2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Gallipoli
- Start date
I assume this is a joke; total fake news BS. 70M voter will disagree with your post. Why and how you could ever believe this administration is anything other than the worst in modern history defies logic. The far left woke element has all but destroyed a once great party and unless those with proud roots can drag the Dem masses back close to the center the party will drift aimlessly. I was a member of the party until the party left me. Since Bill I don’t recognize anything that I would support.
Presidential experts and historians don't agree with you, Biden 14th, Trump last. But you have to be right because its your opinion, correct?
What a joke. How anyone could believe this amazes me. No offense intended and hope non taken, but damn.
Do you believe these to be impartial arbiters of truth or rank partisans suffering from TDS?
Voters answered the question Tuesday. Most folks do not believe this BS anymore.
Last edited:
Rep. Ritchie Torres argued that the left has “managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx.’” He added that “the working class is not buying the ivory-towered nonsense that the far left is selling.”
Congressman Torres is a person of color, a Democrat, representing the 15th District in New York. He gets it.
Congressman Torres is a person of color, a Democrat, representing the 15th District in New York. He gets it.
All of the worst-ranked presidents were elected by voters who "answered the question" on election day.
It's interesting how Republicans accept everything a Democrat such as Torres says about his/her own party as gospel, but won't believe Republicans like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, most of Grover's first cabinet, almost every top military official and many others when talking about the Republican party.
Fair point, Wood. Would note, Torres is suggesting how the Dems can save their party, in contrast Liz, et al totally missed the mood of the voters so they weren't saving anything beyond personal vanity.
As Torres suggested, if the Dems don't move to the center, they are dead, their traditional coalition shattered.
Of course, the Repubs can fall flat on their faces. They have before. Not confident they can get their stuff together either, but always hoping for the best from any incoming administration.
Have to see how this plays out. Why have always found politics (power) intriguing.
As Torres suggested, if the Dems don't move to the center, they are dead, their traditional coalition shattered.
Of course, the Repubs can fall flat on their faces. They have before. Not confident they can get their stuff together either, but always hoping for the best from any incoming administration.
Have to see how this plays out. Why have always found politics (power) intriguing.
We know exactly how this will play out. Trump had a chance with his own party in control in 2017-18. He accomplished literally nothing that he said he would. More lies from his mouth. He has maybe 5-10 years to live at this point. His only interest is in as much retaliation as he possibly can get for all perceived wrongs against him (i.e., being held accountable for lies, ineptitude and insurrections) and in fundamentally altering the way our federal government works.
Last edited:
You blame everything negative about Trump on TDS and claim to be non-partisan on most of your posts. Seems to me you have Biden Derangement Syndrome and are far from non-partisan. And how this country could elect Trump after his first term and attempt to overthrow our government amazes me, but I"m not going to say the people who voted for him are a joke.
Long Time, I understand how you could arrive at that view.
Most uncomfortable in seemingly defending someone I consider unfit for office and for whom I have not voted for the past two elections, but believe in a fair, factual based narrative. See the TDS folks, which I mistakenly denied existed for a long time, as waaay over the top. Hate blinding rational judgment and denying facts.
Hard to make someone as flawed as Trump into a martyr, but through unfettered, unsubstantiated (largely), unrelenting, and unseemly attacks the Left did that while offending over half the citizenry. The fruits of this mistaken tack resulted in Trump's election.
Continue to champion your views, but tone down the hatred or going to continue to lose. Calling those with different views, Nazis, fascists, deplorables, garbage, etc, etc, ain't a winning strategy.
Most uncomfortable in seemingly defending someone I consider unfit for office and for whom I have not voted for the past two elections, but believe in a fair, factual based narrative. See the TDS folks, which I mistakenly denied existed for a long time, as waaay over the top. Hate blinding rational judgment and denying facts.
Hard to make someone as flawed as Trump into a martyr, but through unfettered, unsubstantiated (largely), unrelenting, and unseemly attacks the Left did that while offending over half the citizenry. The fruits of this mistaken tack resulted in Trump's election.
Continue to champion your views, but tone down the hatred or going to continue to lose. Calling those with different views, Nazis, fascists, deplorables, garbage, etc, etc, ain't a winning strategy.
Last edited:
If, hypothetically, you're running for office and your opponent is a convicted mass murderer, you probably should point out that fact repeatedly to voters. "Hey! This guy killed a bunch of people! He's probably unfit to serve" is a perfectly legitimate campaign focus. It's not the only one you want to have, but it's a really important one. And if you allow yourself to get into policy debates with someone like that about taxes or abortion and say nothing about his past, you've essentially normalized his mass murdering background to voters and made it a non-issue.
Raising the fact that he's a murderer doesn't mean you have That Candidate Derangement Syndrome -- it means you are spotlighting a really important reason why that person is a terrible option for every voter.
Trump famously said he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any of his base. I now completely believe him. It's an indictment of our nation.
Trump also ran a commercial that literally said "Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you."
That's hate speech. Many of us may not understand being trans (I don't claim to, and I also don't go around telling people my pronouns), but whether the rest of us understand it or approve of it or not, some people ARE trans and DO use "they/them." Taking cheap shots at them like that is demeaning and hateful and designed to ostracize then as somehow less than the rest of us. It's no different than had the ad said "Harris is for Black and brown people. Trump is for you (white person)."
But it's par for the course for Trump and many of his followers.
Raising the fact that he's a murderer doesn't mean you have That Candidate Derangement Syndrome -- it means you are spotlighting a really important reason why that person is a terrible option for every voter.
Trump famously said he could kill someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any of his base. I now completely believe him. It's an indictment of our nation.
Trump also ran a commercial that literally said "Harris is for they/them. Trump is for you."
That's hate speech. Many of us may not understand being trans (I don't claim to, and I also don't go around telling people my pronouns), but whether the rest of us understand it or approve of it or not, some people ARE trans and DO use "they/them." Taking cheap shots at them like that is demeaning and hateful and designed to ostracize then as somehow less than the rest of us. It's no different than had the ad said "Harris is for Black and brown people. Trump is for you (white person)."
But it's par for the course for Trump and many of his followers.
Just read an article about the ad you reference. Never saw it personally, but don't watch much TV. Article said it polled as Trump's most effective ad of the campaign. Called it devastating. It resonated with people, most of whom are quite uncomfortable with "transgenderology."
For some it is truly a medical issue, the right would have you believe it is only a "woke" choice.
Democrats have abandoned the working and middle classes. It is now the party of the wealthy elite, highly educated, the LGBTQ crowd, extreme environmentalists, and wealthy Hollywood actors. Trump received the vote of 45% of hispanics and 20% of black men. The Democratic Party cannot connect with the rest of us.
Yep, Republicans are scared to death of those trans people, much more so than the threat of gun violence in our schools.
Right, I'm not surprised the ad worked -- it appealed to a lot of Trump supporters who don't like anything that's different or unusual/uncomfortable. No different from people who didn't want Black people to vote or have basic rights 50 years ago, or those who didn't think gay people should have the right to get married or serve in the military, etc etc. For the party that claims to want government to be hands-off, it's another example of hypocrisy at best and persecution at worst.
The issues are more of 1) whether a child can make a decision to become a trans with his or her parent's approval, 2) whether such a decision should be made before a child turns 18, 3) whether those procedures should be funded by the government, 3) whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete in womens' sports, 4) whether a trans should use a girl's bathroom when he is not of that gender, 5) whether a trans should be allowed to remain in school, when the trans rapes a girl, 6) whether the rest of us should be canceled or shamed for using the wrong pronoun....
The rush to perform these procedures causes life altering changes in a young person's life.
There is a phenomenon known as sudden onset gender dysphoria. look it up.
None of those are the issues of campaigning on "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you."
We're not talking about young people considering whether to "become" trans, we are talking about people who ARE trans. And the bathroom stuff you reference sounds like the same stuff from 30 years ago related to gay athletes ("I don't want a gay guy in the lockerroom with me, because he'll probably try to make a move on me!") Come on. It's just fear-mongering. Do you really think someone is going to change their gender solely for the purpose of becoming a peeping Tom in a girls' bathroom? Really?
We're not talking about young people considering whether to "become" trans, we are talking about people who ARE trans. And the bathroom stuff you reference sounds like the same stuff from 30 years ago related to gay athletes ("I don't want a gay guy in the lockerroom with me, because he'll probably try to make a move on me!") Come on. It's just fear-mongering. Do you really think someone is going to change their gender solely for the purpose of becoming a peeping Tom in a girls' bathroom? Really?
Sad to see that Russia's state run TV station congratulated Trump and Melania by showing nude pictures of Melania. If someone in the US did that, Trump would post the responsible person's address and phone number so the death threats could begin. But Putin did it so all we get from Trump is crickets. Maybe Trump is afraid Putin will post something else if Trump reacts to this.
The people who voted in the election sent a clear message. It is easy for anyone to be a keyboard warrior but Americans prefer the Republican party. The vote was decisive 312 electoral votes to 226 and the latest popular vote Trump 74.8 million to 71.3. The Senate 53 to 46 with one race not called and the House 214 to 203 with 18 still undecided. It is a free country and one can think anyway they wish. Nitpicking and ad-hominen attacks will not change the above facts. The Democrats' strategy was not effective. Admitting that and attempting to figure out why will go a lot further than demeaning Republicans and those who voted diffently than you did.
Last edited:
Ad-hominem attacks or actual attacks, which would you prefer? Pretty sure there was only one party that stormed the Capitol, attacked police officers and lied and whined for four years about a stolen election that didn't happen, and it didn't start with a D.
The center left is actually more aligned with Conservatives than the Progressive Left wing of the Democratic Party. This is where things stand today for the center left moderates:
The Harris campaign actually paid $1M to Oprah's company for Oprah's appearance.
The Chicago Tribune criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' failed presidential campaign for reportedly paying out campaign cash to celebrities like Oprah Winfrey.
"Having someone with a large following simply stand next to a candidate at a podium and say a few words, solo, is one thing; doing a whole livestreamed event with, say, Oprah Winfrey, is another," the Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial following reports that the Harris campaign paid Winfrey and other celebrities massive sums for campaign events.
FEC filings show the Harris campaign made two $500,000 payments to Winfrey’s production company, first reported by the Washington Examiner, on Oct. 15, a month after Winfrey appeared with Harris at a town hall event and weeks before Winfrey was on stage with Harris at a Philadelphia rally before Election Day.
www.foxnews.com
www.chicagotribune.com
The Chicago Tribune criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' failed presidential campaign for reportedly paying out campaign cash to celebrities like Oprah Winfrey.
"Having someone with a large following simply stand next to a candidate at a podium and say a few words, solo, is one thing; doing a whole livestreamed event with, say, Oprah Winfrey, is another," the Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial following reports that the Harris campaign paid Winfrey and other celebrities massive sums for campaign events.
FEC filings show the Harris campaign made two $500,000 payments to Winfrey’s production company, first reported by the Washington Examiner, on Oct. 15, a month after Winfrey appeared with Harris at a town hall event and weeks before Winfrey was on stage with Harris at a Philadelphia rally before Election Day.
Chicago Tribune criticizes Harris campaign for paying massive sums to Oprah Winfrey, other celebs
The Chicago Tribune criticized Vice President Kamala Harris' failed presidential campaign for reportedly paying out campaign cash to Oprah Winfrey and other celebrities.
Editorial: Oprah Winfrey should not have asked Kamala Harris for a check
Celebrity endorsements like an Oprah Winfrey infomercial did not work for Kamala Harris.
www.chicagotribune.com
Melania has been paid to appear at political events. What is the distinction being made?
Thought she was endorsing the candidate freely, not looking for a pay day. Cheapens the endorsement to my mind.
Her production company, Harpo, put the event on which involved considerable expense. Believe without reimbursement of actual expenses could have run afoul of donation limits. Still, not a good look. You in for the candidate or the cash?
On second point, don't want to get into it tonight, but despite raising a billion Harris campaign ended up with a 20 million deficit....which Trump has offered to cover.
We may be dealing with dueling news sources, each with an ax to grind that favors their "team." You are reporting what you have heard as am I. No idea if either is true.
Her production company, Harpo, put the event on which involved considerable expense. Believe without reimbursement of actual expenses could have run afoul of donation limits. Still, not a good look. You in for the candidate or the cash?
On second point, don't want to get into it tonight, but despite raising a billion Harris campaign ended up with a 20 million deficit....which Trump has offered to cover.
We may be dealing with dueling news sources, each with an ax to grind that favors their "team." You are reporting what you have heard as am I. No idea if either is true.
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/politics/melania-trump-payment.html
I will not argue with the cheapening of the "endorsement".
Trump Super PAC Made $155,000 Payment to Melania Trump in 2021
The money was listed as pay for a “speaking engagement” by Ms. Trump in a new personal financial disclosure by her husband.I will not argue with the cheapening of the "endorsement".
Watching the video is a must, way more than reading the synopsis.
What say you? Does he get it or he is off base and why?
Melania didn't actually want to endorse her husband. Afterall, she was wearing Trump Shoes, two Trump Watches, a Trump hat and a Trump hair piece.
i just find it fascinating situation for a candidate's spouse, let alone for that of a former president's spouse. She was paid to shill for him and his grifts?
Similar threads
