I am a loss thinking what might get Trump to drop out at this point, barring actual death.

Didn't realize the DeSantis-Newsom debate was tonight. Don't think I'll have access to watch it but looking forward to reading about it tomorrow.

Red and blue America square off in clash of the governors (https://news.yahoo.com/red-blue-america-square-off-033408795.html)
But Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom, his counterpart in Democratic California, will swap social media antagonism for an in-person televised debate Thursday that could be preview the White House race in 2028.

The pair represent almost one in five Americans -- California is the largest US state and Florida is third -- and debate host Fox News is billing the showdown as a clash between liberal blue and conservative red America.

Media sure does promote division.

Didn't realize the DeSantis-Newsom debate was tonight. Don't think I'll have access to watch it but looking forward to reading about it tomorrow.

Red and blue America square off in clash of the governors (https://news.yahoo.com/red-blue-america-square-off-033408795.html)

Why in the hell would DeSantis even agree to this?

Why does this exist at all?

Debates between candidates running for the same office at least let us evaluate them for that office.

But this is just a debate about . . . policy I guess? And watching two dudes argue has to be the least effective way to make policy decisions out there.

I mean, who is thinking "Well, I was for more funding for border patrol, but then Newsome had a pretty good zinger about it, and DeSantis sort of stumbled over his rebuttal to that, so I am going to change my mind?"

Why does this exist at all?

Debates between candidates running for the same office at least let us evaluate them for that office.

But this is just a debate about . . . policy I guess? And watching two dudes argue has to be the least effective way to make policy decisions out there.

I mean, who is thinking "Well, I was for more funding for border patrol, but then Newsome had a pretty good zinger about it, and DeSantis sort of stumbled over his rebuttal to that, so I am going to change my mind?"

It makes sense for Newsome to boost himself nationally. I think the guy is really good at speaking policy and, no, it's not going to change anyone's mind. However, desantis' idea to boost his campaign is to debate someone that isn't running for President? I don't see any scenario where this is a positive for DeSantis.

Depends on the size of the lifts her wears as to how much of a boost he'll get.

I guess I'm just tired of the "Debate Me!" culture.



"I disagree with you that Lizard People from Mars are secretly controlling the Chinese government."

"Oh Yeah! If you are so sure about that, then DEBATE ME!"

"No. I am not going to debate you."

"Then I must be right because you are too scared to DEBATE ME!"

Phillips doesn't stand a chance but this is a horrible look.

Florida Democrats plan to cancel presidential primary, enraging Dean Phillips’ campaign - POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/30/florida-democrats-dean-phillips-election-00129403)


Florida Dems are such a disaster and need a complete overhaul.

In a normal world I would agree with you.

But isn't this kind of standard procedure nowadays? Didn't the GOP give Trump a free ride through the 2020 primaries?

I need to look up Dean sometime.

In a normal world I would agree with you.

But isn't this kind of standard procedure nowadays? Didn't the GOP give Trump a free ride through the 2020 primaries?

I need to look up Dean sometime.

It's stupid to have a primary at all if there's an incumbent president. Who's the last dem incumbent to face an actual opponent in a primary? Ted Kennedy v Carter?

Buchanan in '92 was probably the last threat to an incumbent at all.

Didn't realize the DeSantis-Newsom debate was tonight. Don't think I'll have access to watch it but looking forward to reading about it tomorrow.

Red and blue America square off in clash of the governors (https://news.yahoo.com/red-blue-america-square-off-033408795.html)

Props to Newsome for doing this. Hannity has stacked this debate as far against Newsome as possible and DeSantis still comes off as being awful.

Literal example of a question:

"Many people, myself included, feel Biden is in significant mental decline. Do you think he's up to the job?"

Another:

"Is inflation hurting your state, yes or no?"

Another:

My cherry picked stat shows there is more mass shootings in California than in Florida, but California has the strictest gun control in the country "do gun control laws work?"

Taking the entire debate at face value with no context:

Slight win for Newsome. He's a strong debater and Ron either doesn't have the skills or doesn't put in the work. When you opponent is dropping number and after number after number and the best you can do is say something along the lines of "that's not true" then you're not prepared. Ron was able to land a few blows, but he really just didn't have many counters to the facts Newsome was hitting him with.

Looking at this debate with the context of Hannity hosting this on Fox News and loading or setting up every question to benefit DeSantis:

DeSantis got trounced. He's governor that could have coasted on the rep he had built, returned to Seanate after his current term, and then ran again as governor if he wanted.

Instead he's been exposed as not being a national candidate. He loves to bully people weaker than him or those without a voice, but he folds quick when challenged publicly. He has zero stage presence or charisma and looks like he is uncomfortable in his own skin anytime he's on a stage like this.

Newsom sucks but the one thing he is good at is debating. No clue why DeSantis would agree to that.

Didn't really want to waste 90 minutes of my life I would never get back, but let me guess.

Lot's of yelling and insults, very little in the way of policy and the typical attacks.

DeSantis - Your lockdowns in Covid hurt your states mental health.
Newsome - You nonchalance in Covid caused a higher percentage of your citizens to die.

DeSantis - California is lawless.
Newsome - What is your ratio of gun violence again?

DeSantis - You're a bully!
Newsome - You're a wanna be Dictator!

Didn't really want to waste 90 minutes of my life I would never get back, but let me guess.

Lot's of yelling and insults, very little in the way of policy and the typical attacks.

DeSantis - Your lockdowns in Covid hurt your states mental health.
Newsome - You nonchalance in Covid caused a higher percentage of your citizens to die.

DeSantis - California is lawless.
Newsome - What is your ratio of gun violence again?

DeSantis - You're a bully!
Newsome - You're a wanna be Dictator!

Every single topic Newsome would hit DeSantis with statistics and he didn't have a comeback. Hannity cherry picked crime rate data to show how safe Florida is in comparison to California and Newsome countered with violent crime and murder stats ro show Florida is exponentially more dangerous. The only thing DeSantis could do is continue to point to the numbers Hannity provided.

At one point DeSantis did call Newsome a bully. He also pulled a poop map out of his pocket to show people were pooping on streets in California? DeSantis is weird.

The 10 minutes I flipped over for was Newsome saying "you banned a lot of books, here's a list of some of them" and DeSantis saying "no I didn't" over and over.

I think the weird thing for me with DeSantis is he does stuff conservatives want and then denies them. You're doing a debate on Fox News man. You're running in a primary against Trump where your single best attack is that you actually do the stuff Trump says he'll do. Why fucking back down?

The 10 minutes I flipped over for was Newsome saying "you banned a lot of books, here's a list of some of them" and DeSantis saying "no I didn't" over and over.

I think the weird thing for me with DeSantis is he does stuff conservatives want and then denies them. You're doing a debate on Fox News man. You're running in a primary against Trump where your single best attack is that you actually do the stuff Trump says he'll do. Why fucking back down?
But he doesn't want to have to defend specific books that were banned. Or even specific actions he knows aren't as popular. Pick the popular actions and highlight that so that the other stuff is never focused on.

Or, he's just not very bright. But dogmatic and angry, which is what passes for bright in GOP circles these days.

The 10 minutes I flipped over for was Newsome saying "you banned a lot of books, here's a list of some of them" and DeSantis saying "no I didn't" over and over.

I think the weird thing for me with DeSantis is he does stuff conservatives want and then denies them. You're doing a debate on Fox News man. You're running in a primary against Trump where your single best attack is that you actually do the stuff Trump says he'll do. Why fucking back down?

So you don't buy the plausible deniability of not telling schools and libraries to ban books while signing into law ambiguous morality legislation that threatens potential financial and legal consequences if others don't ban books?

Every single topic Newsome would hit DeSantis with statistics and he didn't have a comeback. Hannity cherry picked crime rate data to show how safe Florida is in comparison to California and Newsome countered with violent crime and murder stats ro show Florida is exponentially more dangerous. The only thing DeSantis could do is continue to point to the numbers Hannity provided.

At one point DeSantis did call Newsome a bully. He also pulled a poop map out of his pocket to show people were pooping on streets in California? DeSantis is weird.

Jesus, a poop map? DeSantis is the most awkward wanna be cool kid walking the planet.

Lots of fanboying out over that poop map though.

Lots of fanboying out over that poop map though.

Maybe that poop map is a map of DeSantis's fanboys.

lmao poopmap

If you live in a poop map city, you kind of know where the poop is going to be, but also, I think non-poop city dwelling people underestimate what a big deal that can be.

It is a big deal. It's a systemic failure of some part of the economy. I was in SF the week of the Chinese visit, now we were far away on the north side by Fisherman's Warf, and not down near Union Square where we typically are, but even just driving through the city back and forth it was a marked difference. It's an issue you can't simply throw money at, and you can't force people to participate in things they won't. But at some point poop cities needs to get creative and they need to get realistic about the problem.

Haley getting real. Article doesn't have specific details but good that she is willing to have a frank discussion on Social Security & Medicare. Hope this is a topic for the next debate in a couple days.

Nikki Haley wants to reform Social Security and Medicare. Donors are paying attention | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/nikki-haley-social-security-medicare-reform/index.html)
Haley has called for several changes to the nation’s safety net programs, including increasing the age at which today’s younger workers would become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and limiting the growth of benefits the wealthy receive.

How about just making the wealthy actually pay into it? If they increased the cap on when you stop paying into it, we may actually be able to keep it going.

How about just making the wealthy actually pay into it? If they increased the cap on when you stop paying into it, we may actually be able to keep it going.
That should be the first thing they do before anything else. Once you do that, then you can discuss what else needs to be done.

How about just making the wealthy actually pay into it? If they increased the cap on when you stop paying into it, we may actually be able to keep it going.

See link, check out "Revenue" tab.

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security (https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/)

Basically, that alone won't do it. It needs to be a combination of "other" stuff. And then you've got a political fight on what the "other" stuff is.

Don't pay any attention to a 75 year window.

But even given that, taxing all wages and increasing SS taxes by 1% covers 93% and keeps the trust fund positive until 2085.

Yea, simply taxing over $400k makes up 65% or something and keeps it going until 2070 with no other changes.

Last time social security was "fixed" for 75 years was in 1983. We'll be in trouble again in approx. 2034 or in 50 years (so 25 years ahead of schedule).

If you aim to fix it for 50 years, we'll have another crisis in 25-30-35 years for one reason or another.

re: taxing all wages, that would break Joe's promise (and Dems by extension) of only $400K or above. It's been a while since we've seen the 3rd rail at work (e.g. read my lips, no new taxes). Should be fun to see it happen again.

Edward, then let them worry about it 20-30-40 years down the road. Why are we trying to fix something that hasn't even happened yet? Take the cap off, then you have decades before you have to worry about changing the age of retirement or increasing taxes/decreasing benefits.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Edward, then let them worry about it 20-30-40 years down the road. Why are we trying to fix something that hasn't even happened yet? Take the cap off, then you have decades before you have to worry about changing the age of retirement or increasing taxes/decreasing benefits.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

That is a fair question. And I don't know the answer. And the model doesn't give the ability to change from 75 to 50 to play around with the different options.

If we want to plan to fix the problem for 50 years with a fair chance of having to worry about it again in 30-35 years, I guess that's an option.

Or we can take this opportunity to do a wholesale fix and theoretically solve the problem for our < 18 children.


EDIT: it may have been tossed out there but I don't remember reading about Dems or GOP trying to reduce the fix from 75 to (let's say) 50 years. I'm going to assume there's probably a good actuarial and/or political reason for that. But I may well be wrong.

I have no clue what the line should be but this seems like a reasonable thought from the co-founder of Home Depot.

“What the hell is a guy like me (doing) getting $3,500 a month from the government?” Langone, whose net worth Forbes pegs at more than $7 billion, said of his monthly Social Security benefits. “That’s outrageous. I shouldn’t get a nickel.”

Programs for the poor turn into poor programs.

The only reason that SS has managed to survive is that middle and upperclass people have a stake in it.

If giving a billionaire $3,500/month means that the program continues to exist, I'm OK with that.

You can't make SS sustainable because as soon as you do the GOP will spend it on tax cuts. That's what happened in 2000 with the Bush tax cuts and Gore calling for a lock box.

I don't care about the Home Depot guy getting payments. It's such a minuscule amount of Social Security that it'd probably cost more to implement a system that has to look at your income or net worth and change payouts every year.

The solution has always been to remove the social security cap and to tax capital gains. Likely solves the problem right away.

Programs for the poor turn into poor programs.

The only reason that SS has managed to survive is that middle and upperclass people have a stake in it.

If giving a billionaire $3,500/month means that the program continues to exist, I'm OK with that.

It would be tough but if I have a net worth of more than $7 billion, I feel I would forgo my monthly payments and whatever I money I put into the system to keep it sustainable. That mindset is probably why I don't have a net worth of $7 billion.

Christie just destroyed Ramaswamy.

He did work Vivek over but Haley is incredibly dumb.

He did work Vivek over but Haley is incredibly dumb.

She had a rough night. DeSantis probably came out of this one the best, which is stunning.

Christie seems to be trying to set Haley up when he drops out and she fumbled the ball tonight.

Genuinely laughed out loud at her TikTok riff.

Trump up 32 in the gold standard of Iowa polling.

dola

Trump: They’re poisoning the blood of country.. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world not just in South America… but all over the world they’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia

Anybody willing to vote for this guy is a threat to American ideals.

I wonder if Steve King would like to toss his name in for VP? The shoe fits.

Seeing some excitement because in the latest NH poll Haley is only down by... 15.

lol Trump has already won.

What's funny is if the Republicans run Haley, November turns into a red tsunami. Instead, they'll go with Trump and it'll again be a narrow election.

Yes and no. If Trump were a normal politician, I'd agree, but if Haley were somehow the nominee Trump would eventually go all in on sabotaging her. It's hard to know how that would play out, but I don't think it's crazy to think Trump could keep a lot of GOP voters at home.

Plus, all those white supremacists voting for Haley seems a bit unlikely.

Still not sure which way I'm leaning in 2024... Biden is kinda old


“They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that — and I never read Mein Kampf,” said Trump, referencing Hitler’s manifesto. “They could be healthy, they could be very unhealthy, they could bring in disease that’s going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world,” the former president continued. “And they’re destroying the blood of our country. They’re destroying the fabric of our country.”

I just want one of these non-Christie candidates to actually attack the front runner. It’s insane. They’re all running for a spot in the cabinet.

I just want one of these non-Christie candidates to actually attack the front runner. It’s insane. They’re all running for a spot in the cabinet.

They're all hoping something like Colorado become widespread or one of the cases eliminates him but no one will actually use those as issues to attack.

It's the dumbest and most pointless primary.

I want Haley & Christie to work together and combine votes. Promise Christie a cabinet post of something.

I think that's illegal

I think that's illegal
It is, but pretty commonly done. You can't directly promise anything, you just strongly suggest.

They're all hoping something like Colorado become widespread or one of the cases eliminates him but no one will actually use those as issues to attack.

It's the dumbest and most pointless primary.

I also wonder what the life insurance companies would estimate as his chances of dying in the next year.

Still not sure which way I'm leaning in 2024... Biden is kinda old

One of them is openly contributing to a genocide.

They're all hoping something like Colorado become widespread or one of the cases eliminates him but no one will actually use those as issues to attack.

It's the dumbest and most pointless primary.

Or he ends up in jail. The D.C. trial should be over by the election.

One of them is openly contributing to a genocide.
And the other is totally for it as well. Not to mention ending Democracy.

And the other is totally for it as well. Not to mention ending Democracy.

Democrats don't actually believe "the end of democracy" stuff. Just a scare tactic so people can vote for the guy who didn't do shit for them.

Democrats don't actually believe "the end of democracy" stuff. Just a scare tactic so people can vote for the guy who didn't do shit for them.
He is openly saying he is going to be a dictator. As for Israel, he moved the American embassy to Jerusalem in violation of international law and guaranteed a Unified Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. He has also said that Israel should be allowed to expanded the settlements in the West Bank. If you claim to support a free Palestine, then voting for Trump is great guarantee that it will never happen. He is after all "Israel's greatest friend" by his own words.

He passed infrastructure, climate, COVID relief, ended the war in Afghanistan, basically stopped drone strikes, some student loan cancellation, some gun control...

But, sure, nothing. Leftists still saying there's no difference between parties aren't arguing in good faith. You can be sure that the left will have even less influence going forward. There's no point in trying to work with people that complain no matter what happens.

He passed infrastructure, climate, COVID relief, ended the war in Afghanistan, basically stopped drone strikes, some student loan cancellation, some gun control...

But, sure, nothing. Leftists still saying there's no difference between parties aren't arguing in good faith. You can be sure that the left will have even less influence going forward. There's no point in trying to work with people that complain no matter what happens.

With a 51-50 Senate no less.

He is openly saying he is going to be a dictator. As for Israel, he moved the American embassy to Jerusalem in violation of international law and guaranteed a Unified Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. He has also said that Israel should be allowed to expanded the settlements in the West Bank. If you claim to support a free Palestine, then voting for Trump is great guarantee that it will never happen. He is after all "Israel's greatest friend" by his own words.

Biden supports all those things regarding Israel as well.

Biden supports all those things regarding Israel as well.

Guess you can always waste your vote on Cornell West and let the chips fall where they may.

The 2024 matchup, much like the 2020 matchup is as bad as we have ever been given as voters, but the ramifications of electing Trump for my grandkids 20 years down the road is not something I want to think about.

I have dual citizenship so I can easily immigrate to a nice, sane country in Europe down the road, not as easy for them.

Guess you can always waste your vote on Cornell West and let the chips fall where they may.

The 2024 matchup, much like the 2020 matchup is as bad as we have ever been given as voters, but the ramifications of electing Trump for my grandkids 20 years down the road is not something I want to think about.

I have dual citizenship so I can easily immigrate to a nice, sane country in Europe down the road, not as easy for them.

That was my thought to,but have you seen Europe lately?

Moreso if NATO is disbanded.

Democrats don't actually believe "the end of democracy" stuff. Just a scare tactic so people can vote for the guy who didn't do shit for them.

Wasn't this the same philosophy on voting for Trump because he'd never win.

It's really a binary choice here, you either want Biden and sanity or Trump and death.

That was my thought to,but have you seen Europe lately?

Moreso if NATO is disbanded.

Yeah, we were just over there last month. Still some nice places to shoot for. Budapest is a beautiful, affordable city that is an under the radar expat haven.

Apulia region in Italy, Portugal, though that is becoming too trendy and Austria are also options.

Yeah, we were just over there last month. Still some nice places to shoot for. Budapest is a beautiful, affordable city that is an under the radar expat haven.

Apulia region in Italy, Portugal, though that is becoming too trendy and Austria are also options.

Austria is pricey. What country of origin is your due citizenship or is it EU total?

I heard Portugal is ending their golden passport program. I have Italian heritage. My daughter has talked about buying a passport from like a place like Monaco.

Austria is pricey. What country of origin is your due citizenship or is it EU total?

I heard Portugal is ending their golden passport program. I have Italian heritage. My daughter has talked about buying a passport from like a place like Monaco.

British, and worst case scenario England is also an option, as I have family there. I hadn't heard that about Portugal, but it makes sense as popular as it has become in the last 5-6 years.

We have a nephew in Germany as well and he loves it there.

He passed infrastructure, climate, COVID relief, ended the war in Afghanistan, basically stopped drone strikes, some student loan cancellation, some gun control...

But, sure, nothing. Leftists still saying there's no difference between parties aren't arguing in good faith. You can be sure that the left will have even less influence going forward. There's no point in trying to work with people that complain no matter what happens.

Ended emergency SNAP benefits, killed Medicaid continuous enrollment, and ended the student loan repayment pause. Didn't extend the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, WIC, and stripped free school lunches. Poorer people actually had better social programs under Trump.

The infrastructure bill was gutted before it got signed into law and includes a big tax break for the rich (plus free handouts to big businesses) that make up a huge portion of the cost. Splitting the bill from reconciliation crushed any leverage Biden had but that was likely intentional on his part.

And the climate bill which increases fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters. Not to mention subsidizing a bunch of large businesses with tax credits.

The Afghanistan stuff is genuinely good. Best foreign policy decision in decades. Shame about the genocide in Gaza and the hundreds of billions we'll end up spending on a deadend war in Ukraine.

Wasn't this the same philosophy on voting for Trump because he'd never win.

It's really a binary choice here, you either want Biden and sanity or Trump and death.

No, I'm saying Democrats either don't think democracy is in jeopardy or don't care. Don't let them play you with that dumb argument.

I think sanity would be picking a younger candidate that people actually like.

Ended emergency SNAP benefits, killed Medicaid continuous enrollment, and ended the student loan repayment pause. Didn't extend the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, WIC, and stripped free school lunches. Poorer people actually had better social programs under Trump.

The infrastructure bill was gutted before it got signed into law and includes a big tax break for the rich (plus free handouts to big businesses) that make up a huge portion of the cost. Splitting the bill from reconciliation crushed any leverage Biden had but that was likely intentional on his part.

And the climate bill which increases fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters. Not to mention subsidizing a bunch of large businesses with tax credits.

The Afghanistan stuff is genuinely good. Best foreign policy decision in decades. Shame about the genocide in Gaza and the hundreds of billions we'll end up spending on a deadend war in Ukraine.

Crazy how the GOP had nothing to do with any of this.

Supporting Biden in the last election meant supporting him in this one if he decided to run again. Those were one and the same decision for all practical purposes.

Biden supports all those things regarding Israel as well.
no he doesn't. That is just flat lying. He is for a Two State solution (Trump has said Palestinians can never be trusted with their own state), condemns West Bank expansion. He has stated any two state solution would require the withdrawal of settlements on the West Bank and include a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. To pretend the two are the same is just stupid.

I will say this, Biden is not for the death of Israeli Jews like the Democratic Socialist that celebrated the rape and murders of women and children on October 7th. So I get why you are against him.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Yeah, we were just over there last month. Still some nice places to shoot for. Budapest is a beautiful, affordable city that is an under the radar expat haven.

You mean the one in Hungary? The country led by Viktor Orban? That Budapest?

Trump has said Palestinians can never be trusted with their own state)

Perhaps one of the best foreign policy positions I can think of in Trump's folder.
Accurate AND honest about it.

Be honest, Jon, how many populaces do you personally feel can be trusted with their own state?

No, I'm saying Democrats either don't think democracy is in jeopardy or don't care. Don't let them play you with that dumb argument.

I'm a registered Democrat and I think that if Trump wins in 2024 that will be the last free election we have in this country. Already in some red states the 2024 election won't be exactly "free".

I think sanity would be picking a younger candidate that people actually like.

For like the millionth time, the election will be won by swing voters in like 4-6 states like Michigan & North Carolina. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, who me the candidate who does better in those states than Biden.

A "younger candidate that people actually like" might goose the results in MA or CA, but that means nothing in our system.

no he doesn't. That is just flat lying. He is for a Two State solution (Trump has said Palestinians can never be trusted with their own state), condemns West Bank expansion. He has stated any two state solution would require the withdrawal of settlements on the West Bank and include a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. To pretend the two are the same is just stupid.

Actions speak louder than words. He can say he wants a two-state solution and withdrawal from illegal settlements. Just like he says he cares about innocent civilians dying. He has the power to make these things happen but refuses.

Nothing would change in regards to Israel with Trump in power.

I will say this, Biden is not for the death of Israeli Jews like the Democratic Socialist that celebrated the rape and murders of women and children on October 7th. So I get why you are against him.


Save this lame shit for your boomer friends on Facebook. Now that people can actually see videos, actually hear from reporters on the ground, the propaganda doesn't work.

There is one side committing genocide. One side has run an apartheid state for decades. One side operates a giant concentration camp. One side illegally settling on stolen land. One side actively committing genocide.

What Hamas has done is reprehensible. It still compares into the war crimes and atrocities being committed on a daily basis from Israel.

I'm a registered Democrat and I think that if Trump wins in 2024 that will be the last free election we have in this country. Already in some red states the 2024 election won't be exactly "free".

So democracy is at stake (just ignore 2000) and the best possible option to save it is a wildly unpopular 82-year-old man? I feel like if democracy was going to end, wouldn't you have made a better effort to put up a better candidate?

For like the millionth time, the election will be won by swing voters in like 4-6 states like Michigan & North Carolina. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, who me the candidate who does better in those states than Biden.

A "younger candidate that people actually like" might goose the results in MA or CA, but that means nothing in our system.

Seems like this strategy is doing great. Glad the future of democracy rests with him.

Access to this page has been denied (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4359743-trump-leads-biden-in-7-swing-states-survey/)

You mean the one in Hungary? The country led by Viktor Orban? That Budapest?

Yeah, you ever been there?

And I know how he is, it's not the leader that matters to me, it's what his followers do and I would take him over Trump 8 days of the week.

These your friends, Rainmaker?https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/08/nyc-palestine-rally-democrats-israel-00120533
It is not some boomer Facebook thing, this was the good old Democrat Socialist showing their true colors. They have no problem with the murder and rape of women and children as long as they are Jewish.


Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

You can oppose two things at the same time. I oppose Hamas and the Israeli government. You have to use a strawman that opposing Israel means you support Hamas because it's impossible to defend what Israel is doing. Anyone with a conscience would oppose the actions of both.

I don't support terrorists and I don't support genocidal ethnostates. You can't say the same thing.

Crazy how the GOP had nothing to do with any of this.

You must vote for the guy who is apparently powerless to do anything for you. It's a great political pitch.

I oppose the war. I have from the very beginning. I just also oppose the murder of innocent Jews as well. I don't like you paint Jews as blooddrinkers glorying in the death of Palestinian babies. Both sides have committed atrocities. Both sides have a right to exist without the fear of genocide. That is something you can't say.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Rainmaker, as opposed to supporting a dictator? Because unless you are for a dictator then anyone elected has to comprise and recognize that you will never get everything you want.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I oppose the war. I have from the very beginning. I just also oppose the murder of innocent Jews as well. I don't like you paint Jews as blooddrinkers glorying in the death of Palestinian babies. Both sides have committed atrocities. Both sides have a right to exist without the fear of genocide. That is something you can't say.


Who is committing most of the atrocities and perpetuating genocide? What are the number of innocent civilians killed since not just October 7th, but the past few decades?

And I fully agree. Both sides have a right to exist. That's not the current position of our government and not what our tax dollars are supporting.

Rainmaker, as opposed to supporting a dictator? Because unless you are for a dictator then anyone elected has to comprise and recognize that you will never get everything you want.


You can't pretend this is an incredibly important election that determines the future of our country while simultaneously arguing that the President can't really do all that much. The President either has immense power or they don't. Make up your mind.

You must vote for the guy who is apparently powerless to do anything for you. It's a great political pitch.

Some things is not the same as no things. You refuse to accept that anything has been done. There's really no point in even trying to placate the left because they can't see that a half-full glass isn't empty.

At least with Trump, you'll have plenty to complain about, so there's that.

You can't pretend this is an incredibly important election that determines the future of our country while simultaneously arguing that the President can't really do all that much. The President either has immense power or they don't. Make up your mind.

You don't see the difference between voting for a person who works within the confines of the system and one who intends to destroy the system? You can't be that dense.

On the subject of young candidates that people like, what evidence do we have that is even a thing that exists for presidential elections?

We have a pretty long track record now as a country of voting for older candidates even when younger alternatives are available. One of my conclusions from that is that voters don't actually want younger presidents.

Except for Biden, all modern Democratic Presidents have been below the median age for US Presidents when first elected.

Except for Bush 2, all modern Republican Presidents have been above the median age.

I'd say there's a pretty long track record that Republicans prefer older candidates and Democrats prefer younger.

You don't see the difference between voting for a person who works within the confines of the system and one who intends to destroy the system? You can't be that dense.


Well if the guy spending billions on war crimes and genocide is doing it within the confines of the system, that changes everything.

Well if the guy spending billions on war crimes and genocide is doing it within the confines of the system, that changes everything.
The same billions the other guy would send. You know what is really ridiculous? Biden's position on Israel hasn't changed. He was pro-Israel in 2020 when the young people voted for him. His position has always been consistent. What changed was the vast majority of young voters didn't know what a Palestinian was until October when a group of them committed heinous crimes against Jewish people. Now it is the only cause that means anything. Killing Jews and winning friends isn't a good look.

You don't need to remind me that Biden has been wrong on just about every foreign policy decision of the last 50 years. And while the support of a violent ethnostate is abhorrent, I do think their shift toward active genocide changes the game a bit. And the fact that Biden is so insistent on providing billions more for that genocide that he'll make concessions with Republicans.

As for young voters, maybe they didn't know much about the conflict. Maybe these events have caused them to read about the Nabka, the 6-day war, the concentration camps, forced sterilizations, illegal settlements, etc. It's a conflict that isn't widely taught in schools and reporting isn't prevalent on the ground due to Israel's policy of assassinating journalists.

Either way, people can make their own moral judgements about Biden and whether he is deserving of their vote. You can't run on "orange man bad" every year and expect people to keep giving a shit.

The left could learn a lot from the anti-abortion folks. They've spent basically my entire lifetime fighting for a policy that every poll shows is unpopular and they largely won. They didn't quit in the 80's when Reagan didn't ban abortion or in the 2000s when Bush didn't either. They chipped away at a policy they didn't like, moving things forward and not giving up when they faced setbacks.

You'll end up happy though because Trump will win things will get worse and you'll be able to crow about how right you were. Arguing with the left is as predictable and ultimately productive as fucking a cinder block.

The left could learn a lot from the anti-abortion folks. They've spent basically my entire lifetime fighting for a policy that every poll shows is unpopular and they largely won. They didn't quit in the 80's when Reagan didn't ban abortion or in the 2000s when Bush didn't either. They chipped away at a policy they didn't like, moving things forward and not giving up when they faced setbacks.

What poll shows a ceasefire as unpopular? Recent polls show it at nearly 70% of people support calls for one. Heck, polls show that Americans are against sending weapons to Israel too (43% to 31%). It's you and Biden that are taking the unpopular position.

And regardless, we're talking about genocide. Is your argument that the left should support genocide and hope to make it an even more unpopular position over the next few decades?

You'll end up happy though because Trump will win things will get worse and you'll be able to crow about how right you were. Arguing with the left is as predictable and ultimately productive as fucking a cinder block.

I don't like Trump which is why I won't be voting for him either. But since as you say, Biden is doing the popular thing, there should be no worries about him losing this election.

Ceasefire is popular, but support for Israel is still very popular as well. Every poll I have seen in the last two months has supported sending aid to Israel at over 50%. Only the far left and far right have strong anti-Israel opnions.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

So democracy is at stake (just ignore 2000) and the best possible option to save it is a wildly unpopular 82-year-old man? I feel like if democracy was going to end, wouldn't you have made a better effort to put up a better candidate?

I didn't realize I had that kind of power. We're going to have a choice between Biden & Trump. You kind of have to live with it - that's how our system works.

And pointing to 2000 does not, I feel, make your point. Everyone who voted for Nader, gifting victory to Bush, shouldn't feel great about how the next 8 years turned out.

Seems like this strategy is doing great. Glad the future of democracy rests with him.

For the second time of asking, show me a different realistic Democratic candidate who is going to win those swing states. With evidence. I'll wait.

I didn't realize I had that kind of power. We're going to have And pointing to 2000 does not, I feel, make your point. Everyone who voted for Nader, gifting victory to Bush, shouldn't feel great about how the next 8 years turned out.

Recounts showed that Gore won Florida. Just saying the Democrats didn't really give a shit about "democracy" then so I'll take their righteous indignation with a grain of salt.

For the second time of asking, show me a different realistic Democratic candidate who is going to win those swing states. With evidence. I'll wait.

I don't know because the party has locked out any possible challenger. I think if they had made an effort to promote younger politicians over the last decade, they would have some contenders. I think Kelly, Whitmer, JB, Shapiro, and a slew of others would be better candidates if the Dems had given them any sort of publicity.

But hey, maybe Biden is best and recent swing state polls are off. We will see how it works out for the Dems in November.

Haley looking good in NH at 2nd. Guessing she'll be 3rd in Iowa.

Hope NH gives her a momentum surge like Joe got from SC.

New Hampshire Republican Presidential Preference Primary (https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html)

Haley is 30+ points behind Trump in her own state.

OK, it's not clear to me what you're arguing, RM.

If you're arguing that the Democratic party has kind of fucked itself here and shouldn't be in the precarious position it now finds itself in, then yes, I agree and I've been saying that they've been a useless bunch of idiots since at least the 90s.

If you're arguing that there's really no functional difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and so you should vote third party, or stay home, in 2024 to send a message to those idiots in the Democratic party, then I'd like to invite you to consider the issue with shooting off your nose to spite your face.

The reality of the American electoral system is that you're almost always voting for a compromised candidate or the lesser of two evils. I get the frustration that sometimes you vote for a candidate while holding your nose and then they win and crow about how they have a mandate, when really you just didn't want the other person. It would be nice to have a 5-point scale next to the person you're voting for on the ballot that gauges how much you really support them, from "I was literally this close to not voting at all" on one end to "yes, I really think you're a great candidate" on the other.

Recounts showed that Gore won Florida. Just saying the Democrats didn't really give a shit about "democracy" then so I'll take their righteous indignation with a grain of salt.

What are you talking about here? In what way did the 2000 election show that Dems didn't care about Democracy?

I don't know because the party has locked out any possible challenger. I think if they had made an effort to promote younger politicians over the last decade, they would have some contenders. I think Kelly, Whitmer, JB, Shapiro, and a slew of others would be better candidates if the Dems had given them any sort of publicity.

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

I suspect I'm consuming a similar degree of leftist content that RM is, I don't have the heart to wade into the Israel/Palestine thread but typically agree with the line of posting I see from RM there. When it comes to voting and how to vote, I see a lot of strong aggression from leftists towards the idea of "vote blue no matter who", or the urgency to vote against Trump. Most of these folks don't vote at all or will vote 3rd party. Some choose to vote in local elections and ignore the national stage.

When I see a black or LGBT creator tell me that their lived experience is that the democrats talk a lot but don't actually do anything for them, so there's really no difference, I'm not going to try to argue that. But I feel like my white straight male privileged self can still vote for perceived harm reduction and be just fine, so I'll continue to do that.

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

Perhaps marginally less so than Biden, but yes, you're definitely not wrong. (speaking for me, not RM)

Kelly is another moderate Dem. He's younger and a military guy, which probably gives him broader appeal but I don't see a Kelly presidency being much different than Biden's. He's 100% with Israel and has praised the Biden administration's handling of it. He's also for a lot of the GOP border policies and is very moderate on climate.

I like Whitmer, but I don't see her beating Trump. I would say Dems should work to raise her profile ahead of 2028.

Pritzker would get absolutely hammered for his ties to Blagojevich and the backroom deals he was discussing on a FBI wiretap with him. It wouldn't be a problem for a GOP candidate, but some of the stuff he said on wire tap would quickly end a campaign for just about any Dem.

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

I really don't have that high of expectations. Just can't be actively funding and aiding a genocide. That feels like an incredibly low bar.

What are you talking about here? In what way did the 2000 election show that Dems didn't care about Democracy?

They won the election but let it be stolen because they didn't want to be seen as sore losers.

If you're doing the "democracy is at stake" argument, where were you 23 years ago when this actually happened?

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

They should’ve had an insurrection, Jan 6th style only successful.

And major studies showed that Bush would have won the recount. Gore would likely have won without the errors in voting, but there is no legal way they could have corrected those errors after the election.. You are just wrong again.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Meanwhile, groups like Democracy Docket are constantly fighting to protect democracy and people's rights to vote, while Republicans try to put up every barrier they can to suppress people's votes. Republicans make it very clear that believe only people like them should be allowed to vote and have contempt for democracy and the will of the people. Your "both side"-ism flies in the face of every fact.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

They won the election but let it be stolen because they didn't want to be seen as sore losers.

If you're doing the "democracy is at stake" argument, where were you 23 years ago when this actually happened?

What should've Gore done after he was shot down by the Supreme Court?

And major studies showed that Bush would have won the recount. Gore would likely have won without the errors in voting, but there is no legal way they could have corrected those errors after the election.. You are just wrong again.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html)

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Literally says that if undervotes and overvotes were counted, Gore would have won. Gore didn't bother with overvotes because he is a moron (and Florida had some insane recount rules).

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.


How is this any different than Trump? If he tried to pull some shenanigans, the legal system will step in and he will have no recourse. What's the concern here?

They tried to stop the certification of the election by force. So no, it wasn't through legal means. And that article clearly says the recount would have been won by Bush. There was mo legal way to correct wrong ballots. The only way to fix the problems with that election was before it happened.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

They tried to stop the certification of the election by force. So no, it wasn't through legal means.

Brooks Brothers riot - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot)

"Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Yes, Republicans tried to stop that recount by force. They hate democracy. What's your point?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

"The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.

The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush"

But there was no legal means to do that. You can't suppose a vote. The voting system was flawed and there was no legal means to correct it afterwards.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Gore made strategic errors for sure, but the idea that the Democrats didn't fight in 2000 is just ridiculous and not a rational interpretation of what happened.

I really don't have that high of expectations. Just can't be actively funding and aiding a genocide. That feels like an incredibly low bar.

It took me five seconds of Googling to find the exact same "unequivocal support for Israel" line for every one of them. There's no doubt they would have the same position on Israel as Biden. If anything, some of them would be more pro-Israel than Biden.

But there was no legal means to do that. You can't suppose a vote. The voting system was flawed and there was no legal means to correct it afterwards.

There is no legal means for Trump to remove our form of democracy. So what's the concern here?

And I'm sure Democrats made huge efforts to fix this flawed system and preserve democracy after it happened. Right?

It took me five seconds of Googling to find the exact same "unequivocal support for Israel" line for every one of them. There's no doubt they would have the same position on Israel as Biden. If anything, some of them would be more pro-Israel than Biden.

I wouldn't vote for anyone of any party who aids supports a genocide. I do think Dems would have a better chance of winning running a younger, more coherent candidate that is not wildly unpopular.

Trump has made it clear he is not going to allow the rule of law to get in his way this time. He is already creating a list of thousands of loyalists he is going to put in position in bureaucratic roles on day one that swear allegiance only to him. He is also preparing to remove military leaders to supplant with his cronies, and swears to remove barriers from using the military on domestic grounds. He is openly bragging about this, this is not some made up fear mongering. The restrictions he had in his last term are going to be gone if he wins again.


Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Much of that would be illegal and as you've implied, he would have no recourse in the courts.

And if he ignores the courts, what recourse would anyone have? If his cronies are controlling the law enforcement, and the Senate refuses to remove him from office?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

There is no legal means for Trump to remove our form of democracy. So what's the concern here?

And I'm sure Democrats made huge efforts to fix this flawed system and preserve democracy after it happened. Right?

The fact that you're digging your heels in defending and downplaying Trump because you're upset Biden is doing what nearly any realistically electable official would be doing in Israel makes no sense to me.

I get you're upset over our support for Israel and it's a subject you're passionate about, but some of your arguments here are inconsistent, are moving goalposts, inaccurate, and sometimes just plain weird.

Dems aren't the only ones sounding the alarm on Trump and our democracy. Our allies, international organizations, watchdogs, historians, etc have all expressed concerns in one form or another. It is a scare tactic , but one to wake people up to the dangers of a man that is one step away from quoting Hitler, wants to be a dictator, and tried to violently overthrow our government.

I wouldn't vote for anyone of any party who aids supports a genocide. I do think Dems would have a better chance of winning running a younger, more coherent candidate that is not wildly unpopular.


Find me a realistic candidate that doesn't support Israel or Saudi Arabia? For something that you claim isn't a high bar it's awfully difficult to find realistic candidates that fit. So the choice is to vote for the candidate that aligns with your views closest or lose elections. That's something the progressives on the left still don't understand. Progress typically doesn't come in leaps and you have to take small wins where you can to build toward bigger wins.

He has already had the test run. If the orders he gave at the end of his first term were obeyed, then he would have stayed in power then. He now knows who he needs to remove so no one gets in his way.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Trump has made it clear he is not going to allow the rule of law to get in his way this time. He is already creating a list of thousands of loyalists he is going to put in position in bureaucratic roles on day one that swear allegiance only to him. He is also preparing to remove military leaders to supplant with his cronies, and swears to remove barriers from using the military on domestic grounds. He is openly bragging about this, this is not some made up fear mongering. The restrictions he had in his last term are going to be gone if he wins again.

I'm on board with all you describe but before you get too panicked about it, just know that I'm also assuming it'll end up being more empty campaign promises so I'm not particularly excited about it either.

And if he ignores the courts, what recourse would anyone have? If his cronies are controlling the law enforcement, and the Senate refuses to remove him from office?

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Law enforcement is already heavily right-wing and the makeup of the Senate isn't changing anytime soon. Weird that he's going to end democracy but not if he loses the election.

Find me a realistic candidate that doesn't support Israel or Saudi Arabia? For something that you claim isn't a high bar it's awfully difficult to find realistic candidates that fit. So the choice is to vote for the candidate that aligns with your views closest or lose elections. That's something the progressives on the left still don't understand. Progress typically doesn't come in leaps and you have to take small wins where you can to build toward bigger wins.

There probably isn't. Those countries have lobbied hard and call the shots here. Doesn't mean I need to vote for a war criminal.

I don't know what the big deal is. Sounds like you all think Biden is the best man and is doing everything right to win. One vote in Illinois is not going to change that. I'm sure he has it in the bag.

I think I&rsquo;ve seen repeatedly people say least worst in this thread or lessor of compromised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Law enforcement is already heavily right-wing and the makeup of the Senate isn't changing anytime soon. Weird that he's going to end democracy but not if he loses the election.
He is going to try. They already have set the stage in several states.

I (currently) believe Joe has the best odds of beating Trump. It's fine if you believe there are better suited Dem candidates that can beat Trump. Let's go through the nomination process. Moan, complain, whine all you want (and admittedly, some times with good reason) ...

... but at the end of the day, if Joe wins the Democratic nomination, you either support him or you don't (e.g. stay home, vote for Trump, vote for other 3rd party etc.). I support anyone's right to stay home or vote 3rd party. But that right may result in Trump being elected, and you will share part of the blame.

So what's the concern here?
Too bad this question wasn't asked in Germany in the 30's. A lot of folks knew "the leader" could be controlled and not really do anything. They were wrong.

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Did you miss it when he incited his followers to storm the capitol and disrupt the final processes of the election by force?

As one of his acolytes said (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/12/marjorie-taylor-greene-jan-6-capitol-attack-armed-speech), were it (January 6th) to happen again, the crowd storming the capitol would be a lot better armed.

Did you miss it when he incited his followers to storm the capitol and disrupt the final processes of the election by force?

As one of his acolytes said (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/12/marjorie-taylor-greene-jan-6-capitol-attack-armed-speech), were it (January 6th) to happen again, the crowd storming the capitol would be a lot better armed.

So why does the election matter if he isn't going to abide by the results? Kind of seems moot.

Too bad this question wasn't asked in Germany in the 30's. A lot of folks knew "the leader" could be controlled and not really do anything. They were wrong.

A far-right ethnostate might setup concentration camps and then commit a violent ethnic cleansing to expand their own lands if we aren't careful.

A far-right ethnostate might setup concentration camps and then commit a violent ethnic cleansing to expand their own lands if we aren't careful.

Doesn't have to have the exact same reasons, nor end results. Don't feel bad if you can't see the danger, most Germans didn't either.

So why does the election matter if he isn't going to abide by the results? Kind of seems moot.

*whoosh*

Ramaswamy appears to be on the verge of dropping out. He's suspended all ad spending.

People around DeSantis are reportedly planning on trying to convince him to drop out as well.

Ramaswamy appears to be on the verge of dropping out. He's suspended all ad spending.


... with a "big surprise, doing it differently" thingy. But yeah, he's lost momentum, people have seen through his schtick and have found him wanting.

Ramaswamy on Tuesday downplayed the significance of television advertising and teased a “big surprise” Jan. 15, the date of the season-opening Iowa Caucuses.

“Presidential TV ad spending is idiotic, low-ROI & a trick that political consultants use to bamboozle candidates who suffer from low IQ,” Ramaswamy said on X on Tuesday in response to the news report. “We’re doing it differently. Spending $$ in a way that follows data…apparently a crazy idea in US politics.”

I think DeSantis will wait to see the results from the early primaries first.

I really don't know if he is wrong about TV ads. The importance of television ads does sort of seem two decades ago thinking. Still, you have to be spending some money on keeping your name in front of voters. I know he has completely given himself to in-person campaigning in Iowa, and that might work there. He is rolling the dice on a surprise result in Iowa to propel him forward. Of course all of it is a waste of time since Trump is probably going to beat the field soundly.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

He was spending hundreds of thousands a week on TV and now he's out of money. He's going to have to go back to the drawing board for a new way to scam people out of their money.

Maybe he can bring in George Santos as a consultant.

Maine boots Trump off their primary ballot

It's good that Colorado and Maine are pushing the issue. From what I've read, the odds are in favor of Trump but I do think SCOTUS should rule on this (and quickly) and make an formal decision.

It'd be fascinating to hear their internal discussions, rationales etc.

He hasn't been convicted of insurrection or rebellion, so he's fine according to SCOTUS. That's my guess.

I just saw a Nikki Haley attack ad from DeSantis here in Washington.

I just saw a Nikki Haley attack ad from DeSantis here in Washington.

During the Iowa game? I think I heard a presidential ad during the game which makes sense given the audience.

During the Iowa game? I think I heard a presidential ad during the game which makes sense given the audience.

That does make sense now.

It's still strange to see the 2nd place guy attacking the person in 3rd place.

When the only chance in hell they both have is the guy in first can’t run any more, it would make perfect sense?

The real question would be whether it’s a pure Hail Mary or if there’s actually something they are looking at that means they believe maybe Trump might not be able to be the candidate.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">O’BRIEN, TRUMP DISCUSS TEAMSTER ISSUES AHEAD OF RANK-AND-FILE ROUNDTABLE<br><br>Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien met privately with President Donald Trump on Wednesday for an in-depth and productive discussion on worker issues most important to the Teamsters Union.<br><br>The… <a href="https://t.co/LL6dWqJKF6">pic.twitter.com/LL6dWqJKF6</a></p>&mdash; Teamsters (@Teamsters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Teamsters/status/1742743244461465636?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

How many town halls is Ron DeSantis going to do? I am not watching but it is headlined on CNN.com. I feel like I am aware of DeSantis doing like 6-7 of these in that three months or so on both Fox and CNN. Are all the candidates doing tons of individual town halls in lieu of debates?

Yeah, let’s do this.


The US Supreme Court said Friday it will review the Colorado Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision removing former President Donald Trump from that state’s ballot.

The court scheduled oral arguments for February 8.

I guess Trump is at war with magnets now? He claims magnets don't work when they get wet.

I mean, there's this too:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump on The Civil War: I’m so attracted to seeing it. There was something that could’ve been negotiated… Abraham Lincoln, if he negotiated it, we wouldn’t know who Lincoln was. He wouldn’t have been the Abraham Lincoln. But that would’ve been ok. <a href="https://t.co/RbmnXCvypI">pic.twitter.com/RbmnXCvypI</a></p>&mdash; Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743722796348563629?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I mean, there's this too:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump on The Civil War: I’m so attracted to seeing it. There was something that could’ve been negotiated… Abraham Lincoln, if he negotiated it, we wouldn’t know who Lincoln was. He wouldn’t have been the Abraham Lincoln. But that would’ve been ok. <a href="https://t.co/RbmnXCvypI">pic.twitter.com/RbmnXCvypI</a></p>&mdash; Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743722796348563629?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 6, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


The way he talks about how attractive the civil war is you'd think he wants to grab it by the pussy.

Btw, he's like a child that learns something and wants to go out and tell everyone. Explaining to people that in the 1800s when you got shot you'd likely either lose the limb or die makes sense to him because he just learned it and he doesn't have the self awareness to realize that it's common knowledge to anyone that made it past elementary school.

The way he talks about how attractive the civil war is you'd think he wants to grab it by the pussy.

Btw, he's like a child that learns something and wants to go out and tell everyone. Explaining to people that in the 1800s when you got shot you'd likely either lose the limb or die makes sense to him because he just learned it and he doesn't have the self awareness to realize that it's common knowledge to anyone that made it past elementary school.

So true. I remember when he discovered the phrase “priming the pump” (in regards to the economy) back in 2016 or 2017 and he couldn’t get enough of saying it and then explaining what it means. I think, at one point, he even tried to claim being the first person to say it. Of course, sadly, this level of discourse is on level for an upsetting level of Americans nowadays.

I know it's a rhetorical question, but how can anybody with an IQ over 70 support this guy, he is a fucking idiot, attracting others just as stupid.

It's largely not about IQ. He opposes the right people and has the correct letter in front of his name on the ballot. That is enough for the lions share of Americans to support a candidate.

It's largely not about IQ. He opposes the right people and has the correct letter in front of his name on the ballot. That is enough for the lions share of Americans to support a candidate.
He "tells it like it is." To people who just hate anyone different, having a politician who "isn't afraid" to say the quiet things out loud is refreshing. They don't care about facts. They care that he voice how they feel.

I think it is that he is so unbelievably unethical, entitled, and selfish, that he literally has more illegal and immoral things going on at any one time than most any other person could have in 100 lifetimes. And, when he has to face any accountability or consequences, he whines about it and makes it seem like he is being picked on.

Like he legit has almost 100 charges against him, his family (he and Jared, blatantly) clearly have profited from their positions, he slept with a porn star while his wife was pregnant, friends with Epstein, buried his ex-wife/mother of his children at his golf course for a tax break, and those are before you get into unproven accusations. I think most of his people believe that there is no way one person can be that awful, so he must be targeted by the media/Dems/Rhinos/elite and, “if they’d do it to him, they’ll do it to us, too.”

He hurts the right people.

He "tells it like it is." To people who just hate anyone different, having a politician who "isn't afraid" to say the quiet things out loud is refreshing. They don't care about facts. They care that he voice how they feel.

For a guy that tells it like it is they spend a lot of time telling us what he really meant.

Chris Cristie is going to announce he is dropping out at 5 pm today. He isn't endorsing anyone yet.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Won't matter really but could help Haley a bit in New Hampshire.

Just curious if anybody watched the Haley / DeSantis debate and thoughts on it. On line the consensus seems to be that Haley came out the better of the two.

Just curious if anybody watched the Haley / DeSantis debate and thoughts on it. On line the consensus seems to be that Haley came out the better of the two.
I didn't, but I had heard her supporters where pretty disappointed in her performance.

Just curious if anybody watched the Haley / DeSantis debate and thoughts on it. On line the consensus seems to be that Haley came out the better of the two.

I didn't but I heard neither of them really went after Trump, which is insane. To have any chance, especially in NH, you have to get those Christie voters.

In reality it doesn't matter, but acting like he barely exists is insane to me. I guess they both have done the calculation that their best bet is Trump not being on the ticket and picking up MAGA.

Election season has begun. Rooting for Haley for 2nd and then pulling off an upset in NH (?).

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/iowa-caucuses-01-15-24/index.html
the final Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom before Monday’s caucuses found.

Overall:

48% of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be their first choice;
20% name former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley;
16% name Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis;
And the rest of the field is below 10%.

I'm rooting for something even more improbable - sanity.

Seriously

I'm rooting for something even more improbable - sanity.

I think that's called "trout".

If elections are going to happen (and it will), then it comes down to what's the best of the bad choices ... both in the Democratic and GOP primaries, and then the Presidential election.

Unless you join the 35-40% of citizens that don't vote.

And as always, the "both sides" implied in your "best of the bad choices" is ridiculous to me, personally. When the Democratic Party is tsken hostage by the crazies, call me. Until then, the simple answer is that we can overcome 4 years of bad policies (if that's what you believe), but we can't overcome 4 years of dismantling our democracy. Which the GOP is openly talking about doing.

Hmmm... 35% capital gains tax rate or wholesale firing of government staff, releasing convicted 1/6 criminals, giving Ukraine to Putin and back to cozying up to authoritarians across the world, and everything else that the orange shitstain wants for his personal gain. But hey, as long as I'm a white, male, upperclass Christian, I'll be on the "winning" team!

You read too much into my post.

I'm simply stating that many GOP voters are going to vote for Trump even if he wasn't their first choice because the worse choice is Joe. Many in the party are going to vote for Haley-DeSantis-Ramaswamy because Trump is too extreme for them.

Similarly, many Democratic voters will do the same.

And this is rinse-and-repeat for all election cycles. There's nothing new about voting for "best of bad choices".

There's nothing new about voting for "best of bad choices".

That's not what is happening, though, because if it was, there'd be some semblance of a consensus on which candidate is the best choice given that this goes well behind the typical "rinse and repeat" of policy choices and personality. This is not an election where "On balance, I'm more in favor of business interests and free markets, so I'm sticking with the GOP" talking points make any sense.

Painting this as a typical election cycle is exactly the problem. One candidate is telling people he is going to prosecute his political enemies (without articulating a legal basis for doing so) and even suggesting executions. But yeah, Joe is much worse.

That's not what is happening, though, because if it was, there'd be some semblance of a consensus on which candidate is the best choice given that this goes well behind the typical "rinse and repeat" of policy choices and personality.
I'll disagree here. I certainly don't see this as a marker of "best of bad choices" happening (or not). IMO the marker is opinion polls and how many people complain about it. And since election season has just begun, more to come here.

Painting this as a typical election cycle is exactly the problem. One candidate is telling people he is going to prosecute his political enemies (without articulating a legal basis for doing so) and even suggesting executions. But yeah, Joe is much worse.
I think what you are saying is this election cycle is much worse, more important etc. than others. It's not the normal voting for "best of bad choices".

If so, I don't disagree.

Arguably, 2016 was worse than 2024. But both revolve around the same person, so same difference.

I always rank candidates, by who I think will do the best job of leading the country, with no regard for party as all. And sadly DeSantis is closer to Biden now, than 3 months ago, but it is still Biden if Haley does not pull off a hail Mary.

This time around
1-Haley
.
.
.
.
.
.Big drop off
2-Biden
3-Desantis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Huge drop off
4-Trump

Every poll has Trump winning the primaries. And that is what probably will happen. But if he loses some early races, I am somewhat fascinated to see how it will play out. His supporters, we know, will not accept those results. And he will, we know, encourage them on to cheat and use violence to thwart the will of the electorate.
How does the rest of the GOP react to that when he is using violence against them instead of against Americans as a whole?

I always rank candidates, by who I think will do the best job of leading the country, with no regard for party as all. And sadly DeSantis is closer to Biden now, than 3 months ago, but it is still Biden if Haley does not pull off a hail Mary.


I am "anyone but Trump", so my default is Joe.

But if Haley somehow wins the nomination, I'd seriously consider her vs Joe.

Every poll has Trump winning the primaries. And that is what probably will happen. But if he loses some early races, I am somewhat fascinated to see how it will play out. His supporters, we know, will not accept those results. And he will, we know, encourage them on to cheat and use violence to thwart the will of the electorate.

How does the rest of the GOP react to that when he is using violence against them instead of against Americans as a whole?

Agree, it'd be fascinating how that all plays out.

Exit polls have 2/3 of GOPers saying Biden didn't win.

Haley would likely walk over Biden right now. Of course the election is months away and how much damage Trump would do if he wasn't on the ballot is an open question.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

No shock. Trump called the winner as soon as the first numbers come in.

Haley would likely walk over Biden right now. Of course the election is months away and how much damage Trump would do if he wasn't on the ballot is an open question.

Ironically I'd take Biden over that treacherous bitch

Haley would likely walk over Biden right now. Of course the election is months away and how much damage Trump would do if he wasn't on the ballot is an open question.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I really would like to meet one of these unicorn GOPers who would vote for anyone other than Trump. I know people who said they would vote for DeSantis but those people would only do so if DeSantis was not on the ballot. Those people are few and far between. They are also the only ones willing to consider the election occurring if Trump is not on the ballot. Obviously, these people exists

DeSantis finishing second really kills the fantasy that Haley would be a real challenge to Trump after New Hampshire.

dola

And Vivek never had a chance with these people no matter to what lengths he was willing to degrade himself.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iowa voter on Ramaswamy: &quot;I’m not being prejudiced, guys, but I don’t like his name. I don’t like where he came from. After 9/11, I still harbor a lot of hard feelings.&quot;<br><br>On <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TheFocusGroup?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheFocusGroup</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SarahLongwell25?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SarahLongwell25</a> previews the caucuses with the great Ann Selzer. <a href="https://t.co/MzEbzI8CAb">https://t.co/MzEbzI8CAb</a></p>&mdash; Will Saletan (wsaletan on Threads) (@saletan) <a href="https://twitter.com/saletan/status/1746968371243934130?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I really would like to meet one of these unicorn GOPers who would vote for anyone other than Trump.

Find some of the Kemp-truebelievers in Georgia, probably some amongst those.

Damnable fools basically.

dola

And Vivek never had a chance with these people no matter to what lengths he was willing to degrade himself.<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I think he just wanted his name out there and maybe a cabinet position. Guessing he gets the latter.

<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe><iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>

I really would like to meet one of these unicorn GOPers who would vote for anyone other than Trump.

If I could vote for a Kasich, Haley, etc. I probably would; there are factors that could make me go back to third party also but I'd lean that way. As long as it's somebody like Trump - I wouldn't vote for DeSantis either for similar reasons as Trump - as long as it's somebody like that, I don't see a reasonable choice other than voting Biden. I don't support a lot of his policies, but on some issues he constrains himself by respecting the form of government of the country he's the President of. Right now, that's where the bar basically is; are you in favor of voting or against it, for or against civil war/anarchy/despotism.

I used isidewith.com and ended up with the governor of N Dakota 1st and then the senator from W Virginia, I think he&rsquo;s independent now as number 2&hellip; then Biden. Therefore it looks like none of the current class of candidates outside of Biden match what I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glad to see Ramaswamy drop out. He is an unlikable guy with, hope he takes a significant financial hit in his businesses because he was such an ass.

Disappointed in Haley's 3rd place showing but NH is where she's planning on the breakout. Trump will still win but she needs a strong showing for momentum.

As someone who considers Trump uniquely dangerous and who believes that this country really needs an honorable intellectual conservative party in order to thrive, I was very saddened by these results. A Trump blowout with DeSantis in second place is about as bad as it can get from my point of view.

Glad to see Ramaswamy drop out. He is an unlikable guy with, hope he takes a significant financial hit in his businesses because he was such an ass.

Disappointed in Haley's 3rd place showing but NH is where she's planning on the breakout. Trump will still win but she needs a strong showing for momentum.

I find it hilarious that Ramaswamy spent a year of his life trying to win votes from people who, in the end, didn't vote for him because they thought he was Arab/Muslim and from Saudi Arabia instead of an Indian/Hindu born in Cincinnati. Sometimes, you get what you deserve.

A good thread by Steve Korancki on how Trump's nomination didn't start as a forgone conclusion and where it started to break away. Indict him needed to be done, but the slow drag in the investigation and waiting till it was this close to the election basically handed him this nomination.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The shift came abruptly: A clear rally-around-Trump effect among GOP voters when news of the first indictment (Manhattan DA) broke in March '23. Look how the polling averaged diverged at that moment and never looked back: <a href="https://t.co/uwCToHzx1P">pic.twitter.com/uwCToHzx1P</a></p>&mdash; Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1747250885514707121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

... instead of an Indian/Hindu born in Cincinnati. Sometimes, you get what you deserve.

I didn't think much about his religion until you mentioned it. I always assumed he was one of the Christian denominations.

But googled and you're right! Electing a Hindu is a bridge too far (at least right now) if you're going after the GOP base or general electorate.

Karma = get what you deserve.

If I could vote for a Kasich, Haley, etc. I probably would; there are factors that could make me go back to third party also but I'd lean that way. As long as it's somebody like Trump - I wouldn't vote for DeSantis either for similar reasons as Trump - as long as it's somebody like that, I don't see a reasonable choice other than voting Biden. I don't support a lot of his policies, but on some issues he constrains himself by respecting the form of government of the country he's the President of. Right now, that's where the bar basically is; are you in favor of voting or against it, for or against civil war/anarchy/despotism.

Sincere question. Do you see yourself as a member of the GOP?

That is the piece I can't wrap my head around. GOPers could vote for Haley because they agree with her policies. They could vote for Haley because they don't like Trump/DeSantis. They could vote for Haley because they believe she is the best chance to defeat Biden. But yet here we are.

To be clear, the same could be said on the Democratic side as well when it comes to actual votes cast. I just see more people expressing their choice in one of those three terms. I personally think Haley (or someone else) would have had a better chance running as a conservative Democratic against Biden as opposed to what she has done. I'm not saying she would have won the nomination but her pushes to the far right so far come off as disingenuous to me. She seems better suited to chase the support of the more conservative members of the Democratic Party.

She seems better suited to chase the support of the more conservative members of the Democratic Party.

That's because she's not a conservative, so it makes sense.

No actual conservative would have done what that treacherous hellspawn did in South Carolina.

Or was this just the inevitable outcome of a race where nobody had the courage to go after Trump directly?

I find it hilarious that Ramaswamy spent a year of his life trying to win votes from people who, in the end, didn't vote for him because they thought he was Arab/Muslim and from Saudi Arabia instead of an Indian/Hindu born in Cincinnati. Sometimes, you get what you deserve.

I found myself oddly impressed by both Apoorva Ramaswamy and the Fowlers from the video clips that I saw regarding this. I think we all have been in the position the Fowlers were in sitting at the table. The silent conversation of a wife basically seeking reassurance from her husband because she wants to/is going to say the thing. Her husband responding like yeah go ahead and say the thing. The wife actually saying the thing. Finally Apoorva Ramaswamy deserves immense credit for giving them the space and grace to say what was obviously a difficult thing for them, not try to minimize what was said even if minimizing it might have played well later. The little quip of “Not much we can do about that one.” was a perfect way to lift the tension while not dismissing what was said. Good job by all.

A good thread by Steve Korancki on how Trump's nomination didn't start as a forgone conclusion and where it started to break away. Indict him needed to be done, but the slow drag in the investigation and waiting till it was this close to the election basically handed him this nomination.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The shift came abruptly: A clear rally-around-Trump effect among GOP voters when news of the first indictment (Manhattan DA) broke in March '23. Look how the polling averaged diverged at that moment and never looked back: <a href="https://t.co/uwCToHzx1P">pic.twitter.com/uwCToHzx1P</a></p>&mdash; Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1747250885514707121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

The two people who really fucked us were Garland And Bragg. The Stormy Daniels case being the first one really made it look like they were out to get him as opposed to something Garland should have brought which would have had teeth. No excuse for Garland taking so long and now Trump will likely be reelected and it all goes away.

Sincere question. Do you see yourself as a member of the GOP?

That is the piece I can't wrap my head around. GOPers could vote for Haley because they agree with her policies. They could vote for Haley because they don't like Trump/DeSantis. They could vote for Haley because they believe she is the best chance to defeat Biden. But yet here we are.

To be clear, the same could be said on the Democratic side as well when it comes to actual votes cast. I just see more people expressing their choice in one of those three terms. I personally think Haley (or someone else) would have had a better chance running as a conservative Democratic against Biden as opposed to what she has done. I'm not saying she would have won the nomination but her pushes to the far right so far come off as disingenuous to me. She seems better suited to chase the support of the more conservative members of the Democratic Party.


yes she might have the conservative part down but she also has the far-right down very well. She can't seem to make her up her mind on any one topic and stay with it. She was very anti-trump until he became the nominee and then she kissed the ring and got UN Ambassador where she was very far right. She was pro Confederate flag here In SC until events caused her to change course. And then just last week she even couldn't agree that slavery was a/the cause for the Civil war until forced to. She will never work with Democrats, so how exactly is she any different than Trump but younger?

That's what I'd like to know. Where exactly (other than the flag) does Haley agree with Dems/disagree with Reps on much of anything? Abortion, LGBTQ issues, immigration, the environment, school loans, school "choice", etc. Maybe she's not ivermectin crazy, but what else does she give Dems? Oh, she's not quite as overtly racist, great (though as we've seen, disqualifies her to some on the right).

She's the classic example of a 2015 normie GOPer who is trying to play both sides of the fence. She knew how she should have answered the Civil War question, but she couldn't answer that way because the voters she was courting don't want to hear it.

Haley today, "we've never been a racist country."

lol Too late, dearie. You won't be the nominee and Trump will never pick you as his VP.

Haley today, "we've never been a racist country."

lol Too late, dearie. You won't be the nominee and Trump will never pick you as his VP.


well at least she waited until after martin luther king day to say that, yes we should all vote for her now.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dana Bash: &quot;How do you feel about your party’s frontrunner being held liable for sexual abuse?&quot;<br><br>Nikki Haley: &quot;I haven't paid attention to his cases, and I'm not a lawyer…You got investigations on Trump and Biden.” <a href="https://t.co/M7pVXt1SbA">pic.twitter.com/M7pVXt1SbA</a></p>&mdash; Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1747320408368422963?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 16, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I didn't think much about his religion until you mentioned it. I always assumed he was one of the Christian denominations.

But googled and you're right! Electing a Hindu is a bridge too far (at least right now) if you're going after the GOP base or general electorate.

Karma = get what you deserve.
And the first thing he wanted to do when he got in office is not to allow people like him, children born in America of immigrant parents, have birthright citizenship. I mean that is just a special level of douche.

Yeah until its only her and trump left then it will be 'yes we can't have someone convicted of sexual abuse as the leader of our country' or some such nonsense. not paid attention to the cases for the guy who you worked for, yeah right.

And the first thing he wanted to do when he got in office is not to allow people like him, children born in America of immigrant parents, have birthright citizenship. I mean that is just a special level of douche.

That's not quite accurate. The important distinction is legal vs illegal.

Haley today, "we've never been a racist country."

lol Too late, dearie. You won't be the nominee and Trump will never pick you as his VP.

Trump obliterating her on the slavery answer was pretty funny.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 507px; height: 601px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1743992587269054694&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com%2Ffofc%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D98938&sessionId=c368638fdf4e37b93510527ce8c9b5fd5591c427&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px" data-tweet-id="1743992587269054694"></iframe>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp><iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>

Spoken like a man not afraid of losing any votes for saying the obvious.

That's not quite accurate. The important distinction is legal vs illegal.

The immigration crisis is so bad that the Speaker of the House says it can wait until next year when a Republican is in office. Why negotiate at least some semblance of a solution now for the benefit of the country when Biden can then claim a hand in the solution? No, the best thing to do is, like the economy, hope everything goes to hell in a hand basket because winning the election is so much more important than, you know, doing things to improve the lives of Americans.

yes she might have the conservative part down but she also has the far-right down very well. She can't seem to make her up her mind on any one topic and stay with it. She was very anti-trump until he became the nominee and then she kissed the ring and got UN Ambassador where she was very far right. She was pro Confederate flag here In SC until events caused her to change course. And then just last week she even couldn't agree that slavery was a/the cause for the Civil war until forced to. She will never work with Democrats, so how exactly is she any different than Trump but younger?

That is the point. She has tried to be a version of Trump IMO much like other GOP candidates in the last few years. If this is who she really is, I feel like we would have heard about the female version of Donald Trump way back in 2005 when she first ran for office. This current version of Nikki Haley would not be getting endorsements and potential vice president nominee consideration from Mitt Romney. Hell, she turned down a far right layup when she did not support one of those anti trans bathroom bills back in 2016. Why create an easy stick like that for your opponents to hit you with if you actually believed that the bathroom scare was a problem. Much like you have documented, the current version is doing what she has to do to get elected IMO.

When I talk about her running as a Democrat, I mean a specific version of Haley. That version would still be right leaning and would still have problematic positions on certain things as far as I am concerned. That version would also be closer to what Joe Biden than many Democrats would like to believe and would allow for those right leaning Democrats that I know exist to have a more genuine voice within the party (No I don't think Joe Manchin as a genuine conservative Democrat. I think he is a DINO). I know that it is terrifying for some Democrats to consider that there is a right leaning faction of the party but they know that it exists. I would say that she would be better off trying to get support from the left leaning wing of the Republican party but I honestly don't think that exist which was the reason for my original post.

That's what I'd like to know. Where exactly (other than the flag) does Haley agree with Dems/disagree with Reps on much of anything? Abortion, LGBTQ issues, immigration, the environment, school loans, school "choice", etc. Maybe she's not ivermectin crazy, but what else does she give Dems? Oh, she's not quite as overtly racist, great (though as we've seen, disqualifies her to some on the right).

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both are sitting in the U.S. Senate with D's next to their name. I live in a state where Charlie Bleepin' Crist won a congressional election and was the Democratic candidate for Governor. If the first two can still be sitting in the Senate right now and that last one could be still campaigning for Dems, is it that far fetched to think a version of Haley would have had a better chance at the current Democratic nomination than she does at the Republican one? As far as what positions she would agree with Dems, it all depends on when you asked her. Catch her on the right day you might find she is in lock step with the Dems.

Here is Nikki Haley said in Iowa in August 2023.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told a question-asker at the Des Moines Register Political Soapbox Saturday they were misinformed by Google for believing she was against gay marriage.

“Get your news from somewhere else,” Haley said. “This is what I’ll tell you: People should live the way they want to live. I believe in freedom. I believe in making sure that people can live the way they want to live, and I believe the government needs to stay out of the way.”

A regular old AOC if I ever so one.

Now one could forgive the questioner for thinking she was against gay marriage because here is what she said in 2013.

Gov. Nikki Haley said she is doing "my job to uphold the constitution" by opposing a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "The citizens of South Carolina spoke ... they spoke something that I, too, believe, which is marriage should between a man and a woman," Haley told reporters after speaking at an event sponsored by the S.C. Chamber of Commerce in the Isle of Palms. "I’m going to stand by the people of this state, stand by the constitution, I’m going to support it and fight for it every step of the way."

I think that first position would get rounding applause in democratic debate provided she can claimed to have learned some things in the years since that second one.

One more

Here is Nikki Haley discussing trans women in women's locker rooms in 2023.

he said she does not support transgender women student athletes competing in women’s sports, and does not support transgender women using women’s locker rooms.

She said that “our daughters” should not have to “figure out how to deal with” transgender women in women’s locker rooms.

No chance of her siding with the Dems on this issue except back in 2016 when discussing why she opposed anti trans bathroom bills for her state with the press, she said.

“Y’all haven’t reported on anything. I haven’t heard anything that’s come to my office. So when I look at South Carolina, we look at our situations, we’re not hearing of anybody’s religious liberties that are being violated, and we’re, again, not hearing any citizens that feel like they are being violated in terms of freedoms.”

Finally, guess who her inspiration was to get into politics in the first place? That noted Republican...Hilary Clinton?

"The reason I actually ran for office is because of Hillary Clinton," she said. "She said that when it comes to women running for office, there will be everybody that tells you why you shouldn’t, but that’s all the reasons why we need you to do it, and I walked out of there thinking, 'That’s it. I’m running for office.'”

I am not saying she would win. In fact, I am definitely saying she would not win. I agree with Ksyrup she is trying to play both sides. I just think she would have a better chance with the Dems because she might get the right leaning faction of that party.

I think the anti-Trump dems, republicans, and independents are so desperate for a non-MAGA Republican that they've overlooked the fact that Haley has run an awful campaign and would be considered batshit crazy prior to Trump raising that bar.

The immigration crisis is so bad that the Speaker of the House says it can wait until next year when a Republican is in office. Why negotiate at least some semblance of a solution now for the benefit of the country when Biden can then claim a hand in the solution? No, the best thing to do is, like the economy, hope everything goes to hell in a hand basket because winning the election is so much more important than, you know, doing things to improve the lives of Americans.

I've said this before and will restate.

Both parties share blame in the immigration mess we are in. Some here will say it's all the GOP fault, they never want to negotiate etc. I'll agree that the GOP shares more blame in this current time (let's say 60-40, 70-30) but both parties had opportunities and (1) didn't want to negotiate or (2) wanted to propose something during election year vs the first 2 years when they owned the Presidency & Congress or (3) wanted to insert it into a non-related bill or (4) ad nauseum.

Specific to your point about GOP not wanting to negotiate because it'll help Joe? It's come up before recently and I'll refer you to my response at below link, see starting #9055 through #9061.

The Biden Presidency - 2020 - Page 182 - Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=97045&page=182)


I'm going to move this to below Immigration thread. Let's continue to discuss there? and if not, np.

Biden's Immigration Reform - Page 3 - Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=97261&page=3)

I am not saying she would win. In fact, I am definitely saying she would not win. I agree with Ksyrup she is trying to play both sides. I just think she would have a better chance with the Dems because she might get the right leaning faction of that party.


your arguments are well thought out here but i think haley has as good a chance of running as a dem, as the dems welcolming tulsi gabbard back into the party. i just cannot think that a haley/DINO like manchin or Sinema ticket could make it in today's political environment.

No more debates. ABC canceled the last one since Haley refused to attend without Trump.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

DeSantis had been saying that he's happy to show up and debate two empty podiums.

Guess not.

Ron is going to be so humiliated by the time it is all said and done.

Or was this just the inevitable outcome of a race where nobody had the courage to go after Trump directly?

Pretty much. I still don't understand why DeSantis didn't go hard on Trump after the midterms. He was at his weakest and that was the time to come out and say "I win elections, he doesn't".

And even if he lost the primary, he'd be in a great spot to say "I told you so" if Trump lost the general and immediately be the frontrunner in 2028.

One of the most bizarre campaigns I've ever seen run by a major candidate who actually had money. I get the strategy of Vivek who is just angling for a cabinet position or something, but how are you going to beat a guy you won't say a negative thing about?

That's what I'd like to know. Where exactly (other than the flag) does Haley agree with Dems/disagree with Reps on much of anything? Abortion, LGBTQ issues, immigration, the environment, school loans, school "choice", etc. Maybe she's not ivermectin crazy, but what else does she give Dems? Oh, she's not quite as overtly racist, great (though as we've seen, disqualifies her to some on the right).

She'd be pretty similar to Biden on foreign policy and economic matters. The difference would be on social issues, but that mostly comes down to the courts. The biggest difference for me would be the judges they'd nominate. I think they'd be fairly similar outside of that.

Looking at some of the polls and trends, it feels like the next election might come down to the state of Michigan. Feels like Trump is in a very good position to take Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia back. Biden likely wins Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

That would also make the one electoral college vote from Nebraska incredibly important.

Sincere question. Do you see yourself as a member of the GOP?

That is the piece I can't wrap my head around. GOPers could vote for Haley because they agree with her policies. They could vote for Haley because they don't like Trump/DeSantis. They could vote for Haley because they believe she is the best chance to defeat Biden. But yet here we are.

I can't really give that the straight answer you are probably looking for. I would call myself an independent with GOP sympathies. I agree with both parties on some issues but disagree on others; if you go back to pre-Trump, I would say at that time I was with Democrats economically and Republicans more often than not socially, but most crucially with the Republicans on what I consider to be the foundational matter of constitutional law.

The GOP isn't what it was, so I don't vote for them anymore. They're doing more to undermine the Republic than Democrats are, which from my perspective is actually a pretty impressive accomplishment. If there were a sensible alternative on the Republican side, I would vote for them; Biden is the first Democratic presidential candidate I've ever voted for. He's disappointed me, but I don't regret the vote. Some things are intolerable and must be stopped.

I think the answer to your issue in the second paragraph is one that is hard to accept, which is why I commonly see it dismissed; Trump is largely post-policy. His support has a lot to do with his leadership style. He's not perceived as being as 'weak' and 'woke' as other politicians, and so forth. I think all of that is dumb and very misplaced, but a much higher amount of his support than we'd like to admit comes from people who have seen presidents for decades largely governing by poll/focus group. Trump appeals to them on a primal level and opposes a general sense in their minds of the country getting 'soft', 'going the wrong way', and all of that. Any alternative they view as opposing 'wokeness' is superior to one seen as weak or fake, which I suspect is where some of Jon's antipathy to Haley comes from as an example. Trump's 'wrong' views on issues of policy comes in a very distant backdrop after that.

I personally think Haley (or someone else) would have had a better chance running as a conservative Democratic against Biden as opposed to what she has done. I'm not saying she would have won the nomination but her pushes to the far right so far come off as disingenuous to me. She seems better suited to chase the support of the more conservative members of the Democratic Party.

I suspect there's a number of GOP politicians who have been left behind by the MAGA-shift who, with a little moderation of positions on social issues, could have run for the Democrats.


No actual conservative would have done what that treacherous hellspawn did in South Carolina.

I'm curious, which incident are you citing?

DeSantis had been saying that he's happy to show up and debate two empty podiums.

Probably his best chance to win a debate.

Brian's post is a pretty spot on summary.

"Probably his best chance to win a debate."
I still think the empty podiums would win.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I had a customer just tell me that she and all her friends were Vivek Ramaswamy supporters, and they angry because they feel he was done wrong by the Republican party. She said she is mad enough that she is likely to vote for Biden just for spite, or more likely Robert Kennedy. She sounded like she was very anti-Trump, but I'm not sure why. I try not get into politics at work and so a just let her rant without asking follow-ups.

After seeing videos how people vote in the Iowa Caucus I'm starting to think the cries about election security are insincere.

There seem to be a lot of people upset about Iowa but no one pointing out how undemocratic a caucus is and especially when you're letting a handful of people in one state dictate who gets to run for President.

Sununu said that coming in second in NH would be a good result for Haley. I don't understand why she even bothered to get into the race.

Sununu said that coming in second in NH would be a good result for Haley. I don't understand why she even bothered to get into the race.
Any of them. The hope was Trump would have to drop out because of legal trouble which was never happening. But just to play devils advocate, there have been times in the past when you had a candidate progressively get better and come back and beat a front-runner. She is showing a strong second in New Hampshire. The last polling I saw had her at 38% versus only 8% for Desantis. The problem is that Trump has 53%. A 15% margin is much narrower than in Iowa, but still a huge margin. The other factor is usually that strong showing in New Hampshire that propels a candidate is a surprise, but this has been expected for while. Short of her getting that margin on Trump down to the single digits, I don't see this result being a catapult for her campaign.
She needs something that can give her some momentum so that she could win South Carolina. If she could do that then there could be a real race.There is likely nothing that could do that. Trump is going to win the state that she had been governor of with above 50% of the vote, and that will be the end of the primary season in all practicality.

There seem to be a lot of people upset about Iowa but no one pointing out how undemocratic a caucus is and especially when you're letting a handful of people in one state dictate who gets to run for President.

Our electoral process for picking POTUS, especially, is pants-on-head stupid in all of its facets.

There seem to be a lot of people upset about Iowa but no one pointing out how undemocratic a caucus is and especially when you're letting a handful of people in one state dictate who gets to run for President.

I agree caucuses are stupid and would like Iowa to go to a primary. But..

Pretty much everything is dumb with how we select a president. Question #1, does the person with the most votes win? :banghead:

Is your comment about a "handful of people" applying to Iowa because it's first, at least on the R side? Or all states that caucus? I see 5 other states do caucus. I certainly haven't researched these states in any way so will ask you, have caucus states been shown to have a disproportionate influence on the eventual nominees?

If you're worried Iowa is setting the tone keep in mind "we've" (embarrassed to be from here since 2016 when commons sense went out the window :eek: ) been right on picking the eventual R nominee three out of the last eight times. And we've missed on the last three, including Cruz over Trump in 2016. I don't think any candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination has ever dropped out after the Iowa caucus. They move onto primary states that many times quickly kill whatever momentum the Iowa winner had.

Democrats since 1972? Iowa is seven of ten picking the nominee with only Carter and Obama winning the presidency.

So how's the Jamie Dimon love going these days?

I'd just add to the other comments that if people were letting Iowa voters determine how they vote ... I mean, you get the government you deserve.

Getting spicey now. Damage control team ramping up ...

Home | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html)
Dailymail.com was asked to leave Nikki Haley's meet-and-greet with voters in New Hampshire on Friday morning and was told it is banned from covering her future campaign events. The ban came after the DailyMail.com published a story Friday morning exclusively reporting that Haley falsely denied cheating on her husband when she was accused of engaging in two extramarital affairs during her 2010 South Carolina gubernatorial campaign. The Haley campaign didn't respond to requests for comment on the story even though DailyMail.com gave them 24 hours to do so.

Will Folks runs a sleazy website about SC politics and has always been very critical of Nikki Haley. He also takes the holier than though opinion whenever there's a SC politician sex scandal (all of them) that it doesn't matter and shouldn't be reported on... while endlessly reporting on it.

Yeah until its only her and trump left then it will be 'yes we can't have someone convicted of sexual abuse as the leader of our country' or some such nonsense. not paid attention to the cases for the guy who you worked for, yeah right.


Yeah it's not sexual abuse but she found something else to go on here after trump multiple times confused her with nancy pelosi in a statement about jan 6 he's said many times. Though with Trump, I'm not sure he didn't do this on purpose given how Haley is his main threat to the nomination right now:


meidastouch.com (https://www.meidastouch.com/news/nikki-haley-questions-trumps-mental-fitness-after-bizarre-cognitive-moment)

Been reading through all of this today, and I’m impressed and still sad by it.

Most of you guys are way smarter than me, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. The thing that I don’t understand is how smart people can still play party versus party stuff. Obviously, you all know every politician is still bought and paid for. There are no Mr. Smiths Going to Washington anymore. So how do people still Jedi Mind-trick themselves into thinking one party is intrinsically any better than the other? Cognitive dissonance gets thrown around by everyone now, but isn’t that the definition? Surely, like me, most people vote based on one or two issues that they agree with and suck it up and vote for that politician. Because they don’t agree with every single thing another human stands for, right? I truly can’t wrap my head around voting at all otherwise.

And if that was all poorly worded, I apologize.