.
I'm a woman. I don't agree. The behavior of magats last night was astonishing. I assume the polls will move against them now.
🙄
If you can’t hear it maybe you’ve got blood coming out of your eyes, out of your…whatever.
Even when he thinks he’s being nice. He argues businesses definitely should hire women because they can pay them less. JFC 🤦♂️
So character is irrelevant? What if the man's character, or lack thereof, is that he lies, cheats, steals, cares only for himself, throws everyone else under the bus, and breaks promises? But you like his policy? His policy is what, something he told you? He told you? And you rely on something he SAYS? Good luck with that!
I submit that the character argument was lost in the 1990s with the full throated defense of the serial perjurer, Clinton. At this point, the argument is meaningless. Words mean things, and since he was just lying about sex...obviously criminal activity doesn't matter. We took the lesson to heart.
You are the perfect example of why your candidate is struggling. Rather than debate the policies of these candidates you resort to vile and disgusting personal insults and lies. JD Vance has appeared on any number of left-wing podcasts and interviews. Kamala has not had a press conference and has appeared on only one interview who posed tough questions. Otherwise, she has hidden in the basement with Joe and emerged for sycophants' shows like The View. l
Which "left-wing podcasts" did Vance appear on?
yeah he’s so racist that he just keeps forcing more and more blacks and Hispanics to keep voting for him! The nerve!
Oh wait….
Stupidity crosses all racial and ethnic lines.
Are they also Uncle Tom's?
No. The correct term is "Uncle Clarence Thomases".
I'm sure they're all strumming banjo and eating fried chicken and watermelon.
It crosses political lines too, I think you forgot that part :)
You come across as an unhappy angry person hurling wild rants, insulting roughly half the country with your hateful language. and using your credentials to try to establish yourself as some kind of expert? JD has appeared in the most challenging of interviews on Face the Nation, CNN, CBS News, MSNBC Rachel Madow, Jake Tapper, Martha Raddatz and more.
Not a fan of Trump, but really don't see Vance as a scumbag. More guilt by association. While we hear of a lot of women turned off to Trump, I know plenty of women who are centrist (like my wife) who like Harris even less and especially despise the insinuation that all women MUST vote a certain way, and are voting Trump. The election is going to be quite close, but the idea that women are voting for Harris misses the large number who are actually going to vote for Trump. BTW as a male, there are a lot of us who don't like Trump but still voting for him anyway as Harris/Walz come off as inept for us. Saw a good quote, voting for Trump brings risks (agreed) but voting for Harris/Walz is voting for continued decline. Again, my view, as I fully understand those who feel the opposite.
I would just address a couple of your points:
If your wife is a "centrist", then she would vote Harris. If she favors Trump, then she is a far right conservative. Nothing else makes sense. Trump governed as a far right conservative when in office the first time and he, and everyone around him, is even more extreme this time around.
The "insinuation" that "all women MUST vote a certain way" doesn't actually exist. What does exist is the fact that conservatives want, and are actively seeking, to ban abortion and contraception. And just bear in mind that that means women having their bodies tracked by the government. And it is this extreme misogynistic activity that ought to lead women who don't want this away from voting for Republicans. The "insinuation" you are referring to is simply pointing out that this reality would make it crazy for a woman who is not an anti-abortion extremist to be pro-Trump.
You say that you don't like Trump, but Harris/Walz come off as inept? I just don't even know what to say. Trump is such an inept human being, he cannot even speak or write coherently. As president, he was absurdly incompetent. He was a bad joke. And then finished his term by trying to violently overthrow our democracy. I suppose if you think that firing off sub-grade school level tweets in between golf to be effective leadership, then you would reach the opposite conclusion.
If you are at all honestly concerned with the lot of working people, then there is simply no way you would vote for Trump, whose administration was one of the most anti-worker we have ever seen. And he has not changed in any way.
Finally, you have your money quote about Trump being risky and Harris being for "continued decline". Again, do you actually know anything at all about Trump's administration and policies? You claim to be against "continued decline", but don't say what exactly is declining. The fortunes of the middle and lower classes? If that is the case, why don't you take a look at Trump's NLRB, and then tell me that he means well in ANY way for working people. Do you mean of our political system? As I mentioned above he tried to end democracy when his ego would not allow him to accept defeat in 2020. Is that aptitude and competence? Do you operate on reality and evidence at all? Or is it all just vibes about "decline"?
And all of that is without even addressing the MAGA people in Congress. They are the "Jewish space lasers" caucus. Absolutely nothing except incompetence, ineptitude, insanity. I suppose you think that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tommy Tuberville, and Lauren Boebert are moderate centrists and paragons of competence? I would say that if it is "decline" you are looking for, their picture would be under the entry in the dictionary.
It is hard to take comments like this, from self-proclaimed "centrists", as anything other than an attempt by an extreme conservative to try and sanewash Trump. But, I suppose I can always be surprised. Can you tell me how Trump represents anything other than right wing extremism?
I think a few other people who have noted why your side is not doing well and the way you come off is an example. I simply explained why and yet you act as if we are frankly idiots. You don't seem to understand that not everyone fits into your view of centrist, far right wing, etc. Yes, you can be a centrist and vote for Trump whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a libertarian. I'm not a fan of everything R's are doing. Same time, the things most important to me are not wht the D's are doing at all. I'm not anti-abortion but do believe in limits. I don't see an issue with people in states deciding what that is. I do have a problem with Harris saying no exceptions for people who don't want to perform one, even if they have a religious view that it is morally wrong. There is a problem with the left where it used to be for dissent, even saying things the majority didn't like, yet, now it appears to be the group who want to shut those up that disagree. We disagree, it's totally fine. But the whole treatment of others as if there is something wrong with them, or are unintelligent (FYI my wife and I both have advanced degrees FWIW) for not seeing things the way you do is why left continues to push more and more away.
Words mean things. You can't claim "centrism", and then favor extreme conservatism. Either you are not a centrist and are being deceptive, or well, idiocy is the only other option. Take abortion, since you brought it up: Democrats want it to be safe and legal. Republicans want to put stop it entirely and through the harshest possible state violence. You claim to be a libertarian and yet the Democrat position IS the libertarian one, and the Republicans are the precise opposite. It simply does not add up.
You did not explain anything, and that is why I examined each of your points: an attempt to get at the truth. Which you keep obscuring. Why is that? I am being completely open. I know what my stances are and how the parties/candidates line up with them, and it is entirely consistent. You, and really, this applies to every "centrist" I have ever encountered, are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
What is it that I'm obscuring? I stated some of my views. I don't feel the need to give you a thesis. I disagree with you and I really don't feel like "explaining" to only have you come back with your views and opinions of how I'm wrong. You know what, if you want to think I'm an extremist, whatever. I honestly don't care if you aren't even willing to listen without telling me how you are right. This is why the left is losing to Trump. You're just seen as more of a threat than him. Since you are so freaked out about him, that should tell you something about how many of us view the left (even those that don't like Trump as a person). The scare tactic of calling anyone who disagrees an extremist, Nazi, racist, "you name it"-phobe, just really no longer works. When you no longer care what others call you, even if its something terrible, simply for having a different view, there is a sweet freedom to that. So... Good luck to you and your candidate. But if you do lose, perhaps think about what I said as to why, as I guarantee you half the country isn't a pack of extremists.
Glad you said you were highly educated because it is not obvious.
Rachel, is that you?
And yet even on Rogan, Trump denied that he lost the 2020 election. It seems pretty alarming to me that that is Trump at his best and most calm and rational!
Also worth noting that many of the crazy things Trump he is saying in his speeches, where he can literally say whatever he wants. No one is forcing him to call Democrats the enemy from within, or to muse constantly about revenge, or to continuously propose a blanket tariff that would tank the economy.
100% this. Trump is a traitor who tried to violently overthrow American democracy on the most spurious grounds imaginable. It is a sign of how broken our system is that he was even allowed to run again. And your point about the crazy shit he constantly says is spot on. Any adult with half a brain would reject him outright just on that basis alone.
Why do you always have to insult and belittle people who do not agree with you. I can understand why you do not like Trump and would never vote for him. But I do not understand why you constantly put half the Country down with personal insults and obscenities who do not share your points of view. It destroys your credibility
Sorry. We've noticed the Republicans are all about personal insults and obscenities.
Hillary constantly denies that she lost the 2016 election.
Not a single Democrat who pretends to be oh-so concerned about “election denialism” undermining America's “sacred democracy” has ever even once made the wild insinuations about fascism from that fact that they do about Trump.
And that's how everyone knows that you don't really believe it, but are instead cynically trying to manipulate others who really do care.
The comparisons to Hillary Clinton don't withstand scrutiny here.
Hillary Clinton conceded defeat publicly, and made a phone call to Trump regarding her concession. And she attended his inauguration. Whenever I think about the definition of misery, I consider Hillary Clinton attending Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
All of this was indefensible, and I criticized it at the time, and it should be criticized by everyone, on both sides of the aisle.
But this is not the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
There is a reason that, for example, January 6th happened on Trump's watch, and that nothing like it had happened before. It had a lot to do with the specific things Trump said, when he said them, and what he didn't say.
"nothing like it has happened before" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20
Yes, that is nothing like January 6th.
The reason DisruptJ20 is a barely a footnote is because it did not turn into an assault on the very seat of our democracy. And a major reason it did not do that is because leaders like Hillary Clinton had nothing to do, and wanted nothing to do, with it. And that is a good thing.
Are you actually confused about this?
whatever you need to tell yourself, friend
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Exactly. Not remotely the same.
Hillary literally conceded the next day. It’s not even a comparison. And she admits she lost. Want me to dig up some quotes here?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
The only consistent thing in your post is the reimagining of reality, repeating that patently false talking point 🙄
Why is his denying he lost such a big thing? Is it like holding your little brother down until he cried "Uncle"? I don't get it.
Because Trump denying he lost was the spark for Jan 6, which was a real thing.
Yes! I'm just staggered at how hard some people try not to see this. There is just so much avoidance on this issue among Trump supporters, and even among people who attempt to stake out a moderate position in our politics.
Even if January 6th had not happened, we should still find what Trump did to be... objectionable to the point of *obvious disqualification from our politics*! Ideally, it should be nearly to the point where an endorsement from Trump is the same as an endorsement from David Duke: toxic to all but the worst parts of the right wing.
I blame the electorate, of course, for losing the moral core that makes democracy possible. And I blame elites in the media and our political leaders for failing to articulate clearly why Trump's behavior was special.
I can see that on Jan 6th and the few months that followed but we're 4 years on, Biden has been president all that time, the riots stopped. Some people still maintain he won, there probably people who believe the 49ers won the Super Bowl. What difference at this point does it make? To quote Hillary Clinton about a completely different thing.
What else is on the list of crimes you are willing to ignore?
The subject wasn't which crime is being ignored. The subject is why the obsession with wanting Trump to admit he lost? I think it's vindictiveness. To humiliate and belittle him.
This comment reminded me of an essay I read in The Atlantic. I went back and found it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/brooks-true-conservatism-dead-fox-news-voter-suppression/620853/
It was written in late 2021. The basic idea of it is that there is no longer a "conservative" party in the US, and it is an attempt to extol the virtue of that ideology.
Conservatism is a political philosophy that rose in opposition to Rationalism. Rationalism contended that humans were intelligent, and could use their intelligence and evidence to improve their lives, government etc. Conservatism, on the other hand, held that human knowledge and reasoning was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in the existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc that isn't necessarily noticeable at first... but it does exist. And so there should be caution in changing existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc. Because you have rather little idea what the redounding effects of changing any of these will be. This is what I took away from that essay. It was very interesting.
Now... that we have people, intelligent people, on the political right asking the question "why is he denying he lost such a big thing?" is proof that there's virtually no mooring over there anymore.
But it's so much worse than that. He didn't merely refuse to admit he lost. He claimed that he *won*, he claimed that democracy was under attack, and that if he did not stay in office, democracy would be lost. In fact, he said *the country itself* would be lost. It should surprise you that he did all of this.
It should, unfortunately, not surprise you that some people would *really* believe him, and would act violently to prevent what they believed was a death blow to their democracy.
If that's not a good enough answer, I'll try again: Our election system is the result of thousands of years of smart people trying to figure out how to have a solid, just government that is responsive to the needs of its people. At some point (actually at multiple points), we decided on this very basic principle:
The people who win power win not by winning a battle, but by having the most people willing to raise their hand in support. We have to count the hands. Sometimes there are issues with this, in which case you go to the village elders who know the law (these are courts!), and both sides argue their case. When the loser has exhausted their options, they concede. The concession makes at least 2 things clear:
1. The loser respects the system, ensuring that it continues to be revered by those to whom it has given much prosperity heretofore
2. The loser will not tolerate any of their own supporters who abandon the system by resorting to violence, causing a battle that will destabilize society and squash prosperity
This is why concession speeches almost always involve something about "respecting the will of the American people". This is why Ronald Reagan talked about peaceful transfer of power in America being "the envy of the world". The reason, the main reason, that we are not a "****hole country" is because in America, the loser admits they lost!
If you mess with this stuff, you mess with it *at all of our peril*. Kindly, don't.
Did you sleep through January 6?
Finding out the truth about the 2020 election, that Biden's win was questionable, would destroy a lot of worldviews.
Trump is potentially not wrong, inasmuch as there are sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two. Finding and squashing those is beyond the capabilities of the US with 50+ separate election systems and about a month and a half to actually investigate. Mostly the reason Nixon gave up in 1960.
In essence, the person declared the winner in any national election is going to get the nod, regardless of what happened to get there. It's only later that people might pay the price.
Those who remember the 2000 election should agree. Gore actually won Florida if you trust later analysis. But he eventually accepted reality also.
Please provide evidence that there are "sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two" in a US election.
Just a shred of proof.
Not random hypotheticals. Not false captioned videos.
Something where there is reasonable data that millions of votes were flipped, inserted, etc.
Well first, you wouldn't need millions. Just tens of thousands at the outside in the right places. I know for a fact that (political) machines regularly are padding the counts to their benefit. The truth is that most of this crap tends to cancel out, more or less. I grew up in NJ, where such practices were common, at least in urban districts. These benefited Democrats, but the Republicans have their own forms of cheating. The stuff about the dead voting is not new, it's gone on in every election I am aware of in NYC at least, and is relatively easy to confirm by comparing the people voting to the Social Security death rolls. NYC gets picked on because the numbers are big there compared to Bumfuck, IA. But this is happening all over.
Some of the other forms of cheating, such as forged absentee/mail ballots, are harder to confirm. But that kind of fraud is not new either, and not confined to one political party. The 2020 election, with the mass use of mail ballots, offered particular opportunities for such things.
A current example is here in MD, where I am, there have been text messages offering a "vote by phone" service. Essentially, filling out a ballot on behalf of a voter without any personal contact. If performed, this would be grossly illegal, but very difficult to detect.
On a small scale, having poll workers that cast a blind eye to certain violations is not unusual. But we're talking relatively small numbers of votes, as compromising a single precinct's tally is not sufficient to turn say a statewide election.
Anywho I stand by the assertion that there is sufficient fraud in any election to turn it a point or more. Whether it does turn would be a hard road to travel to find all the irregularities. So if you want to pretend that this doesn't exist, have fun with that. But I know better. My stepfather was a politician at the county level in Jersey (Democrat, not that it mattered - party politics hardly mattered when it came to friendships and such). He knew, so did everyone else in his circle.
https://nypost.com/2013/12/30/the-dead-can-vote-in-nyc/
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/dead-voter-list-long-island-nassau-county-newsday/1958314/
https://www.silive.com/politics/2020/11/records-show-dead-people-caught-voting-in-nyc-report-says.html
https://www.ire.org/potential-exists-for-deceased-to-still-vote-in-ny/
You said a percentage or two.
But we'll work with your new goal posts.
And your evidence is random hypotheticals.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/26/viral-image/no-dead-people-didnt-cast-half-joe-bidens-2020-pre/
“ Trump is potentially not wrong,”
No, he’s flat out wrong. As is the rest of your post. There is NO reasonable way to make the case that there were discrepancies amounting within even an order of magnitude of the amount required to make it questionable.
It wasn’t 2000, it wasn’t remotely 2000.
It was a lot worse than 2000. But your guy got to serve his 4 years. I was in the tank for Bush in 2000, knowing a lot less than I do now, and I admit he lost and shouldn't have been inaugurated. Gore was robbed. I'm hopeful someday someone will write the book that explains what actually happened in 2020. Admitting the whole scenario was fishy is reasonable. The margins were implausibly close in too many places. I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences.
"I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences."
Put that on the gravestone of every conspiracy theorist. First of all, yes, there absolutely are coincidences.
Second... "the margins were implausibly close in too many places"? What do you mean? Are you asking yourself "what were the chances that the election would be decided by 4 states, all within less than 1.3 points?"
This isn't serious in the first place, but I'll humor you for a moment by asking a similar question:
"What were the chances that the election would be decided by 3 states, all within less than 0.8 points?"
Sounds pretty unlikely, right? Perhaps even crazier than that other scenario. This is what happened... in 2016. You should demand the truth on 2016. You should be waiting for the book... on the 2016 steal!
We've had 2 very close elections in a row now. This does not mean one or either of them were stolen. It just means they were close.
It was worse only in one of the 2020 candidates was (and remains) a sociopathic sack of shit loser, willing to spout wild lies.
The vote count gap in FL was literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller, and the legal issues real (rather than nonsense dreamt up by inane lackeys of the sociopath).
As a good piece of general advice, listen to your wife.
My wife doesn’t really pay any attention to politics, this is just what she hears from the other women attorneys at her law firm, though her mind was made up when Roe was overturned. I do totally get why people would vote Harris based on the abortion issue alone, so that’s why I tend to think she might come out on top. I don’t think the Trump is racist/fascist stuff plays, however, with anyone who wasn’t already voting for Harris. If I were Harris, 9 out of 10 ads I’m airing in battleground states would be about abortion rights.
You may be right, although I think sprinkling in more economy/immigration messaging would help to shore up that flank.
One small note: it sounds like your wife pays plenty attention to politics. Getting news from coworkers as opposed to podcasts is just a detail, in my mind.
I have subs to WaPo and NYT. I read mainstream news all the time.
Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?
Seems more gullible than highly educated. By all means fight for expanded rights to kill babies in the womb for as much time as possible in your state legislature or constitution, but who is prez for the next four years has literally nothing to do with it.
I agree with you that the fascist angle (and the abortion angle) isn’t about appealing to Harris voters but more about dissuading white suburban women from voting for Trump- placing him beyond the pale in polite society. This appeal (or better said, threat of shame) to rich white suburbanites worked for the Dems in 2020 and 2022, so no surprise they are using it again (pols aren’t very creative - stick with what works). A new twist is having the Obama’s out there telling black men they should be ashamed to vote for Trump and black women that they should be ashamed of their boyfriend, hubby or baby daddy votes for Trump.
Shows you they are worried the rich white suburbanites of polite society might not be enough. Everyone must be shamed and “other” Trump and his supporters. Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy while the Dems make half the country the enemy. Great vibes!
Agreed, black men shouldn’t be ashamed to vote for Trump. Anyone should be.
"Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy."
Actually, Trump has made any Americans who don't support him the enemy--"the enemy from within" in fact--and he has said in interviews that he's willing to use the military to subdue them. As the old expression goes, when someone is telling you who they are, you ought to listen.