Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

[angrysoba]

By the way, I know almost nothing about Jill Stein, and I think that's true of most people, but there is an interesting thread here showing how she almost does nothing except attempt to spoil the Democrats's chances of winning elections. And quelle surprise, there is a picture of her sitting having dinner with Vladimir Putin.

Link

 

[The Atheist]

So... don't get me wrong, but I will not be putting any money at all on your predictions. I am sure you will understand why.

I admit to being wrong, and I definitely was early in the Trump campaign - despite having a very low opinion of Americans I couldn't see any way they'd elect him to president. I did also comment on many occasions (that you haven't posted) that Hillary was a terrible choice.

The Dems escaped with Biden, but thankfully, he was able to talked out of a second crack.

I'll stick by my Harris prediction, though. Even 21st century Americans aren't dumb enough to let Trump win this time.

 

[a_unique_person]

The major reason 2024 is nothing like 2016 is Hillary Clinton. I said a million times before the election that she would fail,because she was so wildly unpopular.



But, but, but... so is Harris you can add.



Big difference being, everyone knew Hillary, and her history as a cuck, prior to 2016, while nobody actually knew anything about Kamala.



People are learning about her fast, and they like what they see. Even better, she is connecting with youth vote in a way Hillary didn't, and Trump is incapable of.



She is an absolute shoe-in, but it's good people are worried, because you'll keep putting in the effort and not letting the tsunami stop building.

There was a whole hating Hillary industry active on the right. If you don't watch Fox at all or check what the idiots like Rush Limbaugh were up to you would have missed out on it. They absolutely loathed her.

 

[angrysoba]

I admit to being wrong, and I definitely was early in the Trump campaign - despite having a very low opinion of Americans I couldn't see any way they'd elect him to president. I did also comment on many occasions (that you haven't posted) that Hillary was a terrible choice.

The Dems escaped with Biden, but thankfully, he was able to talked out of a second crack.

I'll stick by my Harris prediction, though. Even 21st century Americans aren't dumb enough to let Trump win this time.

For me it is 50/50, and if you seriously don't want Trump to win, then don't urge complacency.

 

[Dr.Sid]

By the way, I know almost nothing about Jill Stein, and I think that's true of most people, but there is an interesting thread here showing how she almost does nothing except attempt to spoil the Democrats's chances of winning elections. And quelle surprise, there is a picture of her sitting having dinner with Vladimir Putin.

Link

It's from 2015, banquet for 10 year anniversary of RT. Since there is Cyril Svoboda there, Czech ex-minister of foreign affairs, it couldn't have been that hard to get there. It is eyebrow raising indeed, as it was after Crimea annexation, but it's mostly just bunch of (relative) nobodies getting photo with Putin.

 

[shemp]

I admit to being wrong, and I definitely was early in the Trump campaign - despite having a very low opinion of Americans I couldn't see any way they'd elect him to president. I did also comment on many occasions (that you haven't posted) that Hillary was a terrible choice.

The Dems escaped with Biden, but thankfully, he was able to talked out of a second crack.

I'll stick by my Harris prediction, though. Even 21st century Americans aren't dumb enough to let Trump win this time.

They don't all have to be dumb, not even half of them. Due to the idiotic quirks of our electoral system, as little as 45% might do.

 

[stanfr]

They don't all have to be dumb, not even half of them. Due to the idiotic quirks of our electoral system, as little as 45% might do.

Or as little as 25% depending on turnout. Which is why turnout is the key here. Trumpists will vote. The apathetic or disenchanted need to see what is at stake here.

 

[a_unique_person]

That was, IMHO, Biden's main problem. People were disenchanted by such a poor choice for President, so turnout would be low.

 

[The Atheist]

There was a whole hating Hillary industry active on the right. If you don't watch Fox at all or check what the idiots like Rush Limbaugh were up to you would have missed out on it. They absolutely loathed her.

The whole Hillary-hate thing had me intrigued. Part misogyny, part being a Clinton, but she also came across as pretty smarmy and unlikeable.

Thankfully, Kamala is exactly the opposite and people really like her.

For me it is 50/50, and if you seriously don't want Trump to win, then don't urge complacency.

I specifically finished with:

but it's good people are worried, because you'll keep putting in the effort and not letting the tsunami stop building

They don't all have to be dumb, not even half of them. Due to the idiotic quirks of our electoral system, as little as 45% might do.

Pity you can't fix that. I don't think it's going to be a problem this time round. Trump is disorganised and feeble.

 

[newyorkguy]

The whole Hillary-hate thing had me intrigued. Part misogyny, part being a Clinton, but she also came across as pretty smarmy and unlikeable...

Hillary Clinton may have "come across" as being smarmy and unlikable -- thanks in no small part, I'm sure, to the relentless Republican crusade to portray her that way -- but she wasn't. She was my US Senator for eight years -- she resigned in 2009 to serve in the Obama Administration -- and I grew to have a lot of respect for her. I too disliked her at first, to the point where I was reluctant to vote for her in 2000 when she ran for US Senator from New York. But I was a registered Democrat and I decided to hold my nose and vote the party line. Was I ever glad I did.

As our Senator, I began to notice, whenever there was trouble, Hillary was always on-scene. She never seemed to play politics, either. She was usually the voice of reason, a calming influence, focused on finding solutions, not finger-pointing. I gladly voted for her in 2006 and was sorry to see her go in 2009. she was first-class. I was VERY disappointed she failed to win the presidency in 2016. I'm sure she would have made an excellent chief executive.

 

[Segnosaur]

There was a whole hating Hillary industry active on the right. If you don't watch Fox at all or check what the idiots like Rush Limbaugh were up to you would have missed out on it. They absolutely loathed her.

The problem is, the more centrist/mainstream media is also to blame.

Yeah, Fox news is basically the republican version of Pravda, Trump's personal megaphone. But despite the station often having the highest ratings, not everyone is tuning into them.

Unfortunately, much of the junk that appeared on Fox news also somehow became "newsworthy" enough to appear on other cable and traditional networks (likely because they didn't want to be seen as 'biased')

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is 'election weaponising'?

Some Trump supporters are worried she will be allowed to cheat at the debate by having pages of notes ready to 'confound' him.

Election weaponising is the act of convincing the general electorate to vote for you. It's a dirty tactic that Democrats use to win elections. This is unfair to Republicans, who believe that they should always win elections regardless of vote counts.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hillary Clinton may have "come across" as being smarmy and unlikable -- thanks in no small part, I'm sure, to the relentless Republican crusade to portray her that way -- but she wasn't. She was my US Senator for eight years -- she resigned in 2009 to serve in the Obama Administration -- and I grew to have a lot of respect for her. I too disliked her at first, to the point where I was reluctant to vote for her in 2000 when she ran for US Senator from New York. But I was a registered Democrat and I decided to hold my nose and vote the party line. Was I ever glad I did.

As our Senator, I began to notice, whenever there was trouble, Hillary was always on-scene. She never seemed to play politics, either. She was usually the voice of reason, a calming influence, focused on finding solutions, not finger-pointing. I gladly voted for her in 2006 and was sorry to see her go in 2009. she was first-class. I was VERY disappointed she failed to win the presidency in 2016. I'm sure she would have made an excellent chief executive.

I couldn't agree more! I never found Hillary anything other than highly intelligent and I liked her from the time I first became aware of her as First Lady. Let's face it, some people are just put off by intelligent women who can hold their own and don't give a damn about assuaging men's insecurities.
I voted for her in the 2008 primary and rue the day the EC put Trump in the WH instead of her in 2016.

 

[Stacyhs]

Lt. Jim McCain, Sen. John McCain's youngest son, registered as a Democrat a couple weeks ago. He criticized Trump's ANC stunt and is voting for Harris:

“It just blows me away,” McCain, who has served in the military for 17 years, told CNN. “These men and women that are laying in the ground there have no choice” of whether to be a backdrop for a political campaign, he said.

“I just think that for anyone who’s done a lot of time in their uniform, they just understand that inherently — that it’s not about you there. It’s about these people who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their country.”

McCain’s decision to speak out now is part of his broader shift away from the Republican Party and his family’s famously conservative roots. After years as a registered independent, he says he registered as a Democrat several weeks ago and plans to vote for Kamala Harris in November, adding that he “would get involved in any way I could” to help her campaign.

 

[dirtywick]

i like my soldiers not captured and their sons not blown away

 

[The Atheist]

Hillary Clinton may have "come across" as being smarmy and unlikable -- thanks in no small part, I'm sure, to the relentless Republican crusade to portray her that way -- but she wasn't.

That played no part in how I saw her - I don't read their ****.

The thing that got right up my nose was her idiotic claim that she was named after this country's second-greatest person, Edmund Hillary.

When someone makes an obviously false claim like that, I tend to look for further faults. It smacked of trying to tie her name to a genuine achiever, and was a really dumb thing to do.

 

[Stacyhs]

That played no part in how I saw her - I don't read their ****.

The thing that got right up my nose was her idiotic claim that she was named after this country's second-greatest person, Edmund Hillary.

When someone makes an obviously false claim like that, I tend to look for further faults. It smacked of trying to tie her name to a genuine achiever, and was a really dumb thing to do.

Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a lie at all, but that HRC believed it to be true? That her mother told her that story as Sir Edmund became famous when HRC was 6 years old, and she thought Hillary would take pride in her name?

For her part, Mrs. Clinton confessed that her mother, Dorothy Rodham, had read an article about the intrepid Edmund Hillary, a one-time beekeeper who had taken to mountain climbing, when she was pregnant with her daughter in 1947 and liked the name.

"It had two l's, which is how she thought she was supposed to spell Hillary," Mrs. Clinton told reporters after the brief meeting on the tarmac, minutes before her Air Force jet flew past the peak of Everest itself. "So when I was born, she called me Hillary, and she always told me it's because of Sir Edmund Hillary."

Although it is true that Edmund Hillary did not perform the feat that made him famous throughout the English-speaking world until 1953 (by which time Hillary Rodham was already six years old), it is not true, as many skeptics have asserted, that Edmund Hillary was nothing more than an obscure Auckland beekeeper until then. Even before World War II he was already a serious mountain climber who had boasted to a friend that "some day I'm going to climb Everest," and by 1947 he was honing the necessary skills on the peaks of the Southern Alps. It's certainly possible young Edmund was profiled in some periodical as far back in 1947.

 

[The Atheist]

Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a lie at all...

You nicely snipped an important part of the evidence:

Still, when Snopes scrutinized several major American newspapers, including the Rodhams’ hometown Chicago Tribune, prior to 1953, it couldn’t find any evidence that the mountain climber had been profiled. This suggests that he was still too obscure a figure to have attracted Dorothy Rodham’s attention.

It was "almost certainly a bit of fiction invented for political expediency," Snopes concluded.

Anyway, she's definitely not standing this time and won't taint Kamala's campaign, unless she's dumb enough to invite Hillary onstage with her. Rightly or wrongly, she's toxic.

 

[a_unique_person]

You nicely snipped an important part of the evidence:







Anyway, she's definitely not standing this time and won't taint Kamala's campaign, unless she's dumb enough to invite Hillary onstage with her. Rightly or wrongly, she's toxic.

Sounds like one of those little lies parents tell their kids for a joke.

 

[bruto]

I'm quite willing to accept that Clinton's Hillary story was probably based on a post facto lie by her mother, just because that's the most likely thing, and because it should not matter anyway. But I must add that if Snopes based a conclusion on what was in the available papers, without considering what was on the radio, the newsreels, magazines and books, then their conclusion is pretty worthless too.