Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I don't think it is a weak case in New York at all. It is a fact that Trump overvalued his real estate properties. He even admitted it. He deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant the Stormy Daniels criminal case in New York. The only reason I say allegedly weak is that a lot of the law analysis I looked at at the time said that it's almost always a civil case.  And that a lot of them didn't know how New York was going to twist itself to make it criminal.  I think of the four criminal indictments, it has the least chance of succeeding.

But I'm not a lawyer so please feel free to disregard that opinion.  Maybe it's the strongest, I legitimately don't know.  But I feel like it's the only one that's for sure to happen in 2024.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden had a brutal poll come out where he was losing to Trump by almost ten points in Michigan.  I know it's early and it's one poll, but I'm hoping they're taking this election as seriously as they say they are.  It's been almost entirely one sided as far as campaigning goes, but Michigan is a state Biden needs to win.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

For all Liz Cheney's faults, I really respect her for torpedoing her own career to do the right thing.  She was essentially one of the congresspeople who voted alongside Trump at one of the highest rates, but she signals a time when we could disagree with someone politically but still respect for them.  Even root for them.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/liz-chene … stitution/

I saw this conversation (this was simply the first link I saw and I didn't read the whole thing so I'm just posting it for the video and context), but this is what Biden needs to drive home.  I think this is a winning argument for Republicans that aren't MAGA.  The people who would "hold their nose" and vote for Trump.  And as we discussed before, there are millions of people like this.

We Can Survive Bad Policies But Not Torching the Constitution

This should be the message.  Biden should, at times (obviously not all the time), directly talk to center-right people and say "Listen, I know you might disagree with me on A, B, or C.  And I hope you vote downballot for reasonable conservatives to try and defeat me on those issues.  But if you vote for Trump, you won't win.  The constitution won't win.  Only Trump will win.  And then I'll wish you good luck in 2028."  We need to convince people (and I know lots of people like this) that they might like Trump's policies more, but there's too much risk involved to do that.  Essentially, "you can survive four more years of Biden."

And literally that's all it would take.  Take some percentage of reluctant Trump voters and a) get them to stay home b) get them to vote third party c) get them to leave the top of the ballot entirely or d) get them to become a reluctant Biden voter.  Especially in toss-up states.  Do that enough and get your base to show up, and Biden wins it easily.

I don't know if Cheney herself has enough sway to make that happen, but if she does, I'd get her on as a part of the campaign in some capacity.  And I'd promise her some sort of role in a Biden administration (I assume small) if she wants it.

And, of course, Biden is also going to need to deliver for reluctant Trump voters.  As I've said a bunch, he's going to have to do something to make them feel better about the economy, the border, and social issues.  I don't know what that would be, but I think that's Biden's best avenue to victory.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Many years ago, I interviewed an actor who was on a show I liked. This actor would, a few years after our interview, post a lot of Trump-supportive content on his social media. Following Charlottesville with neo-Nazis marching, this actor made a number of posts sharing (false) claims that the Nazi-presence and rhetoric had been overblown or misrepresented. This made me very angry.

I said nothing (well, outside of private conversations, I said nothing). I didn't comment on it in the fan community. I ceased contact and would check in on this actor from time to time, if only as a study of how someone could be radicalized.

This actor eventually scrubbed his social media of all pro-Trump material while leaving behind a few pre-2015, Trump-mocking comments regarding Trump's business practices. Because this actor took down his Trump-support and ceased voicing any support of Trump at all, I'm not willing to name him in this post.

I should note: I don't believe that anyone had to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020 to make the minimum grade as a decent human being. People I respect voted third party or wrote in names because they didn't support Clinton, or because they believed in term limits when it came to Biden, or for other reasons entirely.

However, I believe that the act of voting for Donald Trump was and is evil.

I felt tremendous confusion when this actor expressed support for Trump's 2016 campaign of obvious racism, bigotry, white supremacy and white privilege. This actor had been so generous to me: a lengthy phone conversation, reviewing his quotes and offering clarifications and corrections, patient explanations of his process and work, indulgently sharing memories of times that were challenging and difficult.

He did all this for me, and I am a person of colour. I am an Asian man and I have a Muslim name (which is incredibly weird because my family has no Muslims and is Buddhist on one side and Mennonite on the other). Someone supporting a racist political party that encourages violence against anyone who isn't Caucasian -- that's not something I can ignore morally or in terms of personal safety.

Why did a Trump supporter do so much for an Asian man with a Muslim name? I had conversations with others and received a number of theories.

From my sister:
"You're not Asian enough for someone to be racist to you. Do you hear yourself on the phone? You sound white."

From my father:
"You're a banana, son. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside and people react to you like you're white. Also, as Chinese people go, you're very pale. You get white privilege." 

From my niece:
"That actor might be nice to you, but he wouldn't ever want people of colour to have any more rights -- or actual rights -- and he wants to keep your lack of privilege where it is and his white privilege where it is and he'll always vote for whatever gives white people more power to be racist."

From an intern in the social justice office:
"The dude was nice to you because he wanted to answer fan questions about his work and not have to talk about it anymore. You were someone he could use."

This twisted me inside for a long time. Eventually, I simply had to bar it from my mind. But in recent days, I've had to think about it, and I've revisited the theories that my friends and family offered me. I have then rejected these theories. I know in my heart (if not for a fact) that they are all wrong.

I have decided that he was sincerely nice to me, a person of colour, in a genuine and heartfelt way and he voted for and supported a white supremacist bigot. Both are true.

Why did he vote for Donald Trump and minimize the presence of Nazis the way Informant, a former poster here, was constantly lying and claiming there where no neo-Nazis even when they were roaring, "You will not replace us"?

A vote for Trump could be, as Grizzlor put it, tribalism, but neo-Nazi denialism goes beyond that.

I'm prepared to suggest that this actor, like Kelsey Grammer, suffered something in his life that shook him and damaged him and his sense of right and wrong when it came to the specific sphere of politics. There are actually numerous areas in his life where he may have experienced something disturbing and traumatic for which he deserves, like any person, sympathy and understanding.

Without going into detail, there was a very early setback in his education that deprived him of credentials he needed in the field of acting (don't bother trying to look this up, you won't find it). This may have caused a sense of failure and may have made it harder than it should have been to build his career, although he did build it. There may have been distress with the mother of his children not being in his life or his children's lives. I don't know that these were life-altering traumas for him. They may have been merely setbacks, but they probably weren't non-serious issues.

And then there was this actor's biggest job. The pinnacle of his career. He'd acted in small roles and acted in medium-sized roles and acting had become his full time job. Then came a role that would bring him to his largest audience yet. This role, while potentially career-defining, also came with a sense of humiliation: the actor was hired to effectively replace and imitate a different performer.

The original performer in this role was a big name who had played the character for years, but suddenly left the role. This actor I interviewed was the successor and his new job involved mimicking the original performer's performance. (I guess this gives it away)

This job must have come with the constant sense of being second-chosen, second-best, least-wanted, least-remembered, least-respected. There was the sense that the highest amount of regard for his career was when he performed in the shadow of someone else, copying someone else's work rather than offering something uniquely his own. This is an extremely caustic and mocking interpretation, and it is absolutely not how I see this person or his life or his work.

I consider this actor to a more skillful, detailed, thoughtful and talented than his predecessor, and truly a master thespian. I was impressed by how the actor's work was not imitation, but tribute where mimicry of the previous performer was just one facet of a very complex performance. And this actor could have built a successful career beyond this big role. He had the talent and physical appeal to do so, but he decided to end his acting career a short time after this job due to the need to spend more time with his family.

He left acting and found success in a different field. As a result, his former acting career was then defined by this one part where people saw him as a stand-in for somebody else; a scab, a stand-in, a substitute.

I have never and will never see him as a substitute for anybody. But it is how many others viewed him and viewed his life and viewed his work. That had to have affected him, especially when he was told by cruel fans in public that his failure to live up to his predecessor was why the show was cancelled.

These are not easy experiences.

As Dr. Frasier Crane might say: someone who experiences a sense of disenfranchisement, abandonment -- and who is treated as a shabby substitute -- could experience dire feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, weakness, and frustration that he is viewed as a second-rate copy rather than someone with his own set of experiences and skills and approach to his profession and craft.

Someone might go through this and then in their politics feel a desire for control, dominance, privilege, elevation, superiority, vindication and obedience, and this might be reflected in their voting for and supporting fascist authoritarianism and entitlement.

Someone could experience all these things and cast that vote... but still retain the ability to dismiss race and ethnicity on a personal level (like when interacting with a fan) while making racist and white supremacist choices on a political level.

One does not negate the other. Being kind to me does not erase the fact that this person cast a ballot for racism, fascism and authoritarianism. At the same time, casting that ballot did not erase the fact that this person was extremely generous to me on a personal and psychological level and, in their kindness to me, was also being kind to every other fan of his work.

This person has ceased supporting Donald Trump publicly. This means that their politics today are now a private affair as they are no longer voicing any opinion of it at all and have removed their previous opinions from their platform. For this reason, I will not name this actor nor will I associate this person with the cause from which he severed his public (if not private) allegiance. I have said nothing about this online for the past seven years because I did not want to diminish this person's standing or what he had shared with fans.

As someone who has voted for different parties at different times, I can say that there are votes for parties that I regret casting. I have made votes that, upon reflection, I consider to have been acts of evil on my part. I wouldn't want to be defined by a vote that I now regret, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

These are important subjects to discuss, and I don't feel silence serves anyone. However, I make the request that if we talk about this more, we avoid using this person's name as search engine optimization can cause associations that this person clearly no longer wants to maintain... and as this person never committed any actual crimes (none that I'm aware of, anyway), he has the right to change, to chart a new course, and to move on.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Very well written, ireactions.  I don't really have any response to that, but it was helpful to read.  I'm always fascinated by the people who are choosing to support Trump and why they do it.  It is so entirely foreign to me to follow him, and I've been trying to get into that mindset to I can understand it.  From what I can tell, it's most just fear fueled by misinformation.  Trump is most effective with older and undereducated people that are more likely to fall for misinformation.  So if he says that gas is $8 a gallon or that 8 million terrorists are coming into the country a day, they believe it.  And he's convinced them that anything else anyone says is a lie.  Again, I don't know how to fight that when people don't believe what they see anymore.

*******

Good news / bad news.

Good news - Something like 30% of Haley supporters in Iowa said they will support Biden in a hypothetical Biden/Trump matchup.  Something like 30% of all Iowans (including Trump supporters) have said that Trump is not fit to be president if he's convicted of a crime.

Bad news - None of that seems to be showing up in polling.  Biden has pulled closer in certain polls, but he's still trailing in a lot of the important ones.  Yes, it's early.  Yes, polls don't vote.  But I would feel much better if the 1/3 of Haley voters that claim they'll vote for Biden are showing up.  I know it's 1/3 of 20% or whatever, but that should move the needle.  And it hasn't yet.

Good news - I read a really interesting article yesterday called "You should go to a Trump rally" (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/677119/).  You should read it yourself, but the TLDR is that Trump supporters that go to Trump rallys seem turned off / annoyed by actually listening to what Trump has to say.  That he rambles or goes off on too many tangents or whatever.  This tells me that as the campaign ramps up and people start paying attention, people are going to remember why they didn't vote for him in 2020.  Biden is front and center to most people, even people that aren't paying attention, and his flaws are front of mind.  Trump's aren't, especially if (as the Biden campaign maintains) that most 2024 voters think about politics 4 minutes a week.

Bad news - Trump demolished the competition in Iowa.  Instead of a dirty and competitive campaign that might lead DeSantis/Haley voters to abandon Trump (sort of what happened with Bernie voters against Hillary in 2016), it seems like the campaign might not last long enough for that to happen.  Trump might win all 50 states.  Even worse, even people that Trump has attacked (Reynolds in Iowa, Sonunu in New Hampshire) are already pledging to support him in the general.  I was hoping there would be less coalescing around Trump, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

Good news - Recent polling has shown that people are feeling better about the economy, which should be huge for Biden if those trends continue.

Bad news - Republicans are refusing to negotiate on their own fixes for the border.  Biden is either going to have to completely cave, or he's going to have to somehow flip the issue around on the Republicans.  Which he should be able to do, but it will be hard to convince Republicans / Republican-leaning people that Republicans don't want to fix it.

Overall...I feel okay about things.  I hope Trump's trials go to trial before the election, and I wish the polls would start showing a better race for Biden.  But maybe that will just happen in time.

2,346

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I read that the Iowa turnout was comically low, record low.  Granted the weather played a factor, but only 110,000 voters participated in what is, IMO, the most antiquated and absurd political process we have.  That's 15% only out of 752,000 registered Republicans in the state.  I mean, insane.  The DNC got one thing right, they canceled it entirely, how Iowa continues to hold sway is ridiculous.  So Donald Trump could ONLY muster half of that percentage?  That's not a good sign. 

Haley now must win New Hampshire, or at least be close, to effectively continue.  In NH, Trump beats Haley 47 to 35 among GOP; however, she FLATTENS him 51-24 among independents, and many of those (and Dems) are free to vote in the primary.  https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2 … nhrep.html  Oddly, men greatly prefer Nikki while women up there are the opposite.  Likely voters are split, whereas Nikki leads big in those unlikely to vote. 

Desantis claims he's not dropping out (whatever) regardless.  I did note his speech last night in Iowa, where Ron basically screamed that Trump will lose in November.  Suppose that will be his 2028 pitch, "I told ya so."

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

So Donald Trump could ONLY muster half of that percentage?  That's not a good sign.

A lot of people are saying this, but I assume *most* of those people that voted for any of the other candidates will coalesce behind Trump.  Not all because some of them are already saying that they'd vote for Biden if Haley doesn't win, but those people might've already said in polls that they'd vote for Biden over Trump.  I don't know if it's fair to say that Trump only has half the Iowa vote because someone would rather vote for DeSantis or Haley or Ramaswamy.  It matters if they'd rather vote for Trump or Biden.

But it does show that a large swath of people are looking for an alternative.  I'm hoping that Haley can win in New Hampshire, perhaps with a large percentage of the Christie vote.  And maybe if Trump can be shown to bleed, he can be beaten.  I just don't know.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My beloved senator, Ted Cruz, has endorsed Trump.  What a spineless moron he is.  How can you wholeheartedly bootlick the man who called his wife ugly and accused his father of killing Kennedy?  I don't know too many people who have been attacked as hard as Cruz has, and I'm not sure there's anyone on the planet that defends Trump harder.

I know it's a longshot, but I'll be volunteering for and paying into the campaign for Colin Allred.

2,349

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Worse is Marco Rubio, the gutless wonder, endorsing Trump over his own Governor.  Ouch!

2,350

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Republicans do both, though.  I would assume most of the people arrested on January 6 probably didn't love Donald Trump before 2015.  Now they're willing to go to jail for him?  To die for him?

The problem is that Republicans base everything on winning.  That's why they have no platform, and that's why they struggle to get anything done when they get in office.  They're so concerned with winning that they don't even know what to do when they get there.  If you have no platform, then the actual candidate is irrelevant.  You just vote for the person with the R by their name.  What do they stand for?  It doesn't matter.

2,352

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

To bring it "back to Sliders," it's like if you had the choice, say a year or so ago when Torme had his pitch with NBC.  The choice is, and this site and other groups often held these polls.  Would you rather have the OG Tracy T go make that pitch, knowing that his politics were antiquated, and his resume is wrought with "being difficult," and that his stories might be too cerebral?  Meaning he has far less of a chance of getting the green light.  ORRRR would you rather a new group, led by an Alex Kurtzman type, with recent TV success, definitely more in line with Millennials, and thus a better chance of being selected?  Granted his show might be fine, you may love it, but it wouldn't be OG. 

The OG choice usually won in those polls, and guess what, in the end, sadly, his pitch was not green lit.  That's where the GOP is with Trump.  The polls continue to show him as the WEAKEST November candidate of their field, and he has so many red flags with his age, mental state, and the legal problems.  Why would you insist on the OG Gangsta??  You can say it's a cult, but in reality, Trump is his own nostalgia act at this point.  He's some iteration of Van Halen without Dave and possibly heading into Gary Cherone territory.  Am I dating myself?  The point is that MAGA = Trump, they can't give up on him now, or ever.  So why then are the non-MAGA still voting for this moron? 

That's the real question here.  Desantis and Haley are no moderates, they should be trouncing Trump, but the GOP in my opinion, is well beyond the norm now.  This leaves the sliver of reality that Biden is (dangerously) hanging on, that there will be enough Trump fearing voters, who actually bother to vote, to propel him.  The danger is that he's created plenty of people now afraid of continuing with him!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am terrified of the 2024 election. I don't dare make any predictions because the polls of 2016, 2020 and 2022 were so severely distorted that I've lost confidence in Nate Silver and his ilk. I'm sure they mean no harm, but something in their methodology and sourcing is just warping their findings to create images that are too distant from reality to be helpful or useful, at least to me at this point. That's mostly why I've been focusing on psychoanalysis of individual cases and talking about masks.

I wish I shared QuinnSlidr's certainty, but I don't. I'm scared. My fear could be affecting my judgement. I wish I had Slider_Quinn21's collectedness, but I don't have that either when it comes to the 2024 election. I am afraid. I'm also eating a lot of homemade Tex Mex which may have something or nothing to do with anything.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

To bring it "back to Sliders," it's like if you had the choice, say a year or so ago when Torme had his pitch with NBC.  The choice is, and this site and other groups often held these polls.  Would you rather have the OG Tracy T go make that pitch, knowing that his politics were antiquated, and his resume is wrought with "being difficult," and that his stories might be too cerebral?  Meaning he has far less of a chance of getting the green light.  ORRRR would you rather a new group, led by an Alex Kurtzman type, with recent TV success, definitely more in line with Millennials, and thus a better chance of being selected?  Granted his show might be fine, you may love it, but it wouldn't be OG. 

The OG choice usually won in those polls, and guess what, in the end, sadly, his pitch was not green lit.  That's where the GOP is with Trump.  The polls continue to show him as the WEAKEST November candidate of their field, and he has so many red flags with his age, mental state, and the legal problems.  Why would you insist on the OG Gangsta??  You can say it's a cult, but in reality, Trump is his own nostalgia act at this point.  He's some iteration of Van Halen without Dave and possibly heading into Gary Cherone territory.  Am I dating myself?  The point is that MAGA = Trump, they can't give up on him now, or ever.  So why then are the non-MAGA still voting for this moron? 

That's the real question here.  Desantis and Haley are no moderates, they should be trouncing Trump, but the GOP in my opinion, is well beyond the norm now.  This leaves the sliver of reality that Biden is (dangerously) hanging on, that there will be enough Trump fearing voters, who actually bother to vote, to propel him.  The danger is that he's created plenty of people now afraid of continuing with him!

I think these are fair questions, but to me, I don't think reason is going to prevail.  When a candidate loses a presidential race, there's a reckoning.  The party goes back in the lab, re-evaluates things, and tries to come up with a plan on how to win the next time.  That didn't happen this time because Trump has convinced a large (and somehow GROWING) segment of Republicans that he won last time.  He's essentially running as an incumbent.

So when anti-Trump Republicans give reasons why Trump is a bad choice, there's always an argument why they're wrong.

Trump is facing criminal trials!  "Those trials are fake"
Trump is doing worse against Biden in polls!  "Polls are always wrong unless Trump is winning"
Trump isn't as electable as Haley or DeSantis! "Trump already beat Biden once and he'll do it again"

It doesn't matter what the argument is - they're ready with a response.  Trump can't not be electable if we won last time.  Trump's legal issues aren't real because the trials are fake.  Trump's age doesn't matter because Biden is older.

ireactions, we have some good signs:

1. Biden seems to be doing slightly better at polling recently, and we're making headways on the economy and the border.  They're going to have to be able to correctly spin it, but the conditions for a Biden re-election are getting better.

2. There is some infighting on the Republican side.  I've seen a number of high-profile DeSantis supporters outright say that they won't support Trump in the general.  Now they have tons of time to come around on that, but if there are enough "Bernie against Hillary in 2016" votes, that's totally enough to make the difference.  We need Democrats to fall in line and enough Republicans to stay home, leave the top of the ballot blank, or somehow vote for Biden.

3. There's still overwhelming polling evidence that moderate Republicans will abandon Trump if he's convicted of a crime.  We just have to get a trial that actually starts.

4. I'm still not convinced that Trumpism continues after Trump.  I think he has a unique ability to get through to people that others don't have.  His sons don't have it.  No other candidates have really shown to have it, and the Trumpy people that have been elected to office are people that are typically in very red situations.  I think the GOP, win or lose, is going to continue to push "America First" issues, but I think Trump is unique. When Kari Lake tried to push the same kind of "Stop the Steal" nonsense, no one listened to her.  It only worked for Trump.  Now does that mean Trumpism ends in 2024 if Biden wins?  No.  I firmly expect Trump to run for president in 2028 if he loses (or I guess if he wins).  I don't see any reason why he wouldn't run (even if he's in prison) or any reason why he wouldn't win.

That's of course assuming there is a 2028 or an election at all.  But this is a positive post so I'll leave that to the side.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Now does that mean Trumpism ends in 2024 if Biden wins?  No.  I firmly expect Trump to run for president in 2028 if he loses (or I guess if he wins).  I don't see any reason why he wouldn't run (even if he's in prison) or any reason why he wouldn't win.

That's of course assuming there is a 2028 or an election at all.  But this is a positive post so I'll leave that to the side.

I highly doubt that Trump will still be alive in 2028. At least I hope not.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Actuarial data suggests that Trump will live into his 90s.  He has world class healthcare, and his father lived to be 93.  I would think, barring something unexpected happening, he would live another dozen plus years.

Now, the dude only eats McDonalds and never seems to do any actual activity other than golfing. But data as recent as 2023 suggests Trump isn't in any danger of dying of natural causes for a while, and I'm sure it took his diet and his actual weight (not the ridiculous number he declares) into account.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Actuarial data suggests that Trump will live into his 90s.  He has world class healthcare, and his father lived to be 93.  I would think, barring something unexpected happening, he would live another dozen plus years.

Now, the dude only eats McDonalds and never seems to do any actual activity other than golfing. But data as recent as 2023 suggests Trump isn't in any danger of dying of natural causes for a while, and I'm sure it took his diet and his actual weight (not the ridiculous number he declares) into account.

He is also addicted to Adderall like nobody's business. So I would be very surprised if that happens.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I feel a bit heartened by Slider_Quinn21's takes.

**

Awhile ago, I was watching the mini-series THE DROPOUT, a biographical show about real-life grifter Elizabeth Holmes. It made me think of Donald Trump. In my view, Donald Trump's political career is the biggest con job in history where his marks (voters) think they're inside the grift as opposed to being squeezed and fleeced.

THE DROPOUT made me see that I am completely vulnerable to being manipulated in a similar way to Trump supporters, but the personas and methods to which I would be vulnerable exist are more feminine-presenting.

In THE DROP OUT, Amanda Seyfried plays Elizabeth Holmes, a real life person. The show covers how Holmes 'creates' a machine and chemical process that can test people for all sorts of illnesses and diseases and conditions from a single drop of blood from the finger. Holmes is certain that with relentless experimentation and engineering, microsampling blood would prove viable for full panel blood testing.

It's revealed at the outset (and in real life): the concept was based on Holmes imagining a more convenient blood testing experience but not based in any grasp of basic hematology or the human circulatory system. Holmes' fantasy ran into three very obvious problems: finger-drawn blood is from capillaries and distant from the veins and drawn from ruptured blood cells, and therefore diluted, inconsistent and inaccurate; finger-drawn blood is easily contaminated by clotting and skin cells; and finger-drawn blood comes at a low volume, requiring dilution to reach testing volume which makes testing even more inaccurate.

Will these problems ever be overcome? Maybe, but upon running into these problems, Holmes insisted that her Edison test worked/would work. Internally, Holmes called anyone who raised these problems to be cynics who weren't trying hard enough, even as Holmes had her useless tests shored up by blood dilution (which created inaccurate results) and conventional testing methods. Externally, Holmes presented herself as a genius wunderkind whose secret and proprietary process (secret because it didn't work, proprietary because it was a lie), saying that anyone who doubted her was just sexist.

Holmes was a beautiful woman asking the world to consider her intelligence and inventiveness; Holmes had an affectedly deep voice that made her seem socially dysfunctional but determined; Holmes presented as a female inventor in a world that has been extremely dismissive to women's achievements in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Holmes was pushing all my buttons and the buttons of many men who didn't understand hematology and invested in Holmes' company or who did understand hematology but bought into Holmes' image.

Holmes was exposed and is now in jail for fraud with an 11 year sentence. I recognize that Elizabeth Holmes and Donald Trump in affect and appearance and tactics could not be more different, but at the same time, their frauds have a fundamental similarity: they present a deeply seductive image that targets the grievances and value systems of their marks to delude and misguide them. It's just that they have different demographics.

Trump's demographic is white men who feel that the privileges of being male and Caucasian have feel undermined by women and people of colour who aren't heterosexual. He preys upon their narcissism and wounded egos, telling them that they can overlook Trump's obvious lies and path of ruin because the sense of power and dominance is more important.

Holmes' demographic was also white men, men who felt uncomfortable with the privileges of being male and Caucasian. Men who wished to see privilege become equality and equity to the point where they would support and not question a woman describing a scientific technological process -- even if the science were obviously inoperable, the technology a flimsy illusion, and the process a scam.

This is something I could fall for. Everyone's a sucker for something.

2,359 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2024-01-21 09:30:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I do think there's a large segment of MAGA that is victims.  If all you do is watch Fox News, especially if you grew up a time when news was very respected, all you are going to hear is how bad things are.  And I think these people genuinely want good things for the country, and I think they genuinely think that they're facing a crisis that only Donald Trump can fix.  They've been convinced that the government is corrupt, and that Donald Trump (as an outsider) is the only one willing to step up to them.

I think this is both good and very bad.  Very bad, of course, because he's convinced a large swath of the nation that he's their messiah, and they're willing to disregard anything that steps in the way.  Good in the sense that, if Trump is the only one who can fix it, who's the heir to that?  What happens when Trump is gone?

My biggest fear post-2020 was a Trump-like figure who's more effective.  DeSantis seemed like that guy, but obviously he's not.  Because while Trump is good at getting his way, he's also very stupid and easily distracted.  He definitely wants to be a dictator, but he might run out of time before he gets to enjoy any of that.

So if Trump can be defeated until Trump is dead, I don't know if MAGA doesn't fracture.  Maybe a true heir apparent will show up, but I'm not currently seeing it.  That's why Trump is effective when he talks about staying as president or why "8 more years" was chanted.  There's no backup plan. There's no heir.  It's Trump until Trump is dead because that's all Trump cares about.  So when he dies, I don't know if there's going to be a succession plan.  And that means that some MAGA will follow DeSantis, some will follow Don Jr., some will follow Marjorie Taylor Greene, some will follow Jim Jordan.  And they won't be able to agree on anything, attacking each other and creating a bunch of never DeSantis, never Don Jr, never MTG, never Jordan, and never-whoever sects.

At least that's my hope.

*******************

I don't know what's happening with Trump (and I don't really want to speculate), but his flubs are getting worse and worse.  It might be in Biden's best interests to let Trump talk as much as possible.  I think the more non-MAGA people that hear Trump talk, the more people are going to realize that the dude is straight up crazy.  People will remember, and Biden should be able to cruise to a win (assuming he doesn't have his own flubs and the base gets in line).

2,360 (edited by Grizzlor 2024-01-21 19:22:06)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Elizabeth Holmes was another Bernie Madoff basically, both were caught, but tons of hedge fund managers and CEO's and others make the same terrible business practices because of greed.  She concocted trash but she had multiple executives and others go along with her.  It's done out of greed or self preservation. 

Ron Desantis, after running an absolutely pathetic Presidential campaign based on his "fighting the good fight" against Disney, is out.  He was easily the WORST candidate in the field, and I really have to laugh if GOP donors think he has a future nationally.  Worse yet, he ended his campaign with a quote incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill.

Meanwhile, Trump's State case in Georgia is likely over.  The District Attorney Fani Willis, is now mired in a serious corruption crisis that honestly should force her resignation over.  I had zero faith in her case regardless, but this is really the end of it.  Paying for your married boyfriend, on the taxpayers' dime, is really unforgivable.  She's done, and so is the case. 

Given that Jack Smith's Florida case will likely be delayed until the 22nd century by Trump Judge Cannon, and the NYC porn star payoff case is borderline ridiculous, that really just leaves the election interference case for Smith in Washington, D.C.  But that case itself is likely to be delayed further by Supreme Court appeals over Trump's immunity, and whatever else.  I doubt Trump will even see a courtroom before November.  These indictments have only served to win Trump the GOP nomination, and likely, the White House, given how unpopular and feeble Joe Biden is going to look during the campaign. 

As for MAGA...

ireactions wrote:

Trump's demographic is white men who feel that the privileges of being male and Caucasian have feel undermined by women and people of colour who aren't heterosexual. He preys upon their narcissism and wounded egos, telling them that they can overlook Trump's obvious lies and path of ruin because the sense of power and dominance is more important.

Holmes' demographic was also white men, men who felt uncomfortable with the privileges of being male and Caucasian. Men who wished to see privilege become equality and equity to the point where they would support and not question a woman describing a scientific technological process -- even if the science were obviously inoperable, the technology a flimsy illusion, and the process a scam.

This is something I could fall for. Everyone's a sucker for something.

First, MAGA is FAR more than white men, believe you me.  Women love him too.  Trump also has non-white support, even better with black men than prior GOP candidates, and his Latino support has risen to George W. Bush levels.  The reasons are simple.  Trump promises immediate, direct action on a variety of issues.  Granted that won't happen, but people are so sick of a do-nothing Washington, that just like 2016, Trump's dictatorian edicts ring true to these people.  Even as Joe Biden has actually DELIVERED many of his campaign promises!  It's exhausting, but people are too busy to pay attention. 

As for Holmes, wasn't her chief co-conspirator and husband from Pakistan?  That being said, yes, her company's Board of Directors were a who's who of the old guard of American diplomatic core, including deceased war criminal Kissinger.

2,361 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-01-21 20:05:01)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In other political news, as the republican party continues to implode, Ron DeathSantis has suspended his campaign for the 2024 Presidential election.

Excellent news. Another fascist bites the dust.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Trump's demographic is white men who feel that the privileges of being male and Caucasian have feel undermined by women and people of colour who aren't heterosexual. He preys upon their narcissism and wounded egos, telling them that they can overlook Trump's obvious lies and path of ruin because the sense of power and dominance is more important.

Grizzlor wrote:

First, MAGA is FAR more than white men, believe you me.  Women love him too.  Trump also has non-white support, even better with black men than prior GOP candidates, and his Latino support has risen to George W. Bush levels.  The reasons are simple.  Trump promises immediate, direct action on a variety of issues.

I didn't say that white men and white grievance was Trump's only demographic and if I implied that, it was a mistake. But it is the demographic he targets, it's who he reflects, and to whom he speaks loudest.

To say "Women love him" of Trump is a false statement. The women who voted Democrat or third party didn't "love him"; the women I marched with after Trump's 2016 victory at various protests didn't "love him", so this absolutist claim is either an exaggeration of some personal perception or an error.

There are women who do indeed support Donald Trump. It would be accurate to say that fervent female Trump supporters "love Trump", but to say "women love him" is a level of blanket generalization that is erroneously meaningless at best.

Why do Republican women vote for sexual harassers like Roy Moore or Donald Trump? My current theory is that Republican women exist in an extremely patriarchal situation where they are misused, overworked or flat out abused by men -- husbands, fathers, brothers -- and to defend themselves would cut themselves off from whatever scraps of privilege they're permitted, so they lash out at people they perceive to be even weaker: people of colour or minorities or LGBTQ or the neuroatypical with a redirected rage that, originally meant for the men in their lives, is now internalized and reoriented to the point where they don't even realize the anger that makes them express their petty bigotries or vote with those bigotries in mind.

What motivates the black and Latino men vote for Trump? My current theory is that they have become accustomed to a society that treats them as lesser humans if not outright subhuman, especially in politics where there is an intergenerational experience of rarely even having a non-racist candidate for whom to cast a ballot if they were even able to vote at all.

And historically, people of colour have often voted for whichever racist seemed more entertaining or helpful to them, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy, but they were under no illusions that Roosevelt or Kennedy would treat them well in person. My current personal theory is that Trump-supporting men of colour Trump may feel aspire to or feel represented by Trump's absurd and performative image of dominance, bluster, boorish ranting and juvenile masculinity even if he would only ever express bigotry towards them.

This is theory. This would all qualify as coping via tribalism (thank you for sharing that, Grizzlor, I have added that to my lexicon). As described, it would be aspirational admiration rather than mental illness, but I'm imagine there are cases where it has crossed into mental illness.

Trump speaks to aggrieved white men, but I certainly wouldn't claim he only speaks to them and I should certainly have identified that as his core demographic to avoid the impression that I thought it his only one.

Grizzlor wrote:

As for Holmes, wasn't her chief co-conspirator and husband from Pakistan?  That being said, yes, her company's Board of Directors were a who's who of the old guard of American diplomatic core, including deceased war criminal Kissinger.

Elizabeth Holmes' chief operating officer was Sunny Balwani, and they met when he was 37 and she was 18. They had some sort of romantic relationship and he was part of the whole Edison machine scam, but Balwani was her accomplice, not her mark.

2,363

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A substantial portion of the people who voted for Trump in the last two elections don't love him or even like him.  They just vote Republican no matter who it is.  A similar number do that for the Democrats.  Most people don't think that hard about their vote, they just pick team red or team blue.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

In other political news, as the republican party continues to implode, Ron DeathSantis has suspended his campaign for the 2024 Presidential election.

Excellent news. Another fascist bites the dust.

I agree that DeSantis doesn't need to be anywhere near the White House, but his exit from the race this early is not excellent news (at least not from my vantage point).  About a year ago, I was talking to my aunt, and I told her that the best bet for a Biden re-election was a war between DeSantis and Trump.  Because it would be mutually assured destruction.  If Trump won, he'd turn off enough DeSantis voters to make a difference.  If DeSantis won, Trump would go nuclear and destroy the party.  Win-win.

As I said, there are already a lot of DeSantis people on Twitter saying that they're never going to vote for Trump.  That Trump had already attacked DeSantis enough.  Oddly enough, a lot of DeSantis folks are anti-vaxxers that are mad at Trump for his handling of Covid and his kind treatment of Fauci.  They blame Trump for the vaccine and for the shutdowns, and that's a bridge too far for him.  Many are saying they'll vote Republican down ballot but leave the presidential race blank.  Or vote RFK Jr.

That would obviously help, but I was hoping for a longer battle between them.  And I didn't think DeSantis would cave so fast and endorse.  I assume he's looking for a cabinet position since his political career in Florida might be over.  Or a Senate run could be dependent on Trump's support in Florida, where Trump is more popular than he is.

I just think it was too early.  The Never Trump faction of the DeSantis camp has plenty of time to turn around and support Trump.  The insults Trump threw at DeSantis will be ten months old on election day, and I'm sure DeSantis will do what he can to convince his voters to vote for Trump.

Our only hope is that Nikki Haley can stay in the race long enough to convince enough Republicans to not stick with Trump.  She's attacking him on his mental decline, which is probably Trump's weakest point among his own base.  But she needs to stay in the race long enough to be attacking him long enough for people to hear her.  If she drops out after New Hampshire or South Carolina and endorses him, our last chance to have a Republican convince Republicans not to vote for Trump will be over.

2,365

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

In other political news, as the republican party continues to implode, Ron DeathSantis has suspended his campaign for the 2024 Presidential election.

Excellent news. Another fascist bites the dust.

He's still Governor of Florida for another 2 years, then likely challenges Rick Scott for Senate. 

ireactions wrote:

I didn't say that white men and white grievance was Trump's only demographic and if I implied that, it was a mistake. But it is the demographic he targets, it's who he reflects, and to whom he speaks loudest.

To say "Women love him" of Trump is a false statement. The women who voted Democrat or third party didn't "love him"; the women I marched with after Trump's 2016 victory at various protests didn't "love him", so this absolutist claim is either an exaggeration of some personal perception or an error.

There are women who do indeed support Donald Trump. It would be accurate to say that fervent female Trump supporters "love Trump", but to say "women love him" is a level of blanket generalization that is erroneously meaningless at best.

Why do Republican women vote for sexual harassers like Roy Moore or Donald Trump? My current theory is that Republican women exist in an extremely patriarchal situation where they are misused, overworked or flat out abused by men -- husbands, fathers, brothers -- and to defend themselves would cut themselves off from whatever scraps of privilege they're permitted, so they lash out at people they perceive to be even weaker: people of colour or minorities or LGBTQ or the neuroatypical with a redirected rage that, originally meant for the men in their lives, is now internalized and reoriented to the point where they don't even realize the anger that makes them express their petty bigotries or vote with those bigotries in mind.

What motivates the black and Latino men vote for Trump? My current theory is that they have become accustomed to a society that treats them as lesser humans if not outright subhuman, especially in politics where there is an intergenerational experience of rarely even having a non-racist candidate for whom to cast a ballot if they were even able to vote at all.

And historically, people of colour have often voted for whichever racist seemed more entertaining or helpful to them, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy, but they were under no illusions that Roosevelt or Kennedy would treat them well in person. My current personal theory is that Trump-supporting men of colour Trump may feel aspire to or feel represented by Trump's absurd and performative image of dominance, bluster, boorish ranting and juvenile masculinity even if he would only ever express bigotry towards them.

This is theory. This would all qualify as coping via tribalism (thank you for sharing that, Grizzlor, I have added that to my lexicon). As described, it would be aspirational admiration rather than mental illness, but I'm imagine there are cases where it has crossed into mental illness.

Trump speaks to aggrieved white men, but I certainly wouldn't claim he only speaks to them and I should certainly have identified that as his core demographic to avoid the impression that I thought it his only one.

Here's what your missing.  In Iowa, 2/3rds of caucus voters believe Biden was illegitimately elected!  How many believe Trump is a harasser/abuser?  That wasn't asked but I guarantee it's far south of that number.  When Trump complained after Charlottesville about "good on both sides," that rang home big time with Republicans.  They simply don't believe the media.  Jan 6th is a Federal conspiracy involving FBI actors, that's literally the leading theory with them.  How is this unsurprising?  Most of that voting block are deeply religious, which means they are raised in some form of indoctrination.  That's much more of a factor as to why women support Trump, than any kind of patriarchy. 

Trump speaks to EVERY aggrieved citizen, of any race.  That's like saying a rapper only connects to minorities, when scores of fans wind up being affluent white kids.  Trump is a senior citizen's gansta rapper!!!  And you need not be white to approve of his crude, mean messaging.  He appeals to all races, and particularly to blue collar types, like a pro wrestler does. 

pilight wrote:

A substantial portion of the people who voted for Trump in the last two elections don't love him or even like him.  They just vote Republican no matter who it is.  A similar number do that for the Democrats.  Most people don't think that hard about their vote, they just pick team red or team blue.

Point I was making, yes.  "MAGA" is just a moniker, it was once "Tea Party."  Those are Republicans, how often they vote is another story, but they're Republicans.  They overwhelmingly supported renaming of French Fries to "Freedom" Fries, after all.

******

My point remains, why are we wasting time squabbling over why MAGA exists and who's in it?  Who cares?  The point is to get the incredibly tepid # of people who remain disgusted by Trump to get off arses and vote against him once more.  The poll numbers remain possible, in that Trump cannot surpass that 46-48% national figure.  However, Biden is going to be an awful campaigner, and it's going to be a TALL ask for people (as the media continues to normalize Trump) to be convinced that someone should lead the free world well into his 80s.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Here's what your missing.  In Iowa, 2/3rds of caucus voters believe Biden was illegitimately elected!

So there's two things at play here, and one is actually somewhat reasonable (although, of course, I disagree).  There are the MAGA people who believe that Trump got millions more votes and won states like California and New York and that there was actual fraud in the 2020 election.  This group includes Trump and has been proven false a million different ways.

Then there are the people who believe that state governments illegally allowed for voting rule changes without getting them fully approved.  That state governments "broke the rules" by allowing people to vote easier during Covid. 

Are they right?  Sorta?  I think some of the changes they made during Covid didn't go through the avenues they were supposed to go through.  And if you throw those votes out, it probably does mean that Trump had more votes.  And if you just go by that definition, Biden is illegitimate.

The problem is that you can't just throw those votes out, even if they impact the result.  Whether or not the way they voted was, at the end of the day, legal is irrelevant to the decisions that were made when the votes were cast.  If a Biden voter saw that they could drive-thru vote, they probably took them up on it.  It doesn't mean that they wouldn't have gone in and voted "legally" if they weren't given that option.  You can't assume they wouldn't have voted "legally" if that was their only choice.  They were legal votes counted by registered voters.  There was no fraud done by the voter.  It's the system that, if you follow the letter of the law, may have allowed voting to be done illegally. 

And I think the percentage of people that don't believe Biden is legitimate is comingling a lot of things.  I think there are people that believe there was voter fraud, but I think a lot of people a) are just saying that because they don't like Biden (I'm assuming a large number of the same people might say Obama wasn't legitimately elected) or b) they are thinking about state legislatures think all votes that were committed in a way that may or may not have been legal at the time should be thrown out. 

I still maintain that if 2/3 of Republicans truly believe that Joe Biden *stole* an election, there'd be more civil unrest.  That leads me to think that either they don't really believe it, they just don't like him so they're insulting his presidency by saying he's illegitimate, or they're talking about overreaching by state legislatures because of Covid and probably understand that it probably didn't impact the results but by the letter of the law is incorrect.

Grizzlor wrote:

However, Biden is going to be an awful campaigner, and it's going to be a TALL ask for people (as the media continues to normalize Trump) to be convinced that someone should lead the free world well into his 80s.

Biden should have a really strong campaign, I think.  The economy is doing well.  He's speaking out on the border, and it's Republicans that are currently blocking solutions at the border.  He's trying to thread the needle on Israel.  And as you said, Biden has actually followed through on a lot of his promises.  Biden himself might not be the best person to send that message because he looks so darn frail when he talks, but the message of the campaign is strong.

If it was the 60s, I think it would probably doom him.  But there's so many ways that people get their news now, and so little of it is going to come from Biden's mouth.  I'm not thinking that there's going to be any debates this year (I don't think either side wants to do it), and I think the average American is more likely to hear Biden's message from a Biden surrogate than Biden himself.

I agree that Biden probably needs to have as minimal of a presence in the campaign as possible, but I don't know if that's necessarily going to be as big of a problem as you think.

2,367

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Ehhhhh, I don't know if Biden can get away with "campaigning from his basement" this time.  I pray I am wrong, but he really comes off badly at many of these speeches.  Trump is no better, in fact, he's 100x worse, constantly lying and getting people's names wrong, but again, his people don't care. 

As for the 2020 election, it's definitely a Trump rallying cry.  Early voting and vote by mail, which was a Republican mainstay until the idiot ruined that, remain popular.  Those who complain will be marginalized as conspiratorial nuts they are.  The ONE area that the GOP is right on, is voter ID.  It's 2024, everything and everyone is electronic at this point, and who is being disenfranchised by being asked to prove you are a legit voter?

I do find it funny that Biden may well start bitching about how Republicans refuse to "help him" on the border now.  It may well become a "stroke of genius," because the GOP will never pass any sort of border bill, even funding of DHS or USBP increases, while Biden is in office.  It's something I've been screaming about forever to this point.  Unfortunately, the Biden administration has too many leftist buffoons who can not get it through their heads that the overwhelming majority of the country is NOT for rampant unregulated immigration.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn responded to the Iowa comment, I'm defering to him. However, there's something in Grizzlor's post that stands out to me:

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump speaks to EVERY aggrieved citizen, of any race.  That's like saying a rapper only connects to minorities, when scores of fans wind up being affluent white kids.  Trump is a senior citizen's gansta rapper!!!  And you need not be white to approve of his crude, mean messaging.

I think comments like these are why you often come off as a Trump supporter to QuinnSlidr.

As a response to me, I find it nonsensically incongruent to my words. By quoting my post before your comments, you are claiming that I made arguments that I argued against.

ireactions wrote:

Trump speaks to aggrieved white men, but I certainly wouldn't claim he only speaks to them and I should certainly have identified that as his core demographic to avoid the impression that I thought it his only one.

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump speaks to EVERY aggrieved citizen, of any race.  That's like saying a rapper only connects to minorities, when scores of fans wind up being affluent white kids.  Trump is a senior citizen's gansta rapper!!!  And you need not be white to approve of his crude, mean messaging.

My comment was clearly about Trump's specific appeal to Caucasian men and acknowledging that Trump's has appeal to other demographics. Your reference to rappers is a non-sequitur and a peculiar accusation of segregationist thinking. It comes off as deceitful and disingenuous. The outside observer would be understanding if I considered this a deliberate lie on your part instead of an error.

But then you went further: you declared that Trump has universal appeal to all Americans and that all Americans would vote for him, a baffling remark from someone who claims to not be a Trump voter:

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump speaks to EVERY aggrieved citizen, of any race.

Grizzlor wrote:

He appeals to all races, and particularly to blue collar types, like a pro wrestler does.

Each of those sentences makes you seem like a Trump supporter declaring that any dislike, criticism, revulsion and opposition to Donald Trump does not exist. Alternatively and preferably, that isn't what you meant to say and you have some communications difficulties. But regardless of what you intended, your statement purports to apply to all people, and that is plainly not true.

Not everyone with a grievance is a Trump supporter and Trump does not appeal to "EVERY" citizen who has an issue with society or government.

The word "grievance" means "a wrong or other cause for complaint or protest, especially unfair treatment, real or imagined; a feeling of resentment over something believed to be wrong or unfair." Every American citizen has at least a few causes for complaint and resentments with society, government, economy and culture: these include underfunded social safety nets, unequal wealth distribution, police violence against minorities, environmental damage, inadequate health care, availability of drinking water, housing, labour rights, gender violence and assault, wages, corporate greed.

There is not a single person in America who doesn't have a grievance of some kind. They don't all vote Trump.

If you mean to claim that they all do, then you are making making a false claim to express your support for a totalitarian state. You are saying that you are a Trump supporter yourself... or this is the unfortunate and accidental result of you mimicking my noun choice ("grievance") but omitting my nuances:

ireactions wrote:

Trump's demographic is white men who feel that the privileges of being male and Caucasian have feel undermined by women and people of colour who aren't heterosexual. He preys upon their narcissism and wounded egos, telling them that they can overlook Trump's obvious lies and path of ruin because the sense of power and dominance is more important.

ireactions wrote:

Trump speaks to aggrieved white men, but I certainly wouldn't claim he only speaks to them and I should certainly have identified that as his core demographic to avoid the impression that I thought it his only one.

The term "grievance" refers to different resentments and wrongs depending on the different contexts in which the term is used. In terms of white men, it applies to the privilege that comes with being Caucasian being undermined. When you apply the term "grievance" to a different demographic, it refers to an entirely different set of issues which would have differing responses and outcomes. But your claim is this:

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump speaks to EVERY aggrieved citizen, of any race.

Grizzlor wrote:

He appeals to all races, and particularly to blue collar types, like a pro wrestler does.

That's saying the only possible response from an American with an issue is to vote for Trump. That's effectively ad copy for a campaign commercial for a fascist dictatorship.

Your claim resembles the rhetoric of a Trump supporter. The outside observer would forgive me for wondering if you actually find an American fascist state to be appealing, seeing as you yourself are someone who has difficulties and resentments (like anyone who lives in America) and you yourself are saying that Trump appeals to "EVERY" American who has a problem of any kind. That would include you.

I'm aggrieved and Trump doesn't speak to me or for me, and for you to claim he does speak for me is flat out wrong.

If you didn't mean to include yourself or me in your blanket generalization, and I can't see why you would mean to, I would suggest that you not use blanket generalizations. This sort of comment is why you come off as a Trumpist to QuinnSlidr. You would also come off as a Trumpist to me if I hadn't been reading your posts for years and seen you regularly call Republicans crooks and liars.

But regardless, the statement is simply incorrect. I hope it is not what you meant to say and instead reflects what you've said on previous occasions:

Grizzlor wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this forum about a television show was in reality a graduate level discussion board

Grizzlor wrote:

I don't read every post, I probably miss 75% of them.

Grizzlor wrote:

I was lazy and not fully articulate

Grizzlor wrote:

I go to sleep and forget what I even write here, until I check the board again days or a week or so later.

Regardless of how much thought or time you put into your words, regardless of how little consideration you have for a message board, regardless of whether or not you remember what you post after posting it, regardless of whether or not you want to be represented by your words, you are responsible for your words.

You are responsible for how your words present you to others because they are your words.

I am also responsible for my words: my initial post about Elizabeth Holmes described what I considered to be Trump's demographic of choice, and because it didn't touch on other demographics, it gave the impression that I thought it his only demographic. I refuted the implication... and your 'response' was to chastise me for making the implication I was refuting.

I notice that you are again insinuating that you should decide what subjects are to be discussed and what subjects are off limits:

Grizzlor wrote:

My point remains, why are we wasting time squabbling over why MAGA exists and who's in it?  Who cares?

Slider_Quinn21, QuinnSlidr and I have raised this subject of politics at various points in this political thread which we're permitted to do in the course of political discussion. Our comments are not falsehoods about health and safety; even if they are incorrect, they do not contain any content that could would cause physical harm to others if followed.

It's not for you to declare that this area of political discussion is out of place in the political thread. You are free to not respond to it. Note that I myself am unsure of how to respond to predictions of the 2024 election outcome and have been focused more on psychology and left polling analysis to others. Note that I am untrusting of polls after 2016, 2020 and 2022 but didn't and wouldn't demand that poll discussion cease.

I suggest that rather than trying to control other people's subject choices, you instead take responsibility for your own words.

I suggest you consider your communications style of absolutist generalizations and how it comes off as ardent support for the election of a fascist, authoritarian state.

If it's not what you mean to convey, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is not -- then perhaps you will rethink what you say and how you say it.

I hope this response came off as moderated and modulated as I intended it to be.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

On another note...

I have recently made two health decisions, one of which is questionable, and one of which is simply stupid. Neither reflects well on my credulity or competence, so naturally, I have to talk about it to all of you in the interests of fairness.

During my pneumonia, my doctor recommended ginseng, elderberry and echinacea to build up more resistance to colds and flu. I gamely bought the supplements and found they did nothing. However. I have very clear memories of my grandfather boiling these dried herbs and others for me as Traditional Chinese Medicine when I was a child, and after drinking them, I would feel like Superman in direct sunlight or the Professor after mainlining a Slushie.

I did a little reading and I learned that there is no real regulatory oversight on on ginseng, elderberry and echinacea pills; those capsules sold in the grocery store more often than not are just filled with ground up rice or nuts or vegetable matter.

In the interests of giving my doctor a fair hearing, I ventured into the depths of a Chinese apothecary and procured ginseng teabags and elderberry-echinacea blend teabags. I don't know if they will do anything for me, but I note that they certainly taste like ginseng and elderberry and echinacea.

This is highly questionable. My memories of my grandfather's bitter concoctions being like the super soldier serum may be a fond and false recollection, and these tea bags may just be some random plant filler with artificial flavouring. It may all be bunk.

**

In terms of the stupid: in the middle of 2020, I bought two 3.78 litre jugs of Solvable hand sanitizer from a local hardware and housewares store, Canadian Tire. This massive quantity of hand sanitizer for about $25 USD made more sense than buying pocket-sized bottles of hand sanitizer.

I instead bought empty, pocket sized squeeze bottles and pump-operated soap dispensers. I would pour the Solvable sanitizer into these containers and distribute them through my home, office, car, shoulder bag and storage space. It was a superb financial decision, especially when, as of last week at the 3.5 year mark, I had only used about 3 litres of the sanitizer and the second jug was not even open yet.

Also last week: I noticed that the environmental activism manager at work was, for some reason, gathering up a lot of hand sanitizer around the office. I asked her why and she explained to me that much of the sanitizer had been purchased in late 2020 and had now expired. I gaped at her, astonished to learn that hand sanitizer expires. I went home and checked the jugs of Solvable; they had expired two years ago in 2021.

The 70 percent alcohol would likely have gone to about 50 percent; the antiviral and antibacterial efficacy would have gone from being 99.99 percent effective to maybe about 70 percent. I had been using expired hand sanitizer with weakened antibacterial and antiviral effect for the last two years. I had been having my mother and sister use it before working with my mother's dialysis equipment for the last six months.

I'm an idiot.

It was at this point I also learned: Solvable hand sanitizer received only interim approval in March 2020 from Health Canada to be manufactured and sold. This was part of a government effort to make hand sanitizer easier to procure during the pandemic; certain quality and safety standards were lowered. Manufacturers were, under emergency regulatory permission, allowed to make hand sanitizer with technical grade or industrial grade ethanol which have more impurities and skin-damaging effects than food or pharmaceutical grade ethanol; they were also permitted to make products with higher levels of the benzene carcinogen than would normally be allowed in hand sanitizer.

Solvable was pulled from the market when the interim permission expired in April 2023, so this hand sanitizer I've been using for three years was a shabby, risky product that was only ever meant for short-term use until more quality-oriented manufacturers could raise their output.

Using expired, low quality hand sanitizer for the last three years was very, very, very stupid, especially given my mother's condition.

Anyway. I bought some Purell refill bottles and refilled all the pumps and travel sized bottles in my life with the good stuff. I did something very foolish and I hope you can all forgive me. I hope the world will forgive me. I hope God will forgive me. I hope Cajero, spirit of the heavens, will forgive me.

2,370

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well I hope you didn't pour the old stuff down the drain!  It's flammable.  Wouldn't washing hands with soap be more effective than Purell? 

I hear these people who swear by changes in diet, and that prevents illnesses.  Not that easy, given that most people are kind of stuck eating/drinking processed and heavily artificial products.  There remains a genetic component, with regards to overall health, obviously you can't do anything about that.  As someone who has spent a life of suffering from a range of upper respiratory problems due to allergies, chronic sinus issues and poor air quality living in suburbia, the environmental risks are probably worse for me than genetics or lifestyle.  Studies continue to prove a direct link between pollution and all kinds of sicknesses, and don't even start with the microplastics.  You just want to dig a hole and bury yourself in it. 

I've never found much of anything from a drug store that works aside from steroids or codeine.  And you can't take those too often.  I've just become more and more doubtful of store bought "medicine."  When they finally did a study on Sudafed, I laughed, because I could have told them it doesn't work.  I tried it many times, never helped.  The "old world" diets and treatments have hundreds if not thousands of years of actual results.  In reality, most of what you can ingest, that's sold at a grocery store or pharmacy, goes largely unregulated.  Fruit, vegetables, fish (not from oceans), and staying away from grain.  Do I do this?  Of course not (big dummy here).

I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm playing "devil's advocate here."  Since no one posting is voting for Trump.  I'm not sure what you're so peeved about since I actually agreed with your "white guy" theory?  It doesn't explain WHY he can or may win!!!  Those fools he's already got hoodwinked.  The vast majority of men AND women in the Republican Party are just MAGA.  If not for the GOP assault on Roe vs Wade, they'd probably come close to winning the female vote, too.  It's happened before, they used to have a lock on married women almost everywhere.  Women are just as capable of being crass and ignorant as men, equal opportunity!  Trump bellows plenty of red meat for them too.  I have to hear them in my family alone. 

Moreover, when I say he "speaks to every aggrieved person," yes that's his intent.  I didn't say most hear or listen to him.  Sorry if my grammar isn't perfect at all times.  I HATED English class, and much was ignored/missed.  But again, my point this entire time is that Trump continues to have this cement wall at 46-48% he cannot get beyond, due to his nasty populism and overall crudeness.  That doesn't mean that Biden is going to recapture the difference.  These are the voters who will matter.  You nor I will matter, we are already in a bucket.  It's getting the people who actually flip flop between parties, to stay Blue.  I'm trying to be helpful here, and push the discussion away from ideology and towards reality.  Slider Quinn has been there with me. 

Do not fall into the 2016 trap like I did back then.  What? Hillary is 2:1 unpopular?  Mehhhhhhhh, big deal, the other guy's a compulsive liar and a fraud, nobody will vote for him!  Well son of a gun.  QuinnSldr may well be right, and I'm just paranoid, but I've been screwed over before on this.  I can remember 2000, it was probably more stunning to me than even 2016.  The economy was outstanding in 2000, and yet Al Gore got beat by a colossal dufus, because he pissed off coal country, and Bush promised to cut taxes. 

You're "terrified" of the election, I'm defeatist, good chance having a mental breakdown.  Probably should shut up about it, because it's not fun being the party pooper, but I just cannot fathom that Biden and the Democrats have put themselves in this position.  It's careless, it's selfish, and I'm fed up.  I could be like my father, who just stopped speaking to friends and relatives, because he couldn't take their MAGA crying anymore, because St. Donald went home in 2021.  But I'm the guy who starts bitching when the team is ahead by 3 touchdowns because we have a reputation for blowing it at the end.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm going to take a moment to go limp with relief regarding the non-health comments. I'm reserving judgement on how I think 2024 will shake out, but yes, I'm worried. I'll have some more to say about my anxieties at some later point.

Regarding health matters:

The expired/low quality hand sanitizer is being sent to a disposal facility that handles most hazardous materials. I asked if they would also take my DVD set of SLIDERS: THE COMPLETE THIRD SEASON and they hung up on me, so I guess they have their limits.

While I prefer handwashing (because hand sanitizer used more than three times daily causes the skin on my fingers to peel), I need to use hand sanitizer to kill all viruses and bacteria on my hands before handing my mother's dialysis equipment. The failure to disinfect risks all sorts of infections for her.

A constant criticism of cough, cold and flu medication is that it's either in dosages too low to be effective (partially to avoids side effects, partially so that profit margins are higher). The issue with phenylephrine that I've read about: it works only when in direct contact with the nasal passages, but it has no effect when ingested and digested. I would be interested to know, Grizzlor, if you ever tried it in nasal spray form.

Anecdotally, for my pneumonia at the end of last year, I was on antibiotics and steroids both nasal and oral as decongestants, antihistamines and cough suppressants.

Outside of illness, I have had excellent results from nasal sprays with fluticasone steroid and oxymetazoline hydrochloride decongestant, but Grizzlor's right that one can't use them regularly; steroids increase infection risk and oxymetazoline hydrochloride makes you overly dependent on it.

I keep those for emergencies, but I'm mostly on cetirizine hydrochloride. Strangely, cetirizine hydrochloride tablets have no effect on my allergies while it works in liquid gel cap form for me. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride works for me in tablet or pill format for about a week, and then loses all effect.

Antihistamines that have not worked for me: fexofenadine, loratadine, chlorpheniramine and desloratadine.

I have probably taken phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine at some point when sick in one of those 'complete' flu medicine drink mixes or tablets, but given how ill I would have been to take those, I would be too disoriented to tell you how effective they were because I would have gone to bed.

I find that vitamin supplements from grocery stores are reliable. B-complex, vitamins C & D, and multivitamins showed up in my annual bloodwork. (My doctor had me take only half-doses of multivitamin daily and restrict the B and C pills to when feeling diminished.) I take the lysine amino acid for cold sores which is why I get for kissing strange women in my youth; I know the lysine is genuine because my cold sores come back when I miss a few days.

However, over the counter medications and vitamins and synthetic amino acids like lysine have some level of regulatory oversight to ensure that what's on the label is inside the box, even if what's inside may not be effective. Herbal supplements lack regulation. There is clearly nothing right now to stop any company from selling encapsulated broccoli as ginseng, echinacea, ginkgo biloba or whatever sticker they throw on the bottle.

Anecdotally, my best experiences with those herbs was through my grandfather boiling them in a clay pot for 3 - 6 hours and having me drink a ghastly tasting brew. My suspicion is that even if the grocery store versions of these pills were the actual herbs, dried extract powder may not have the same metabolic absorbtion and lack the bioavailability of a boiled decoction.

I don't know if I can reliably report on what the echinacea-elderberry or ginseng teas will do because it could be affected by bias and expectations. But I'll give my doctor's advice a try.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think the 2024 election will come down to a few things:

(as shorthand, I'm going to refer to anyone that's actually a toss-up voter as "non-MAGA".  Obviously MAGA will vote for Trump no matter what and Biden will get the hardcore Democrats)

1. The economy.  The economy is starting to worry Trump because he's talking about it a lot.  He's recently admitted that Biden has been drilling a ton, has admitted the stock market is doing really well, and has admitted that gas prices are down.  Of course, in typical Trump fashion, he's claiming that Biden is just drilling for the election and that drilling and gas prices are going to go back to low and high, respectively, once Biden has been re-elected.  He also claims that he's responsible for the stock market being high since he's winning in the polls.

So what will non-MAGA think of any of that?  Will they believe Trump's theories or trust how the economy "feels"?  Will they give Biden credit for a strong 2024 economy, or will they still blame him too much for the post-Covid economy?  Trump is obviously positioning any Biden success as Trump success, but will that work with people that might not love Trump?

Obviously, if the economy tanks (or even just doesn't keep getting better), Biden is going to have a hard time.

2. The Border.  The other thing that Biden polls poorly at (at the moment).  But Biden has been speaking about it a lot, and the new Republican conspiracy theory is that Biden wants the House to not pass the border deal so that he can claim it's the Republicans' fault.  I don't know what non-MAGA is going to make of that.  Will they simply go by statistics (meaning even if Republicans pass legislation, Biden gets credit?) or will they understand the issue deep enough to know the details?

3. The Trials.  This is actually #1 in terms of things that will impact the election, I think, but I'm putting it here because I think it's a less reliable factor since we don't know if any of these trials will happen in time for it to matter.  I think there's a 0.0% chance that the Florida case happens before the election (if at all, if Cannon has her way), and it's the same chance that Georgia gets started before the election.  That leaves New York (which I think voters care less about) and the big one in DC.  DC is the only one that I think has a chance to move the election (polls have said that if Trump is guilty of any of the crimes he's been indicted for, he could lose as much as 1/3 of his support, but I can't imagine they mean New York).

So in DC, Trump is arguing about immunity.  And he's talking about immunity a ton.  For whatever reason, the appeals court hasn't ruled yet.  The longer they wait, the longer the appeal to the Supreme Court.  And if the Supreme Court takes the case, the delay could be massive.  Best case for people wanting the trial to be complete before the election (win or lose) is for the appeals court to rule against Trump and for the Supreme Court to deny taking the case.  If that happens, we should probably have a trial during the summer or earlier.

If Trump is convicted, polling strongly suggests that Trump has no shot.  He'd essentially lose half of his non-MAGA support.  Would voters change their mind (making more or less of them not vote for him) by the time the election comes?  Absolutely.  But I just can't believe enough Americans are willing to vote for a convicted felon for Trump to win.

4. Trump and Biden gaffes.  They're both older, and they're both prone to speaking like older men.  Biden's is more about looking old and frail.  Trump's is more about being confused about people or places or time periods or history.  We'll have to see if Trump's recent gaffes affect him in polls, but I'm assuming that enough people aren't paying attention yet (and the media isn't really covering the gaffes).

I agree that perception still matters, but will Americans be more likely to vote for frail or crazy?

5. The wars.  Ukraine, Gaza, and the Houthis will be a big part of the election.  Trump can claim that he was strong enough that no one was willing to go to war while he was president.  Biden can claim that Trump was buddies with dictators and despots who were too busy getting everything they wanted to go to war.  I do think Putin is trying to cause as much trouble as he can because it helps Trump.  Will Americans believe that?  Will pro-Palestine democrats cause issues for Biden if Gaza isn't resolved by the election?

6. Biden's wins.  Will non-MAGA give credit to Biden for all the things that Biden was able to do?  The infrastructure bill is starting to show real progress that Americans are going to notice.  Are they going to know that Biden provided that progress?

7. Social issues / "Woke" - I think any discussion of this hurts Biden.  Luckily, it seems like DeSantis was going to run his entire campaign on this stuff, and he didn't do very well.  So maybe Trump won't bring it up as much either.

I think most of these are positive for Biden.  The only question is whether non-MAGA will consider them positives.  Will they give him credit for a strong economy?  Will they trust that he's working on the border?  Will they abandon Trump based on the trials?  Will they pay attention to the craziness Trump talks about?  Will they blame Biden for wars abroad?  Will they give Biden credit for what he accomplished?  And have they moved beyond the "woke" stuff?  I think they need to say "no" to most of these for Trump to win, but I don't know if that's horribly unlikely.

2,373

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Here it is, a short read, but absolutely the perfect study of the "Trump voter."  Old white guy, retired, Army vet, white collar IT job.  Hems, haws, claims he voted for Obama, supports Haley, watches too much Fox News. Eventually declares for Trump, and you see all his formerly rational political positions melt away into an absolute silly puddle of lame.  If this doesn't encapsulate the Trump/GOP electorate, I don't know what does?  Aside from the fools in red hats, they just cannot quit this guy.  The parrot his increasingly sloven attempt at defending his transgressions, it's just so tribal.  They don't want to ADMIT they've spent so many years being dimwitted & taken by the con man.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … r-00136850

In better observations, here's a piece on the potential looming mess awaiting Trump in November.  i.e. the voters who soured on Trump early, and dumped him in 2020, and are still motivated against. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/2 … m-00137112

**********

I use Nasacort spray for seasonal allergies, which is triamcinolone acetonide.  In addition to Allegra non-drowsy.  But I also get monthly shots since 1993!  Do any of these things actually work?  I honestly couldn't say.  I think you become clutched to them, or dare I say, addicted, but hard to say.  Most of the time I am fine.  I also use Flonase if I need something strong, and that is fluticasone propionate which is a Glucocorticoid, which you mentioned.  This is all OTC.   However, back in like the 90s, when I was far more sickly, I was using asthma inhalers and taking steroids and using aerosol (not even liquid) steroid sprays.  How I even have nasal membranes left I do not know? 

But my issues go back to childhood, and have involved a few nasal/sinus surgeries, and the existence of polyps.  I just manage it.  You will NEVER put me under the knife for a sinus surgery again.  I cannot even convey the discomfort and outright pain involved with one of those.  I just am glad that they didn't remove any part of my sinuses, because it's now been found that those people suffer horribly throughout their lives.  That there's a number of reasons that by doing so you change the flow of air and nerves and whatnot in your head, and it makes sleeping very difficult.  It's likely this is what caused the chronic sleep issues Michael Jackson (yes quite an example) had, which resulted in an addiction to propofol and eventually his death. 

Is it anecdotal this increase in pneumonia, flu's and viruses in general, outside of COVID?  I would think not.  It makes you think, could the prolonged exclusion from most of these bugs for 2 or 3 years, have caused immune systems to take the proverbial nap?  i.e. you may not have been sick in years prior to the pandemic, but your body was still being hit with all kinds of microbes, and the immune system was doing its job.   Perhaps several years is needed to reset the herd immunity to many of these viruses?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Meanwhile, Trump's State case in Georgia is likely over.  The District Attorney Fani Willis, is now mired in a serious corruption crisis that honestly should force her resignation over.  I had zero faith in her case regardless, but this is really the end of it.  Paying for your married boyfriend, on the taxpayers' dime, is really unforgivable.  She's done, and so is the case.

I'm not putting a name to the quoted post because I don't want my post to be perceived as directed at anyone in particular.

There are serious optics issues when a district attorney hires a lover to work as a special prosecutor. It opens up all sorts of vulnerabilities to nuisance motions.

However, Georgia courts and the Georgia Supreme Court have ruled repeatedly that romantic relationships between lawyers are not grounds for disqualifying prosecutors. Georgia courts have even approved of married lawyers trying cases on opposite sides.

The motion from Trump's legal team regarding Fani Willis and Nathan Wade is nothing but a nuisance motion. It claims there is a conflict of interest for Willis to have hired Wade to work on the election interference case, alleging a romantic relationship between them.

Conflict of interest: a situation in which a person has multiple interests, and serving one area of interest can involve working against another.

How can there be a conflict of interest from two lawyers working on the same case as prosecutors? Their interests are identical: to secure a conviction of the defendant.

Why is it inappropriate for Nathan Wade to profit from taxpayer money? Wade is working for the district attorney's office, a taxpayer funded department that paid him his hourly rate out of taxpayer funds. Why should a lawyer and prosecutor go unpaid for their work? Should lawyers and prosecutors work for free?

How exactly are Willis and Wade defrauding the public? Fani Willis paid Nathan Wade for his legal work by depositing the money for his work into Wade's bank account which Wade then used to make personal purchases. Receiving payments and making purchases is how consumer capitalism functions.

How exactly is Wade benefitting inappropriately from his hiring? Wade is being paid the same rate as John Floyd and Anna Cross, the other two attorneys hired to work on the case.

How is Wade's hiring a misuse of power? The district attorney has struggled to find lawyers willing to take on Donald Trump and many have refused to take the job because they are targets for harassment, and Wade is not the only lawyer hired by the DA to work this case.

How exactly is there misconduct against Trump in Wade being hired to prosecute Trump? Criminal prosecution is a valid legal process; a prosecutor is engaged in the work of the justice system, and Wade, like any prosecutor, gets paid the same whether Trump is convicted or not.

How exactly is there a conflict of interest in the case if Wade (allegedly) uses his payments to buy Willis anything? Their interest is the same: to convict Donald Trump.

If it's improper for a lawyer to work for the taxpayer and be paid by the taxpayer, then no one should ever work for government again. If it's improper for a person to be paid money for their work and then spend that money, then no one should ever earn a living again.

How exactly would an alleged romantic relationship between Willis and Wade affect the legitimacy or validity of the work they are doing together on the case they are prosecuting?

How would their shared goals -- convicting Donald Trump of election interference -- be in conflict from a romantic relationship?

People who are in the process of a divorce have the right to date. A broken marriage is a messy business. Divorce is a messy business. Consenting adults who are coworkers have the right to date. There is no conflict of interest between two lawyers with the same goals having a romantic relationship between each other.

Once again, in the state of Georgia, lawyers working on the same case have the right to date. Romantic relationships between lawyers are not grounds for disqualifying prosecutors or lawyers from working on cases against each other. Therefore, there's also no basis for disqualifying lawyers who are romantically involved and on the same side of the same case.

But having said all of that -- if Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are in a romantic relationship, then Willis hiring Wade was a poor strategic choice no matter what legal precedents had been established. Willis hiring Wade presented an easy point of vulnerability for a smear with a massive splash in the media that would become a distraction and an impediment.

I guess this was a roundabout way back to an adjacent position.

2,375

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

No, no, it's a very fair and well written rebuttal.  There is no legal or procedural restriction against dating your employee, but many frown upon it.  There are also claims that they took vacations "on the public dime," which I'd think she's not that stupid enough to do.  The District Attorney is a political position, although I doubt Ms. Willis is in any danger there.  I would agree there's nothing prejudicial alleged against Trump's case.  Either way, there's a hearing in Georgia for Feb 15 where apparently Willis will have to explain the Wade hiring to the judge. 

That's to say nothing about state oversight which would come from Republicans, that could end in impeachment, though that's unlikely.  Regardless, as I continue to harp on, you have to be utterly perfect, in so many ways, to take down someone like Trump.  He has too many allies all over the country who will intervene on his part.  Not to mention he'll appeal everything down to the color of tie the judge was wearing.  If Willis and her team are pushed to recuse, then the "Prosecutor's Council of Georgia" would need to find replacement attorneys.  This already happened to another Trump co-defendant, who received new prosecutors when a Judge removed Willis for appearing at a Democrat fundraiser.

It just feeds my personal paranoia that Trump will not face criminal prosecution before November.  The justice system I really feel is telling the electorate, we're not going to save you people, you have to do it yourselves.

*****

In other news, Trump will win in New Hampshire although Haley won't drop out yet.  The margin seems to be closer than many pundits claimed as of late.  The turnout was very high, and likely featured a large segment of independents and Democrats looking to stick the proverbial fork in Donald prior to November.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

It just feeds my personal paranoia that Trump will not face criminal prosecution before November.  The justice system I really feel is telling the electorate, we're not going to save you people, you have to do it yourselves.

This is how I feel.  I think everything is set up for the trials to be background noise in the election instead of an actual issue.  Which sucks.  I think people would pay attention to a Trump trial and see all the things he's done.  Polls have shown that non-MAGA Republicans are willing to listen to reason and that significant swaths of them would abandon Trump if he's convicted of anything.

The annoying thing about Georgia is that they had to know that Trump and team would be looking for any distractions they could find.  Anything to appear political.  Anything to throw people off.  How could they not have thought about this before they proceeded.

I don't think it kills the Georgia case because it won't go to trial for a long time.  By that point, they'll either have their ducks in a row, or we'll have already talked it to death.

But like I said, our best hope is the DC case.  A strong case.  A judge that wants to move the case along.  I think as long as the case is more about Trump's election interference and less about January 6th (which non-Democrats seem to have stopped caring about), I think it could be deadly to Trump's cases.  We just need the courts to move this immunity appeal along.  They have to stop playing into Trump's hands with all the delays.

2,377

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

From NBC's Steve Kornacki, reporting a massive gap between indies and GOP'ers in the primary last night.  Trump won R's 75-25, but lost I's 38-60.  Most recently, in 2016, Trump had about 1/3 of R's and I's evenly in a much larger field.  Granted you did have unaffiliated and Dems voting in this one, it continues the narrative that independents hate Trump. 

Haley is "expected" to hang around until her state's primary on Feb 24th, where polls show her being demolished by Trump.  There's even rumblings from her team that she might choose to languish through Super Tuesday two weeks later, because 11 of 16 states are "Open" primaries where you don't need to be registered Republican to participate.  She's delaying the inevitable.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Haley is "expected" to hang around until her state's primary on Feb 24th, where polls show her being demolished by Trump.  There's even rumblings from her team that she might choose to languish through Super Tuesday two weeks later, because 11 of 16 states are "Open" primaries where you don't need to be registered Republican to participate.  She's delaying the inevitable.

I guess it depends on what she's trying to get out of this.  If nothing else changes, it's probably pointless to stay in the primary.  If she has the money, there's reasons to stay in.  If she's betting on MAGA falling apart after 2024, she's probably the frontrunner of the 2028 if she stays in long enough.  She doesn't have majority support, but she does have a lot of support.  Anti-Trump Republicans will remember, and it could put her in a good spot.

Let's also not forget that Trump is a) about to be on trial b) making an alarming number of gaffes and c) is 77 and not particularly healthy.  If he has to drop out for any reason, Haley is at least picking up delegates.  The more she stays in, the more delegates she gets.

And, again, if she has money, the longer she stays in the more she hurts Trump.  If she's legitimately concerned about Trump, staying in forces Trump to work and spend money to fight her, and it delays the whole party getting behind him.  Not to mention, he's losing more and more suburban women every time he attacks her.  Even if she loses every primary, I'm hoping she stays in as long as possible.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
Grizzlor wrote:

Haley is "expected" to hang around until her state's primary on Feb 24th, where polls show her being demolished by Trump.  There's even rumblings from her team that she might choose to languish through Super Tuesday two weeks later, because 11 of 16 states are "Open" primaries where you don't need to be registered Republican to participate.  She's delaying the inevitable.

I guess it depends on what she's trying to get out of this.  If nothing else changes, it's probably pointless to stay in the primary.  If she has the money, there's reasons to stay in.  If she's betting on MAGA falling apart after 2024, she's probably the frontrunner of the 2028 if she stays in long enough.  She doesn't have majority support, but she does have a lot of support.  Anti-Trump Republicans will remember, and it could put her in a good spot.

Let's also not forget that Trump is a) about to be on trial b) making an alarming number of gaffes and c) is 77 and not particularly healthy.  If he has to drop out for any reason, Haley is at least picking up delegates.  The more she stays in, the more delegates she gets.

And, again, if she has money, the longer she stays in the more she hurts Trump.  If she's legitimately concerned about Trump, staying in forces Trump to work and spend money to fight her, and it delays the whole party getting behind him.  Not to mention, he's losing more and more suburban women every time he attacks her.  Even if she loses every primary, I'm hoping she stays in as long as possible.

Even though Haley may be hurting Trump, she is just as bad and endorses all of his same policies. I'll feel better once both are out and Biden secures another term.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Even though Haley may be hurting Trump, she is just as bad and endorses all of his same policies. I'll feel better once both are out and Biden secures another term.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

Haley is speaking out and convincing Republicans that Trump is literally talking crazy.  She's telling the truth, and people are listening.  It isn't enough people for her to win (any) primary, but any amount helps.  Of course she isn't going to win, but as long as she's in the race, she's going to attack Trump (even if it's weak or limited) and Trump has to campaign against her and not Biden.

2,381

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

These Republicans, other than single-minded Christie, are all broken inside.  They have been so afraid of their own voters, and refuse to lead on anything.  Just worthless.  My feeling on Haley remains that while her policies would reek, I could "sleep at night" if she were President, as opposed to Trump.  Plus I just really despise the guy, and want him to lose any chance there is.  Anyway, here's the key, if Gov. Haley does what John Kasich did in 2016, she would be able to remain in the primary through June.  What did he do?  He spent minimally, but he did NOT have a huge staff or ridiculous travel expenses.  I doubt she would accept this bare bones campaign BUT should Trump flame out in some way, she could arrive in July at the convention and make it happen.  It's a long shot.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

She's driving him insane.  He's attacking anyone supporting her, and this will cost him votes the longer she stays in.

He also released this long video talking about his plan to disassemble the Deep State.  Hopefully this video gets spread around because there's no way that plays with non-MAGA Republicans or Independents.  The crazier he gets, the more comfortable I get that Biden will win.  This far-right QAnon-focused campaign is not going to play.

2,383 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2024-01-26 11:48:38)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The border is going to be interesting.  Senate Republicans were trying to push through a bill that would address the border, Ukraine, and Israel.  They were urging House Republicans to take it because it's their only shot.  The thought being that, if Trump wins, the Democrats will be unwilling to negotiate on anything.  House Republicans freaked out, as did conservative media.  Then Trump got involved.  He wants nothing to happen so he can campaign on it.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in my state are taking matters into their own hands, ignoring federal orders and the Supreme Court.  Trump and a bunch of Republican governors are supporting it, and it's unknown how that's all going to be resolved.

But it's so bizarre.  Republicans are on conservative TV, talking to Republicans about how they're not going to pass any legislation at the border because it helps Biden.  So they're telling their voters that there's a problem, but they're going to leave it a problem for the next ten months to help Trump.  Meanwhile, they're going to allow/help Texas take matters into their own hands. 

If they succeed, the border will be less of an issue (because it'll be harder to cross the border, I guess) and Republicans can take credit, but would that also take the issue off the table?  Do voters really care how the problem got solved if it got solved?

I've said it before, but I think Biden needs to pivot to the right on the border.  He shouldn't pivot all the way to Abbott, obviously, but polling shows that almost everyone thinks Biden is too left on this.  There also aren't nearly enough people to the left of Biden that he needs to worry about.  Biden shouldn't wait on Congress and should issue executive orders that strengthen the border.  Work with anti-Trump Republicans to see what would be a good compromise and make it work.  He has to address it, or it's going to kill him in November.  And he can't say it's not an issue because voters think it is.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't find lies and hyperbole interesting. The border is just that - a republican lie. America was built on immigration. We should never allow or tolerate intolerance of differences in fellow human beings.

But all the border junk just screams that: intolerance.

2,385 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2024-01-26 17:10:08)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I mean I'm in Texas.  I don't see any problems here.  I don't feel invaded.

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether it's a real issue or not.  It's an issue for Biden in the general election.  He can ignore it, write off people who think its an issue, and maybe he can still win.  Or he can do something about it and maybe win back some voters.  I'm not looking to take any chances and since 80% of Americans think that Biden is to the left of them on immigration, I think it's reasonable for him to move to the right.

He could also divert funds to the Border Patrol.  He could make a big deal about the parts of the wall he's forced to make.  There's a ton of space between where Biden is now and where Abbott is that he could move to the right on.  The choice isn't "razor wire and kids in cages" or "do nothing."  There's a lot he can do that wouldn't be harmful or inhumane to migrants.

And if he wants voters who are generally fine with Biden as long as the border gets fixed, then isn't it worth it to get those voters?

2,386

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It doesn't matter how much a court orders him to pay.  He won't cough up a cent because he knows no judge has the guts to put him in jail for not doing it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I mean I'm in Texas.  I don't see any problems here.  I don't feel invaded.

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether it's a real issue or not.  It's an issue for Biden in the general election.  He can ignore it, write off people who think its an issue, and maybe he can still win.  Or he can do something about it and maybe win back some voters.  I'm not looking to take any chances and since 80% of Americans think that Biden is to the left of them on immigration, I think it's reasonable for him to move to the right.

He could also divert funds to the Border Patrol.  He could make a big deal about the parts of the wall he's forced to make.  There's a ton of space between where Biden is now and where Abbott is that he could move to the right on.  The choice isn't "razor wire and kids in cages" or "do nothing."  There's a lot he can do that wouldn't be harmful or inhumane to migrants.

And if he wants voters who are generally fine with Biden as long as the border gets fixed, then isn't it worth it to get those voters?

President Biden is not ignoring it:

Statement from President Joe Biden On the Bipartisan Senate Border Security Negotiations

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … otiations/

For too long, we all know the border’s been broken.

It’s long past time to fix it.

That’s why two months ago, I instructed my team to begin negotiations with a bipartisan group of Senators to seriously, and finally, address the border crisis. For weeks now that’s what they’ve done. Working around the clock, through the holidays, and over weekends.

Let’s be clear.

What’s been negotiated would – if passed into law – be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country.

It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed.  And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.

Further, Congress needs to finally provide the funding I requested in October to secure the border.  This includes an additional 1,300 border patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers, and over 100 cutting-edge inspection machines to help detect and stop fentanyl at our southwest border.

Securing the border through these negotiations is a win for America.

For everyone who is demanding tougher border control, this is the way to do it.

If you’re serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I saw that.  That was very good. Whether it's a legitimate problem or not, Biden needs to make sure he's addressing it.  If they can flip this on the Republicans, that would go a long way to Biden winning convincingly.

2,389 (edited by Grizzlor 2024-01-27 12:02:13)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Immigration is not a cut and die issue.  One of the reasons it was "overlooked" by 95% of politicians was that for decades, the vast majority of border crossings were intentionally evasive, as the entrants were there for some type of work.  Whether they were seasonal workers, or those doing day laborer jobs, intending to send money back home to Central America or whatnot.  Because Rush Limpuke had Bush Jr. guest worker bill scuttled, there is no avenue for them, and their labor was in demand.  Ergo, they don't wish to be caught, and had to fly under the radar.  So they never applied for anything.  Again, the overwhelming % of these "illegals" committed crime at far lower numbers than home grown American crooks.  Yes, some were human traffickers, and many were drug dealers and gang members.  We grow them at home too.  However, it was never the kind of sinister issue that Trump loved to make it. 

Fast forward to now, and what you've had over the last several years is a totally different kind of immigration problem.  In addition to the labor seekers, you've had massive numbers of people escaping violence and poverty in Ecuador, Venezuela, Honduras, etc.  They come as entire families, and often with children.  Others are coming from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.  They're all seeking ASYLUM, which is a completely different scenario.  Trump began forcing these people to "remain in Mexico" which was inhumane, as well as putting young people in camps in Texas, which were barely better.  There is a 3 million backlog or some outrageous number, in asylum cases.  We simply don't have the lawyers or judges on staff.  Republicans don't want to fund them, but let's be honest, neither do Democrats.  These folks are applying for asylum, which is their LEGAL right, and staying here.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, asylum WILL be denied, it's simply that way in the statues.  They will be sent back.  However, the backlog prevents this, and so you have this massive swell of asylum seekers with nowhere to go.

Is it an issue?  It is for cash-strapped cities like New York or Chicago, which never setup this kind of situation, as it hasn't affected them.  They cannot handle these people.  The mayors are begging Abbott to stop busing the migrants.  What should Biden have done?  Well he should have just let "remain in Mexico" stand.  He tried to keep the pandemic order 49 in place, to stem the asylum migrants, but that was struck down.  In reality, there is little Biden can do legally.  Trump acted outside of legality and wasn't challenged, that was the difference.  I would argue it's no longer some "Republican concocted" problem, because this has absolutely become a fiscal issue for large cities and states.

Regardless, it's not an issue IMO that will decide the election.  However, if as I suggested months ago, that Biden turns the tables and now points the finger at Republicans who refuse to sign onto their own bill to fund border security, because Trump told them not to, well that is quite the play.

************************************************************************

In other news, idiot Trump was slapped with $83 million judgement for continuing to de-fame E. Jean Carroll.  His lawyer, Alina Habba, who would have been right at home in Sliders episode "The Young and the Relentless," stupidly left nothing to actually appeal on, so that will go nowhere.  Does he have this money?  Will he actually pay it?  Good question.

2,390

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Is it an issue?  It is for cash-strapped cities like New York or Chicago, which never setup this kind of situation, as it hasn't affected them.

They shouldn't have declared themselves "sanctuary cities" if they weren't prepared to back it up.

In other news, idiot Trump was slapped with $83 million judgement for continuing to de-fame E. Jean Carroll.  His lawyer, Alina Habba, who would have been right at home in Sliders episode "The Young and the Relentless," stupidly left nothing to actually appeal on, so that will go nowhere.  Does he have this money?  Will he actually pay it?  Good question.

It doesn't matter how much a court orders him to pay.  He won't cough up a cent because he knows no judge has the guts to put him in jail for not doing it.  He never paid the five million from the last case he lost to Carroll.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Regardless, it's not an issue IMO that will decide the election.  However, if as I suggested months ago, that Biden turns the tables and now points the finger at Republicans who refuse to sign onto their own bill to fund border security, because Trump told them not to, well that is quite the play.

I guess we'll see.  I'm just saying that if the Democrats think this is as important of an election as they say, then they can't take anything for granted or assume anything.  Every issue needs to be attacked with the idea of getting as many votes as possible.  Clinton lost in 2016 because she assumed that she didn't need to campaign in certain places because she assumed the Obama coalition would stay with the Democrats.  And that coalition fell apart.

Biden can't make that same mistake.  He needs to aggressively court as many votes as possible, pivoting wherever he needs to.  Whatever he does, it won't be any less humane or any more totalitarian than what you'd get under Trump.

Win in 2024.  Worry about literally anything else after that.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wonder if it's time to confront an inconvenient possibility:

What if Trump wins? We can't say it's not possible like we did in 2016 because 2016 proved us wrong.

We also can't say it's a certainty: a past member of this board prognosticated how Trump would be a mastershowman in 2020 and make Biden look fumbling and weak; instead, Trump came off as America's abusive father and Biden felt like the reasonable uncle.

The polls presenting a Trump lead are the same polls that predicted a Democratic wipeout over Republicans as opposed to the slim triumph of 2020.

But what if Trump wins? What do we do then? How do we survive?

Slider_Quinn21, I'm sorry, but my spare room is currently filled with dialysis supplies for my mother, so moving in with me is not an option.

Also, Canada is staring at a potential conversative government of its own because of the ineptitude of Liberals.

2,393

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They make every election seem like the end of the world, but it's not.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight, if you would care to elaborate on how a second Trump presidency wouldn't be the end of the world, I would be very grateful.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

They make every election seem like the end of the world, but it's not.

So the reason why I tend to agree that it would be very bad (not necessarily the end of the world but very bad) is that Trump is unlike most of the people that run for president.  Not only is he an (alleged) criminal, but he has shown time and time again that he's never going to put the interests of the country ahead of his own.  I think he's compromised, not only from a financial sense but from a personality sense.  I think having met guys like Putin and Kim Jong-Un, he wants to run our country like they run theirs.  He's already laid out a plan that would do damage to the way we run the country, and I think that damage would extend beyond four years.  He's also talked about not leaving after four years, and he's working to make enough changes that there might not be any one who can stop him if he tries that.

He also has legitimized the idea that elections cannot be trusted, he's empowered some of the worst segments of our population, and he's empowered a bunch of crazy people that think and act like him.  We were already divided politically, but he supercharged that.

And even if all the things above aren't true, I still think he cannot be allowed to be president.  Even if he truly loves America and is actively working to improve it.  Even if elections are horribly corrupt and fraudulent.  Even if the crimes alleged against him are bogus and political.  Even if every word he's ever said is true...

...he's still a terrible person.  He's still a loudmouth narcissist.  He's still insulting of soldiers and women and minorities and the disabled.  He's still crude and disrespectful and foul and awful.  And I have two daughters who will, between 2024 and 2028, understand what a president is and what he does.  They will be told in school that the president is a great man who is to be admired and respected, and they're going to talk about who is the president.  They might watch the news and hear him speak.  And for all of the flaws of the presidents of my lifetime.  Reagan might have been senile, both George Bushes might've been war criminals, Bill Clinton might've been a pervert, and Obama might've been a socialist (I'm not saying any of these things are true, BTW), but they all talked and acted like presidents when it was time to be president in front of the country.  You could disagree with them but you would respect them.  And I don't want my daughters to have Donald Trump as their president, especially now as they're in their formulative years.  Biden's old, but you can respect him.  I cannot respect Donald Trump.

So I'll do everything I can to make sure he cannot be president again.  And I'm hoping the Biden campaign is doing the same thing.  Compromise, pivot, engage, collaborate, campaign, travel, speak....do whatever you need to do to remove support from Trump to get the win in 2024, and make sure he doesn't tear down the country on his way out.

Maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world.  But Trump as president isn't a world I would be happy or proud for my children to live in.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A screenwriter and novelist I like, Kevin Kelton (BOY MEET WORLD), wrote:

Anyone who believes Trump is "winning" a hypothetical general election now because of a few January beauty contest polls also believes reality TV shows are real.

First off, how many people under 40 do you know that answer cell phone calls from unknown or anonymous numbers (i.e., polling companies)? Trump gets vociferous support from his 42% base and a few misguided moderates, and that echoes through the media. (Why doesn't CNN or Fox or News Nation interview enthusiastic Biden voters?) But once those loony-bin MAGA rallies are in everyone's face every day and he's saying more and more insane things, the never-Trumpers will wake up like Snow White and realize the massive risks of a second Trump term.

Remove that hard-wired 44% DT sycophants and consider the rest of the voting age public? Will they really want to give him an opportunity to pardon himself (and all the violent January 6 felons) and create the greatest constitutional crisis we've ever known? Do they really want four more years of impeachment trials and Ivanka-Jared-DonJr.-Melania-Eric and Stephen Miller in their living rooms every night for another four years?

Will they really vote to hand Ukraine over to Putin? Are Muslim voters in the mid-west really going to turn on Biden and vote for the guy who gave East Jerusalem to Netanyahu and tried institute a US Muslim ban? Are disaffected progressives really going to vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Joe Manchin? Or waste their vote on Jill Stein again? Who do you think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are going to endorse and campaign for? Who will Barack and Michelle give speeches for? Who will Taylor and Oprah storm social media for?

And if you think the line, "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty..." is going to help the GOP nominee win over unaffiliated voters, well...

The key states are PA, WI, VA, and MI. Biden needs to hold all four (or pick up others).

I’m not saying it's a cake walk. Anything can happen, and real election interference (not the phony, nonexistent Trump kind) could be a factor... come September-October, the disinformation and disenfranchisement operations will kick into high gear. With plenty of help from Putin, China, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. (And a few others.)

Foreign money and PAC dark money will flow into third-party campaigns like rain in the Amazon. The real election campaign will take place under the surface and through social media and cyber-shenanigans. Deep Fakes will abound. Election Day hijinks and blatant poll interference will skyrocket. The "cold" civil war will be fought from Election Day to January 20. And it will be all-out and dirty as heck.

But the idea that this is Trump's election to lose is a far cry from reality.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree with most of that.  I think the Biden campaign's thought is that Trump's base hangs on his every word.  Biden's base might, but most of America doesn't.  I don't think the polling should be written off, especially since the polling has (in 2016 and 2020) underestimated Trump instead of overestimating him.  Now in 2020, for a variety of reasons, polls tended to be more Democratic than Republican so maybe they've fixed that and polls are just more accurate.  But I think that as soon as most "normal" voters are exposed to more of Trump, they'll remember why they were annoyed by him in the first place.

But I still think this is too important of an election to sit back.  Biden needs to win by as much as possible to make sure that most sensible people don't believe anything was rigged.  Because the election is only part one of the struggle - even if Biden is elected convincingly, we're going to have to watch as states refuse to certify votes and see what happens on January 6, 2025.

2,398

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why doesn't CNN or Fox or News Nation interview enthusiastic Biden voters?

Are there any?  I know plenty of Democrats and not one is enthusiastic about Biden.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think that's the main problem.  If the Democrats had another Obama, I think this election would basically already be over.  But they don't.

Interestingly enough, they probably could've made this election a slam dunk if they wanted.  Biden made reference early on to only wanting to be a bridge to the next generation of Democrats.  Essentially that he'd be a one-term president and let someone else take over.  The problem was 1) Biden didn't seem to actually mean that / want that (or he changed his mind) and 2) he needed Kamala Harris as a VP to consolidate his coalition.

Which leads to 3) Kamala Harris just isn't very beloved across the board.  I don't have any problem with her at all, but she usually polls worse than Biden.  Republicans use her as ammunition (Haley did it again last night) to scare each other into avoiding a second Biden term ("you'll get President Harris").  Of course, a lot of that could be racist and/or sexist, but it doesn't matter.  I don't think Democrats would be any more enthusiastic to vote for Harris over Biden, and I don't know if she would have a better chance of beating Trump than Biden does.

And if Biden only did one term, would the party have an open primary?  Or would they rally around Harris anyway?  Would having an open primary be a slap in the face to the people that voted for Biden because Harris was on the ticket?  If the first female vice president was unceremoniously replaced by some white dude on the ticket after serving only one term, would that be the real progress that America was hoping for?

And then there are the questions.  Would Biden have still won if he'd pick someone like Amy Klobuchar as his VP instead of Harris?  Would Mayor Pete be more of an heir apparent if he weren't gay?  How would things have changed if Michelle Obama legitimately wanted to be president?

And the biggest one: why didn't the Democrats spend the last three years tirelessly working to find the next Obama?  And, maybe the scarier question, what if they did and just couldn't find anyone?  I think there's a world in which Harris could realistically retire as a one-term vice president and it wouldn't lose the next person any votes.  She and Joe ride into the sunset together having defeated Trump, and Democrats rally around the next person that everyone is on board with.

***********

I know that didn't answer your question.  I'm certainly not enthusiastic about Biden, but I'm ready to vote for him.  But I'll admit I would be equally as excited to vote for Whitmer or Warnock or Newsom or Mayor Pete or Harris.

2,400

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Gavin Newsom (despite California's issues) would be up 10 points on Orange Man.  They didn't want a costly primary fight, which was STUPID.  Because if Trump were not the nominee, they'd be losing in a landslide.  I've said this for months.  Biden will be hold on and win.  There is zero enthusiasm for Biden, although there isn't the kind of center-left disgust which was there for Hillary. 

Iran now becomes a huge issue for him.  He supported the old nuclear deal, and then got "caught" releasing money for hostages.  Yes, the money was not going directly to Tehran, but explain that bit to a voter in Glendale, AZ.  His speeches are frightening.  The funny thing is, I find Biden would actually benefit from a debate much more than Trump.