Printable View
MisinformationQuote:
Originally Posted by JDunn
False. The UK’s early release scheme was announced more than two weeks before anti-immigration protests and excludes those convicted of murder and rape.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/b...rs-2024-08-26/
Are these thugs the 'concerned citizens' you are referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots
If you are okay with one type but not the other then how do you get to a system that can better distinguish between the two? Trump and his followers certainly aren't interested in making a distinction. I understand that one of the big problems, which the legislation blocked by Trump was trying to address, is that the system just doesn't have enough resources to deal with the numbers seeking asylum.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
It was around 3am here and though I began watching the VP debate I couldn't stay the course. What struck me was how Vance attacked Experts, 'people with PhDs but no common sense', a similar barb that Michael Gove made to the British media in 2016 when defending his position to Leave the EU. At least this suggests there is not much originality in Vance's playbook, much as Trump is promising more of the same policies he had in 2015 as if nothing had changed in 10 years.
I am surprised the Democrats don't hammer away at the fact that Trump is a convicted criminal, that he either led or inspired an act of sedition against the USA, if it were the Republicans they would never let up attacking the Democrats for law breaking. Walz missed out on a few blows, judging by the reviews.
Did it change anyone's vote?
The puzzle and its explanation
"Are Americans better off than they were four years ago? Pretty much every mainstream economist would say: you bet. Many go further. “I’ve hesitated to say this at the risk of sounding hyperbolic,” wrote Mark Zandi, the respected chief economist at Moodys, just a few days ago. “But … there is no denying it: this is among the best performing economies in my 35+ years as an economist.” Growth: up. Jobs: up. Wages: rising. The value of your home: up. Share prices: booming. Inflation: falling. Borrowing rates: dropping.In 2020, Donald Trump warned that his defeat would produce “a depression”. Today, even while Germany and Japan face recession, magazines toast the US economy’s “superstar status”. Yet ask Americans if they feel better off, and many answer: no."
"another suggestion emerges in a new report from a progressive thinktank, the Democracy Collaborative. And its argument should be heeded by Keir Starmer and the European left.
The authors examine much the same economic dashboard as everyone else – growth, jobs, wages – but over a far longer timeframe. Behind each graph lies the implicit question: are you, your family, your community better off than you were not four years ago, but two, three, four decades ago? And for many people the numbers say: no.
Take the biggest one: pay. For teachers, clerical workers, sales reps and the great bulk of US employees, whether white or blue collar, wages have flatlined – not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 US employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House."
This is the future for Kamala Harris: unless she solves this economic mystery, Trump wins | Aditya Chakrabortty | The Guardian
But surely, this is what Capitalism is, and on the basis of its natural ingredients, Capitalism has triumphed in the USA. Now consider what the meat in the narrative is for Trump and the Republicans -free enterprise? No. Free Markets? No. Immigration and society, culture and identity -the same components of the critiques that were common between the 1960s and 1980s, by, wait for it....Marxists, mostly those 'Western Marxists' who had swapped the critique of the 'economic base' for the 'cultural superstructure' as if one did not inform the other.
And then the lies, broadcast as lies, because the truth is too painful. Whatever, if Harris wins, it will see off Trump, probably not his movement -but will the economic indicators in the article above change over the next 4 years?
That factoid does not seem to be correct. There are different income measures from different sources (which you can see by scrolling down in the link), but they show that real median income has risen by between 20 and 50 per cent since the 1980s. By definition, 50 per cent of Americans must be doing better than the median.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q#0
There are also lots of surveys that show that most people believe they are personally better off over recent years but they think that the country as a whole has gone backwards. It seems like perceptions have become delinked from reality.
The alternative argument is useful, I would only say that as with most economists, when you ask a question from two there are often more than three answers, all of them plausible. How can we know what people spend their money on? People who gave up smoking in 1990 must have more money to spend than once they did, unless they replaced tobacco with alcohol, and so on. So I think whereas there is data that suggests wage growth has been slower than overall economic growth for some Americans, it does also return us to the perception problem.
Is it the media creating the impression the US is worse off than it is in aggregate terms? Trump went to Detroit and as expected, insulted and abused the Americans who live there, as the claim is that Detroit today is not like it was in the pasr. Do people believe Trump when he rants and raves about crime going through the roof when it ain't, or the misery of Detroit where in fact people are happier today than they were ten years ago? Not that Detroit doesn't have problems....I guess in the end rational people who are interested in politics will read around a topic while the rest 'trust' the politicians when they say stuff. Pity.
Detroit shows progress after bankruptcy 10 years : NPR
I don't know if Trump is going to win the election, but I do feel he is unhinged from reality and promising dire changes to the US and world trade. In fact, he seems to reckless, so determined to take revenge on people he despises, and he can do this through litigation designed to shred their finances, that I wonder -
how long after January 2025 will Vance and the 2025 Projectiles make their move and remove Trump from office?
It doesn't get weirder than this -an elderly man conducting a song 'Time to say Goodbye' or just standing there with a vacant look on his face....rather than engage with voters in a meaningful debate about, er, politics....Vance must be convulsed with laughter.
Donald Trump's Town Hall Takes Strange Musical Twist (yahoo.com)
Another prime example of why Donald Trump shouldn't be allowed to step foot in the White House ever again. And his constant ramblings about nonsense at his rallies shows how unfit and unqualified he is to be president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The absence of serious debate on policy is, I think, allowing some of the more extreme elements of a potential Trump Presidency to go without scrutiny, even though Harris, when she was AG in California, had some involvement in an individual referred to in the link below with regard to the various measures Republicans have taken -in Texas in particular in this report- to end the services that Planned Parenthood provides to women and families, most of them poor.
Behind this movement is the Federalist Society, a lawyers dream where behind all the hoo-ha of politics real people making real decisions about people's lives are either known to each other and funding each other, or on 'the same page' when it comes to issues such as Abortion, determined to roll back the legislation that once supported women in distressing, even life-threatening situations that now considers the 'rights of women' to be a violation of God's law, or some confection that is closer to the ideology of the Taliban than the liberal democracy once known as the USA.
As a slogan 'Defund Planned Parenthood' might energise some people, or not, but behind those two words -Planned Parenthood- is a service some of America's most vulnerable people need. The article, a long read, goes into the background to a court case plus others and is a disturbing example of what has already happened, that may evolve over the next 4 years, and without doubt that will target Transgender health at every level.
This summary re Texas is a verdict on the outcome Trump and his chums want for all Americans
"Meanwhile, as Planned Parenthood’s fate depends on the courts, the teen birth rate in Texas rose in 2022 for the first time in 15 years. Infant deaths have increased nearly 13%, compared with a 2% jump nationwide. Researchers from the University of Texas found that terminating Planned Parenthood from Medicaid “adversely affected low-income residents’ access to essential reproductive health services, resulting in delayed care and increases in births”, many of which researchers identified as “likely unintended”."
The Maga legal networks that could topple Planned Parenthood and gut women’s healthcare | Texas | The Guardian
I understand changing demography explains why Trump lost Georgia -the voters in the greater Atlanta area are different from what they were 25 years ago, maybe even 5 or ten -just as younger and potentially or actually more liberal voters have been moving from states like California to Texas in the suburban areas of cities like Houston, Dallas, and so on in other states. This may not affect elections where district boundaries are rigged to favour Republicans, but maybe sheer force of numbers means that some State Senate and House seats are more volatile than once they were.
Thus, the question is re the Federal elections -could Trump win the White House and lose both the Senate and the House? There are too many conflicting stats out there for me to sort out - Rafael 'Ted' Cruz seems to be vulnerable in Texas. Controversies in New York suggest Democrats could be vulnerable there, mostly I guess in NYC but maybe the wider state (?).
Anyone with some thoughts on this?
Ok, so some Labour Party members have paid their own way to campaign for Harris -have Nigel Farage and Liz Truss been in the US campaigning for Trump? Yep. But Labour gets the law suit from court crazy Trump. No surprises that in one part of his 'message' he refers to a country called 'Britian', while this must be worthy of dumbass comment of the year award
"“This past week marked the 243 anniversary of the surrender of British forces at the Battle of Yorktown, a military victory that ensured that the United States would be politically independent of Great Britian”"
Trump files extraordinary complaint claiming election meddling by UK Labour party | US elections 2024 | The Guardian
"“The far-left Labour Party has inspired Kamala’s dangerously liberal policies and rhetoric".
Trump campaign files complaint over ‘foreign interference’ by ‘far-left’ Labour Party in US election | The Independent
Labour far left?
What?!
Here's another reason to be sceptical that the recent trend in polls shows that Trump is winning. There has been an increase in polling by Republican-leaning firms, whose results tend to systematically favour Trump. This may be an attempt to game the polling averages.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1874...averages-trump
The polling aggregators argue that they make adjustments for the quality of polls, and so the averages should not be distorted significantly. https://www.natesilver.net/p/are-rep...sters-flooding
It's hard to tell whether they are doing it right. We also don't know how much polls influence voting behaviour, although even a small effect could make a difference in a tight election.
The underlying problem is that the way the media reports polling often exaggerates the real significance of recent results. Anyone who understands polling should know that a change of 1 percentage point (the average movement in Trump's favour over recent weeks) is not statistically significant.
I assume this is a trivial question -why does Trump always end his rallies with YMCA?
And though Kamala Harris and others can condemn what they see as the Fascism in Donald Trump's view of the world and America, what if that Fascism is what Americans want? Maybe not the majority, but a worrying number of people seem to think raw power is more likely to achieve something than diplomacy or the rule of law. And there is no point telling them to observe Syria, Russia, or Israel, as they don't care about things they don't know about.
Is this the last gasp of liberal democracy?
North Carolina was so badly affected by Hurricane Helene the citizens may not be able to vote, but don't worry it doesn't matter, because there is now a proposal that the State award all its Electoral College votes to Trump before the votes are counted.
"At the Talbot County Lincoln Reagan Dinner on Thursday, Oct. 24, the chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus [Andy Harris], 67, asserted that it "makes a lot of sense" for North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature to directly decide the winner, given the potential barriers to voting that some areas are facing amid the Hurricane Helene recovery efforts."
In agreement is someone, Ivan Reiklin, described as a 'political operative' -he is a one time associate of Michael Flynn- who has also been tipped to be Trump's Commissar of Retribution, should Trump be President, thus
"He has reportedly compiled a "Deep State Target List" of 350 individuals he considers enemies, and has promised to appoint "Constitutional sheriffs" to go after those enemies if Trump is elected and offer them "the maximum punishment for treason." (The Department of Justice says that treason can be punishable by death.)"
Far-Right House Leader Calls on North Carolina to Preemptively Give Donald Trump Its Electoral Votes
Presumably the traitors will be hanged in public on the Ellipse in DC?
I don't understand why some Muslim 'leaders' in Michigan have opted for Trump over Harris, while others remain loyal to Harris. As far as I know, the only President who has ever supported Palestinian claims and criticized Israel is Carter, but not when he was President.
Trump endorsed by several Muslim & Arab American leaders at campaign rally in Novi
I am sure most Arab Americans know what the US position is on Israel, so it should make no difference when it comes to choosing a candidate, in addition to which when Trump has been 'pro-Arab' it has been with the Arab dictators in the Arabian peninsula who have been of financial benefit to him and the Kushner family, such as the 'Abraham Accords', a business deal that consolidated the Kushner family investments in Israel and the West Bank while protecting them from non-existent Arab attacks, while Trump is said to have pocketed $20 million when he sold nuclear technology stuff to the Saudi Dictatorship.
That said, I think that Harris will win the Popular Vote, with or without the Arab vote, though what this does for the electoral college in Michigan I don't know. Moreover, we know from daily reports that the Trump cult has been preparing for the disruption of the count in numerous and swing States where, if the result doesn't go their way, legal challenges will delay a conclusive tally in the College, and possibly, as in 2020, take the matter as far as it can go in the Courts, maybe even the Supreme Court.
My predictions in the past have been wrong, so there!
If tax is to be an election issue at this late stage, it may be due to Trump 'floating' the idea of abolishing Federal income tax. I can't recall if this is in Project 2025, but it is not new as he himself claims in suggesting the USA return to the policies of the early 1800s, music to the ears of Justice Thomas (sponsored by Harlan Crow).
Trump floats ending the federal income tax. Here’s what that would mean
Here is the irony -when Trump boasts about putting onto the Court the Justices who helped repeal Roe vs Wade, it was to 'return' or give States the power to decide -ie, the Federal Govt becomes irrelevant, which also means his attempt to roll back the most unpopular policy in years, is also irrelevant, because he has removed the policy from the President's portfolio.
Thus, the logic of ending Federal Income Tax fits into the State's Autonomy argument, which gives individual States the right to decide if or what taxes they impose on their citizens, and crucially, the Federal Govt can do nothing about it. Moreover, I don't see how the President can preside over the abolition of Federal Income Tax but impose Tariffs on imports from abroad, as this must surely be for individual States to decide.
In effect, Trump does not want Federal Govt, but he has not said how the US military is to be funded -which takes us back to that moment after the first Revolutionary War, when George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army because it could only be sustained by a Federal Income Tax. Had the British not made another attempt to stop the Revolution and Washington's career with it, who knows?
So I guess in response to Harris, the Trump slogan for the last week of campaigning is
We're Going Back!
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1850625175068332131
So shameful. It really sounds like a bonafide hate rally. Sent in my ballot for Kamala. Wait and see.
in more news....this is mainstream in the Republican party https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/s...57453471334551
speaks for itself. so rotten.
The really shameful thing is that so many normal Republicans and Independents seem determined not to see any of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
That is absolutely despicable and very disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Agree it does speak for itself,and is very rotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
This is all magical thinking based on the idea that the revenue can be replaced by import tariffs, which he seems to believe fall on foreigners and not Americans. Somehow, tariffs are going to stop imports without raising prices. In reality it would be a massive shift in the taxation burden from high income earners to low income earners. So much for helping the workers against elites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The other irony is that people are voting for Trump because they are mad about temporary surge in inflation, yet Trump's own policies will be inflationary:
- a big increase in import tariffs
- big tax cuts that will be funding mainly by borrowing
- reducing the labour supply by deporting millions of undocumented immigrants
- reducing the independence of the Federal Reserve to force them to keep interest rates down
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/realis...h-damage-could
I don't know who Grant Cardone is, but he repeats a common line from Trump and others, that Harris is 'the least qualified candidate to ever run for any political office in American history'.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I guess Mr Cardone has never heard of Ross Perot or Jill Stein, and for obvious reasons he could have mentioned Angela Davis, and it doesn't matter because this is existential politics that determines either you vote for Trump or 'you won't have a country any more'.
As for what the qualifications are for President, even if you don't think Trump had any in 2016, this list puts one man in the frame, with a surprising result, though some Republicans who hate him would probably respond 'told you so!'
"
- His total education lasted about nine months — and those months weren’t consecutive months. He “studied” in country schoolhouse where there were zero teacher qualifications, and never received a minute of high school or college learning.
- He served about a month in the military, and his military experience consisted, in his own words, of wandering around swatting mosquitoes.
- His one experience running a business was disastrous. He bought into a business with a colleague, and they quickly ran it into the ground.
- He served a single term in the U.S. Congress, representing a rural district in a rural state. While in Congress, he achieved almost nothing, and at the end of his single term, party officials replaced him, and he never ran for another term.
- After that, he served a single term in his state’s legislature, and that state lay on the outskirts of the country as it then existed.
- His professional career was extensive and successful, earning him a moderate degree of prosperity for him and his family, but it offered little preparation for serving as president of the U.S.
- He ran for a seat to represent his state in the U.S. Senate, and he lost rather soundly.
That man, by practically every objective measure, was one of the least suited man every to run for president on a major party ticket.
And that man was Abraham Lincoln."
Which American president was the least qualified for the position? Why? (Not necessarily the worst president) - Quora
BREAKING NEWS from DJ Trump
VENEZUELAN GANGS HAVE TAKEN OVER TIMES SQUARE.
What?!
Maybe they are eating the (hot) dogs?
Kamala Harris was a capable prosecutor. She passed the bar exam, which is not super difficult, but is something I am pretty sure Donald Trump could not do even if he attended law school.
The problem with Trump is that he is amoral. This is not a judgment or a political statement, but a character assessment that is very tough to dispute. People say, well he favors me in this way or that way.
They should be asked the question: if it harmed him to favor you, is there any principle he adheres to that would cause him to defend you? If it benefitted him to harm you and he could without repercussions, is there any principle that would prevent him from harming you?
The frequency with which he does things that are repugnant challenges the working memory and short-term memory ability of the average person. If you talk to one of his supporters, they will defend him by trying to compare something egregious he did to something Hillary did, and by the time you explain all of the differences between the actions that make them very different you will have forgotten the 9 other things (for the moment) you were going to point out.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
But of course, it is possible to have a checklist in one's own mind, or even to write it down, and know that he has said or done dozens of things that would ordinarily make someone dangerously unqualified to look after the public welfare.
He did not just contest the results of an election. He refused to concede and advanced multiple competing theories about how he was cheated that were not coherent or supported by facts. He tried to convince a state attorney general to find enough votes for him to win, and then tried to pressure his vice president to refuse to certify the results of the election.
But this is less than one in a hundred of the things he did. If someone does not see the things he does as uniquely disqualifying, then it means they have no red lines that would prevent them from pursuing what they want politically.
Was MSG the 'October Surprise' or the 'October Fuckup'? What struck me about the clips that I saw was just how much swearing their was, and the tone of rage, insolence, even violence, and I just don't see how anyone born before 2000 can see the Republican Party even of GW Bush in this, even Vance in his Jake Tapper interview smeared the Neo-Cons who we used to think were the most extreme within 'normal' politics. This is now just sewer politics, and it's scary.
But most of the coverage in the UK has focused on the impact Hinchcliffe might have on undecided voters and people with links to Puerto Rico in swing states. Was this the night Trump lost the election?
I watched the interview with Lindsay Graham who obviously has a problem with the word 'Fascist' because he objects to Trump being called one but was shown Trump calling Harris a Fascist numerous times. What struck me, as it has with other people is how he parroted verifiable untruths or make misleading statements.
Graham says mortgages are twice as high as they were four years ago, and they are higher, but the Presidency doesn't set the interest rates that determine the cost of a mortgage, the Federal Reserve does via the markets, so I don't see now either Biden or Harris can be blamed for mortgage rates.
Read about the rates here-
Mortgage Rate History: 1970s To 2024 | Bankrate
Graham says Trump 'rebuilt' the military, which is a misleading statement, because the cost of maintaining and refurbishing the military is mostly dependent on the money allocated by Congress not the Presidency, so it is really Congress, ie Democrats and Republicans who 'rebuilt' the military. It is also a complicated thing to break down, as this link shows=
Trump's False Military Equipment Claim - FactCheck.org
As for the 'Open Border', it should be common knowledge by now that there has been a sharp reduction in illegal crossings in the South, and that it may even be a payoff from an Executive Order, and the talks Harris had with Mexico as 'Border Czar' (I have previously assumed her talks were a flop so I have been wrong about that it seems) and anyway who decided to use the word Czar when it is Russian for Emperor. Try this
Sharp fall in migrant encounters at US-Mexico border in 2024 | Pew Research Center
Hell, even the Cato Institute has debunked myths about immigrants, here-
15 Myths About Immigration Debunked | Immigration | Carnegie Corporation of New York
Graham says Trump has been the best President for Israel, which may appear to be the case in the limited context of the freedom the Netanyahu Government(s) have been able to do without being challenged, but there were numerous incidents in Gaza and the West Bank during his Presidency, and as far as I can tell, Trump did absolutely nothing to engage with the fundamental problems of Palestinian rights, assuming Trump thinks or thought they had any, when it was the deterioration of conditions in Gaza and the absence of any talks that fed the decision by Sinwar -decisions whose planning was underway when Trump was President- to mount the October 7 attack. Thus, giving Israel free reign to do what it wanted, has led to the situation today in which the Gaza District is all but uninhabitable, with no signal from Israel as to where those two million people are to live, or how Gaza is to be rebuilt or by whom, though you can be sure the US will pay for a lot of it.
As the former head of MI6 said on BBC-2's Newsnight this evening, Trump is a transactional man, and only engages in policy decisions when they secure a win for him -he and Graham may see a win-win for Israel re HAMAS and Iran right now, but the absence of any Israeli policy for the next 5 years suggests Trump if President should 'wait and see' or he may find himself having to commit the US to much more than it has done so far.
The interview can be seen here-
Video The rhetoric is ‘dangerous’: Graham on former generals' criticism of Trump - ABC News
A classic example is claiming that Hillary also disputed her election loss, totally ignoring that fact that she conceded on election night, didn't launch any legal challenges, didn't pressure officials to change the result or block certification, or instigate a riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The problem is that it's very asymmetric, so the idea that lies can always be combatted with truth is naive. It's easy for someone to come up with a blizzard of dubious claims and whataboutisms, when they don't care about truth or consistency. Trying to debunk it takes a lot more effort. That's why 'flooding the zone with shit' works. Many people decide it's just to hard to sort out.
I saw this transcript of Joe Rogan asking Trump for his evidence that the last election was rigged. He's been talking about this for 4 years, and this was the best he could do?
Attachment 1471595
exactly right with this. and the way he went about complaining before the election, calling for the vote to be stopped while he was ahead....it was clear he didn't have a bonafide belief he won based on evidence of fraud. What if a candidate actually had hard evidence of fraud taking place. there's a difference between launching a legal challenge because you have some evidence and proceeding merely because you don't like the result; launching dozens of suits that are thrown out bc you can't meet the lowest bar to proceed to trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
but as you point out the difference includes the fact that Hillary did not legally challenge the election.
we also have the whataboutism with the independence of the department of Justice. There is a difference between prosecuting your political rival by putting pressure on the attorney general and federal law enforcement and the department of justice proceeding independently because they have found evidence of a crime.
If a former president actually commits crimes, it is not corrupt when the fbi investigates him and federal prosecutors prosecute him. It is corrupt if the President has brought pressure to bear on law enforcement the way Trump did routinely with Sessions and Comey. So i've unfortunately also had to explain to people that Trump threatening to lock up reporters is not the same thing as him being prosecuted for committing crimes lol.
But to your larger point, every time we have to explain you exceed the attention span of some people and that is why flooding the zone with shit is effective. That is why deflection and whataboutism are effective. The transcript with Rogan is truly pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
For the first time in history and/or since they started doing it, the following three newspapers will not endorse any Presidential candidate:
The Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
USA Today
Also, Stavros to answer your question about the reduction in border crossings, I think it is due to the executive order and less to do with Kamala Harris' job as border czar. Because if the talks had succeeded, I think we would be hearing more about them from her campaign.
As for the use of czar for positions in the United States government, it goes back to the days of FDR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars
One week from now will be Election Day,a day where millions of people across the United States and the world will be tuning to see who is elected the next President and Vice President of the United States,and which party gains control of the House Of Representatives and US Senate. Major Differences between the two political tickets on the Democratic Side: Is the current Vice President Kamala Harris who was a prosecutor,district attorney,attorney general and junior senator from California,and her running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz,who wants to unite and move the country forward and make the lives of the middle class better,and protect abortion,civil,lgbtq,voting and women's rights. And make sure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share,and support our allies and stand up too dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jung Un. And put country over party and be a president and vice president for all Americans. On The Republican Side: Is Donald Trump who is a convicted felon,charlatan,fraudster and racist sexual predator,and his running mate Ohio Senator JD Vance who is just as unhinged as Donald Trump,and wants to the country backwards to a time where there were no rights for the black,hispanic,jewish and lgbtq communities. And get rid of the US Constitution and the levers of power,and defer all power to him and be a dictator on day one,and abandon our allies,leave NATO and cozy up too dictators. Will be very interesting to see which party and candidates prevails and win the 2024 Election next week.
Because they suddenly decided neutrality is an important principle or because they are afraid of retribution from Trump if he wins?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I doubt these endorsements have any effect on voters, but it still matters for the signal it sends.
Thanks, I thought this was a recent invention but clearly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
The 'little secret' appears to be a majority in the House using the 12th Amendment to replace the Electoral College certification.
The intriguing point is that the Democrats might not get a majority in the House if they lose 6 seats in the state of New York - allowing for no significant flips elsewhere- thus returning Mike Johnson as Speaker -he even thinks this is why New York has become important to Trump. I believe the Democrats have had a negative press this year -something to do with the Major of NYC - I just don't know enough about the House elections to make a judgment, could the Republicans flip enough seats in New York to retain control of the House?
Trump’s SECRET Election Plan SLIPS OUT during Speech
I'm not going to link an article yet, but this is a note to watch this space. There have been multiple instances of people trying to destroy and vandalize ballot stations. Some of them are still being investigated so I don't want to make assumptions about all of the culprits. But I will look it up later...it just came across my news feed and is a fairly new phenomenon I think.