Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 3

[Aridas]

Well, I suppose that this could also go in a Musk thread, but...

Workers Say They Were Tricked and Threatened as Part of Elon Musk’s Get-Out-the-Vote Effort​

America PAC door knockers were flown to Michigan, driven in the back of a U-Haul, and told they’d have to pay hotel bills unless they met unrealistic quotas. One was surprised they were working to elect Donald Trump.​

Ugh. Just ugh. Good sign for how the ground games are, comparatively, but seriously, WTF?

And most people can't be bothered to, or just won't, fact check anything if it supports their bias.

Ehh. I think that something's being missed in your assessment, though. It's somewhat reminiscent of the "Very Fine People" line. Your take, like Trump's defenders then, deals with it as if it existed in a vacuum.

It doesn't.

Trump invoked the imagery of an execution squad there, not a war. Trump's also made it clear that he wants to use the military against civilians, to remove his political opponents by unsavory means, that the "enemy within" is the real threat, that various people who have slighted him deserve the death penalty, and so much more. Even if the criticism were technically wrong, the theme and concerns are well justified, especially after the SC's recent decision that gives a President wildly unreasonable defense against accountability.

Trump's well known for speaking in mob speak, either way, and that sounded rather like it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ehh. I think that something's being missed in your assessment, though. It's somewhat reminiscent of the "Very Fine People" line. Your take, like Trump's defenders then, deals with it as if it existed in a vacuum.

It doesn't.

Trump invoked the imagery of an execution squad there, not a war. Trump's also made it clear that he wants to use the military against civilians, to remove his political opponents by unsavory means, that the "enemy within" is the real threat, that various people who have slighted him deserve the death penalty, and so much more. Even if the criticism were technically wrong, the theme and concerns are well justified, especially after the SC's recent decision that gives a President wildly unreasonable defense against accountability.

Trump's well known for speaking in mob speak, either way, and that sounded rather like it.

I disagree that I'm missing something. As Arthwollipot said earlier, what Trump actually said is only marginally better. I'm not "defending" Trump, I'm just being accurate and honest. I'm taking exactly what he said without being influenced by my own admitted bias. I don't think there's any doubt about what a total POS scumbag I think Trump is.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Trump couldn’t possibly give any less than a molecule of ◊◊◊◊ about Liz Cheney being near to or far away from the “front lines of a war.” He is certainly, however, because of her years-long efforts to hold him accountable for the J6 insurrection, enamored of the idea of guns being pointed at her. The war thing is just another of his plausible-deniability masks.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump couldn’t possibly give any less than a molecule of **** about Liz Cheney being near to or far away from the “front lines of a war.” He is certainly, however, because of her years-long efforts to hold him accountable for the J6 insurrection, enamored of the idea of guns being pointed at her. The war thing is just another of his plausible-deniability masks.

I'm sure he is "enamored of the idea of guns being pointed at her". Hell, I'm enamored of the idea of Dick Cheney taking Donnie hunting.

 

[Aridas]

I disagree that I'm missing something.

We may have to agree to disagree, then. Your assessment treats the statement as if it occurred in a vacuum. I think that that ends up being misleading, at best, especially when one goes on to complain about people not fact checking as if a larger body of work is irrelevant to informing people on what someone is saying.

 

[Stacyhs]

We may have to agree to disagree, then. Your assessment treats the statement as if it occurred in a vacuum. I think that that ends up being misleading, at best, especially when one goes on to complain about people not fact checking as if a larger body of work is irrelevant to informing people on what someone is saying.

Yes, we'll have to disagree. My assessment does not occur 'in a vacuum' as I am well aware of Donnie Dipwad's history.

"...especially when one goes on to complain about people not fact checking as if a larger body of work is irrelevant to informing people on what someone is saying."

I never said nor implied that "a larger body of work is irrelevant to informing people on what someone is saying." That is YOUR inference. You're tying together two unrelated things in an attempt to boost your argument.

Let's move on as we disagree, and I doubt either of us will be persuaded by the other.

 

[kookbreaker]

I've been watching a fair amount of streaming and Youtube, and of course ads come up. I'm in PA and here is what I have noticed:

1) Very few Trump ads, and what there is seems centered around football, be it clips on Youtube or Thursday night football. In those Trump ads their primary message is that....Harris is pro-transgender.

2) Its about even with the McCormick vs Casey ads. Casey ads promote him while others attack McCormick for being from Connecticut, being a Wall street bandit, and having multiple private jets. McCormick ads used to try and promote him but they are entirely negative against Casey saying mostly that he is......pro-transgender.

3) There are more and many types of Harris ads. They mostly try to paint Trump as being for billionaires and wanting to punish women for having an abortion.

4) I see almost no ads for other races except for State Attorney General which is a very distant third in ad quantity.

Harris seems to be outspending Trump in my viewing habits. Don't know if it will make a whit of difference.

 

[Mike!]

He didn't say facing an onslaught, or dozens of shooting weapons, he said, expressly, "Nine guns", which, at least for some of us, congers up an image from old westerns, that of a firing squad. Trump's track record, with recent rally sites right up to and including the MSG rally, having, let's say, a singular unique history, is all by a very express choice.

 

[Sherkeu]

Ron Paul adds his name to the Trump team. Didn't see that one coming!
But it makes sense, in a Javier Milei way, to steer the US away from a debt spiral my great grandchildren would be paying.
This is going to be awesome.

¡Afuera!

 

[angrysoba]

Ron Paul adds his name to the Trump team. Didn't see that one coming!
But it makes sense, in a Javier Milei way, to steer the US away from a debt spiral my great grandchildren would be paying.
This is going to be awesome.

¡Afuera!

Yeah, probably pay it off by axing social security.

 

[Aridas]

Yeah, probably pay it off by axing social security.

Given Trump and his actual proposals and budgets... that's not all. Education will be axed, the police will be defunded, and the ACA will be axed, among various other things. Meanwhile, the national debt and deficit would skyrocket, again anyways. The super rich pay less in taxes. The super expensive holding facilities will proliferate. The legal costs for defending all kinds of unlawful government behavior will skyrocket. The economy will suffer and thus taxes.

Trump and the Republicans are NOT the people you should be voting for if you don't want a debt spiral. That's been consistently borne out in practice. The Two Santa Clauses Strategy is still very much in use, after all, even before getting to the absurdity of the notion that Trump would care about the debt this time.

 

[angrysoba]

Given Trump and his actual proposals and budgets... that's not all. Education will be axed, the police will be defunded, and the ACA will be axed, among various other things. Meanwhile, the national debt and deficit would skyrocket, again anyways. The super rich pay less in taxes. The super expensive holding facilities will proliferate. The legal costs for defending all kinds of unlawful government behavior will skyrocket. The economy will suffer and thus taxes.

Trump and the Republicans are NOT the people you should be voting for if you don't want a debt spiral. That's been consistently borne out in practice. The Two Santa Clauses Strategy is still very much in use, after all, even before getting to the absurdity of the notion that Trump would care about the debt this time.

Yep. He thinks the way to pay for everything is with tariffs, which of course puts prices up.
The oligarchs who smarm all over him now, and the creepy lobbyists for insane alt med ◊◊◊◊, and the tech bros, essentially want to see a deregulated country where "healthcare" is basically indistinguishable from Alex Jones supplements and probably more expensive.

If RFK Jr gets control of healthcare and they follow through on threats to outlaw vaccination, then I think it would be in the best interests of most other countries around the world to require proof of vaccination before being allowed in in case we end up with new cases of measles, poxes of various types etc...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Good for Iron Lung manufacturers though.

 

[angrysoba]

Good for Iron Lung manufacturers though.

Elon Musk will be getting on to that and laughing all the way to the bank. "Hey Polio, that's like...totally kewl... U...S... ....A! U... ... S ... A! U... .... ...S... .... .... A!"

 

[Darat]

Since all those gender reveal parties will be made illegal, as having a gender will become a criminal matter, they can be replaced with good old fashioned chickenpox parties.

 

[newyorkguy]

I have been getting emails from/for trump, usually one or two a day.. But as the election winds down, yesterday I received eight. Listed below (a screenshot from my inbox).



Never received anything like this before. Also, what's the point, I'm a registered Democrat. Anyone else getting this?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stephen Miller says

Today we had the worst jobs report in modern history.

Oh, and all net jobs for 4 years have gone to migrants.

You’re getting screwed.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Let's be honest and not do what Trump and MAGA do: misinterpret things to fit our own agenda. It's clear that he is NOT calling for Liz Cheney to be put in front of a firing squad or shot. He is saying that she'd be less of a "war hawk" and sending people to war if she had to fight herself. Frankly, he's right that those who are often the most ready to use military force do not have to face battle themselves.

Yes, we know exactly what he said. He said it in such a way that it's easy for his supporters to deliberately misconstrue it, but we know what he said. "Let's put her in front of nine gun barrels and have them shoot her" refers to an execution by firing squad. That he adds a couple twists to make it possible to interpret it in a different way doesn't change that. He didn't say "let's give her a rifle and send her to a battlefield and see what she thinks then". He said, specifically, nine barrels pointing at her. You're lying if you say that doesn't immediately make you think of a firing squad.

Just like his "fight like hell" speech on January 6th, he threw in some phrases there, too to make it sound slightly less like incitement to commit violence. "But but but he added the odd sentence here and there asking them to be peaceful!!!".

Let's not be like Drumpf supporters and misrepresent things, indeed.

 

[Tero]

Trump is relying on SupremeCourt. He put in 3 of them.

Supreme Court rejects bid by GOP not to count some Pennsylvania ballots

Republicans wanted some so-called provisional ballots to be rejected.

www.aljazeera.com

But the court is suffering from scandal. And they want to feel important. I think they will act mostly by law. They did throw out 1600 perferctly good voters who failed to check a box on a form. But mainly the courts, state courts as well, will hold up our pretend democracy.
Where Trump will get gifts from the SC is in his criminal cases.

 

[Aridas]

Just like his "fight like hell" speech on January 6th, he threw in some phrases there, too to make it sound slightly less like incitement to commit violence. "But but but he added the odd sentence here and there asking them to be peaceful!!!".

To add to that, Trump was well aware that many in the crowd at his "fight like hell" speech were armed. He even ordered for metal detectors to be removed and dismissed concerns on the basis that the armed people were his people. He directed this armed crowd to march on Congress, of course, despite not having proper permission. Then there's all the rest of the surrounding context to inform that the overall intention was not even remotely peaceful or lawful.

Yet, when one ignores the larger context and focuses solely on, for example, the "fight like hell" phrase in isolation, Trump's words are easily excusable and led to lots and lots of accusations of unreasonability and the like, despite the outright criminal intentions being telegraphed for all to see, before, during, and afterwards.