2024 USA Election: Wishin' and Hopin'

[Stavros]

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

[filghy2]

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.

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.

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?

[broncofan]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[broncofan]

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 had to inform some of them 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.

[blackchubby38]

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

[KnightHawk 2.0]

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.

[filghy2]

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

Because they suddenly decided neutrality is an important principle or because they are afraid of retribution from Trump if he wins?

I doubt these endorsements have any effect on voters, but it still matters for the signal it sends.

[Stavros]

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

Thanks, I thought this was a recent invention but clearly not.

[Stavros]

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?

[broncofan]

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.