Did Trump Run an Actually Good Campaign?
Plus: New Jersey the swing state, Dick Cheney isn't brat, and more...

Consider the possibility (though Democratic strategists might not) that Donald Trump actually ran a pretty good campaign and Kamala Harris ran a pretty poor one.
You are reading Reason Roundup, our daily, morning newsletter.
Get your daily news roundup from Liz Wolfe and Reason.
Not on libertarian grounds, in terms of which policies each candidate was advocating, but in terms of what would be salient to the people whose votes they needed. Trump focused, quite aggressively, on border and cost of living. He created a plan for deporting those who are in the country illegally and dispatched his vice presidential pick, J.D. Vance, with talking points as to how this would happen. He conscripted literal rocket builder/Tesla creator/memelord Elon Musk to his cause, who started doling out his megabucks to voters pledging to vote and to respect the Constitution. Trump had some kind of odd yet relatable things he became obsessed with—no taxes on tips, for example—which is kind of par for the course with him. (Remember how, years ago, he was obsessed with how efficiency standards and how many flushes modern toilets require?)
It took Harris—who never had to win over her party or prove her ability to meet the moment via a primary—quite a bit of time to begin to populate her website with policy proposals. When she did, the policies failed to meet the moment: tax credits that would help developers build more starter homes, down payment assistance for buyers that would merely subsidize demand, lip service in favor of YIMBY policies—decided at a more local level—but not much more. She talked about taming grocery prices not by working to remedy inflation (and eschewing policies that would worsen it again) but by cracking down on…those greedy grocers and their price gouging. (The government can simply set price controls, she offered.) She ran much of her campaign on "joy" and vibes, picking a not-so-strategic running mate in Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and she managed to walk back some of the most progressive positions she had touted in 2019, the first time she ran for president, casting herself as a tough prosecutor on the side of the law—opposite Trump, a convicted felon.
On one of the most salient issues—abortion—Harris just didn't have as much of an advantage. Though her team kept trying to strike fear into the hearts of moderate pro-choice voters, claiming Trump would institute a nationwide abortion ban if given the chance, Trump embraced abortion moderation (and the Republican Party platform to some degree followed, pissing off the pro-lifers).
But the Democratic Party, riven by Israel/Palestine and progressive criminal justice policies and identity politics, doesn't look very unified right now, nor is there a clear sense of what message is needed to persuade voters. Trump-support vote totals in traditionally blue areas—including cities like New York—were shockingly high this time around; it's like high cost of living and a perception of high crime and disorder lead to voters being bearish on Democratic policies.
Don't try to buy people's votes! This sure looked like an inflation election in which people saw a vote for Donald Trump as a repudiation of not just Kamala Harris, but the policies put in place by the Biden administration, which she represents. And part of what the Biden administration did was pass the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which cost $1.9 trillion and doled out several rounds of stimulus checks to middle- and low-income Americans (defined quite generously), purportedly to help them bear the economic turbulence—job losses, business closures—that came from the pandemic.
At the time, it was very popular. But then the bill came due, as it always does, in the form of inflation. In June 2022, inflation peaked at 9.1 percent; since plenty of the developed world dealt with high inflation too, it was attributable to things beyond "my government tried to curry favor with me by handing me cash." In fact, the Biden administration kind of kept doing this—in the form of student loan forgiveness, much of which was quashed by the courts.
Voters rated inflation as the #1 issue, and the $1.9T American Rescue Plan may have lost Dems the White House. Inflation was already set to spike modestly as the pandemic economy reopens, and economists on the left & right warned Biden that adding $1.9 trillion to a…
— Brian Riedl ???? ???????? (@Brian_Riedl) November 6, 2024
Perhaps one takeaway for Democrats could be that just handing people money doesn't work, because there are always consequences to this decision, and sometimes the consequences outweigh the gains. In fact, the economic hardship created by years of higher-than-usual inflation probably outstripped all personal budget padding (and, in many cases, increased economic activity in the form of spending) brought by the stimulus checks.
Scenes from New York: OK, so technically I'm talking about New Jersey today, our much-maligned neighbor. Yesterday I mentioned in Roundup that, though Kamala Harris won it, Trump came within five points of her, making it "the closest presidential showing for a Republican since George H.W. Bush lost by 2.4 points in 1992," reports Politico. "Tuesday night's margin is more striking considering registered Democratic voters in New Jersey grew threefold over Republicans since then and now have a 900,000 voter advantage."
Is New Jersey a swing state now, or at least trending in that direction?
It has some of the highest taxes and cost of living in the country, hit hard by inflation. It's ethnically quite diverse, with a large Latino and large Arab-American population. "I think you saw the beginnings of this in '21. There's a frustration by voters in New Jersey on economic stuff, on crime issues, and I also think there's an underbelly in the stuff Trump tapped into culturally," Republican strategist Chris Russell told Politico.
QUICK HITS
- This Politico piece, full of Democratic strategists saying that the country is "not ready for a woman president," is pretty amusing; I am not sure "more identity politics!" is the takeaway given that Harris ran a weak, short campaign having ascended to the spot via nontraditional means, never getting the opportunity to make a pitch to her own party in the primaries (which should ideally be a proving ground for candidates).
- Relatedly: "If Trump was simply reliant on White resentment, he would have seen shrinking margins," writes Ethan Strauss. "Instead, in our increasingly multiethnic nation, his party sees gains all over. The oppressed vs. oppressor prism doesn't explain why Trump made big inroads into that bastion of White supremacy otherwise known as the Bronx. Or that MAGA Country we call Chicago. All around America, our major cities, while still blue, got redder."
- Honestly, yes.
There will be a lot of ink spilled about why Americans elected Trump and Republicans in a red wave but I can sum it up.
"He's not Hitler. I'm not racist. Fuck you."
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) November 6, 2024
- "In a healthier republic, we'd all be sitting on pins and needles to see the results in the Iowa 1st, the Pennsylvania 8th, the Virginia 7th, and so on," writes Reason's Eric Boehm. "Control of the House ought to be the biggest prize in any election cycle since Congress is constitutionally the most powerful branch of the federal government and the House is the portion of Congress most directly responsive to the people."
- lol:
Ooh, let me guess. Emotive longform pieces from Owen Jones complaining that American taxi drivers aren't reading enough Judith Butler? pic.twitter.com/F8zzzNlLGQ
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) November 7, 2024
- Also:
Can't believe "Dick Cheney is brat" failed to resonate with voters.
— Ghost Maggie Serota (@maggieserota) November 6, 2024
- Good point:
Giving your money to a presidential campaign is almost as bad as giving it to Harvard. https://t.co/cD2GDxFnop
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 6, 2024
- Fair on all counts, but forgive me for not thinking (presumed) Trump pick RFK Jr. will do a great job here:
Here is what @RobertKennedyJr is right about & things everyone should support
1 FDA commish should not then work for Pfizer
2 Our system to detect safety signals is BAD & needs reform (has to be active/ not passive)
3 The food children eat in school is bad
4 Pharma controls FDA— Vinay Prasad MD MPH (@VPrasadMDMPH) November 6, 2024
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fudge the Numbers?
It looks like the LP candidate got to fifth base…I mean fifth place.
So you are saying freedom lost to the weather?
Next time the LP will have to pack the fudge a bit harder.
Perhaps it was always their goal to come in the rear.
He got behind pretty early.
In those situations, you can't count on the tight end, it's time to throw it to the wide receiver. I'm sure that's what Timpon would call if it was too late for the pick six.
Possibly hurt by too many illegal touching penalties.
I think he might be used to it. Not sore at all.
What do you mean, was Chase gay? I wasn't aware.
Do Sarc and Jeff know?
They just dropped that bombshell in yesterday’s VdR article. The November surprise.
They are still even making the homophobia claims this morning. Those two are fucking retarded.
The LP candidate just gave up chasing the numbers...
Except in Bend, Oregon for some crazy reason where he got 22.3% and came in third. It’s the only place Chase got over 1%.
More like bend over, amirite?
Maybe the Libertarian party was experimenting with fortifying the vote?
Maybe part of their Gay Fucks Day celebration.
Except in Bend, Oregon for some crazy reason where he got 22.3% and came in third.
Isn't that where White Mike lives?
Speaking of numbers, yesterday the Roundup got 754 comments. Is that a record?
No. I think some years ago it would sometimes top a thousand. Regarding recent offerings, you are correct that it was more than has been typical.
I think when trump got shot there were more comments, but that might not have been the roundup.
The article the day it happened might have been a weekend record though. At least recently.
The thing is, Gary Johnson did okay because there were a lot of people like me, who couldn't stomach voting for either Trump or Hillary, and felt okay, especially in a deep red state, of voting for Johnson. That carries over some to Jorgenson, but after four years of Biden, lawfare, etc, there was no way in hell I was voting for an also ran, especially one as bad as the candidate this year.
Hey, Peanuts! Did someone finally turn themselves in for crimes against children?
Has Chris Hansen announced an upcoming episode of To Catch a Predator from Dog Dick, Georgia?
Maybe with the market’s big day yesterday, he bought himself an Epstein island.
Did it come with a Rolodex?
Remember when Reason told us a Trump victory would crash the markets because TARIFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
To be fair, Trump isn't President yet.
It's still a bald-faced lie, but hey, they've got a few months before being proved wrong.
It was pretty remarkable seeing how the market moved after election results started coming in.
I wonder if Dogdick is so small that Buttplug was the only "White Dude for Harris."
When he is in blackface, he may not identify as being a white pedophile.
Somehow SRG is absent at the same time... quite odd.
Paging Senater Tim Scott.
And several other alleged Shrike socks.
He socked a couple of times yesterday under some old accounts but otherwise he’s been quiet.
I assume Molly Godiva is one of those?
50 centers only get paid if they have something to promote; since the election is done, I wouldn't expect her to show up any more than that dissembling gaslighter M4E, telling how it's all a done deal and that resistance is useless.
Doubt it. Molly is bitterly serious. More of a Jeff or a Tony than a buttplug.
She does have the stupid thing in common with both, so who knows?
Peanut can’t answer. New York euthanized him.
What did Peanut have on the Clintons?
Something squirreled away, I’m sure.
That’s nuts!
never forget Fred, who bit nobody and was murdered anyway.
I keep hoping someone finds that piece of shit eyeing their kid, ripe one of his arms off and beats him to death with it.
Soldiers No Longer Minskmeat?
Lukashenko is going to submit Trump for the Nobel Prize – on condition that the Ukrainian issue is resolved:
“If Donald Trump manages to stop military conflicts, Minsk will nominate him for the Nobel Prize!” he said.
– Intel Slava Z
Obama won a Nobel peace prize for…reasons, so Trump may be eligible for negotiating the end of the globohomo unipolar conflict.
Now let’s not be russian to conclusions here.
Chumby seems to have missed the most important thing here.
What's the difference between a wedding and a terrorist camp?
How should I know I'm just the drone operator
Obama's peace prize was, as far as I can tell, simply and solely because he was not George W Bush. Or maybe possibly a little bit because of the color of his skin vis-a-vis the job he got elected to.
Yeah, I remember Obo being shocked, like, "What's this for?", at the time.
Yes he ran a great campaign. Just because the subhuman Marxist cancer you work with keep pushing propaganda over reality doesn't me they are correct.
Yes, his campaign was excellent. Talk to everybody, no matter how hostile. Have fun and entertain your voting base. Do not spend time and effort insulting the opposing voters (certainly do not call them fascists and Nazis).
He had a historically solid campaign. Better than most anybody else, legitimately.
The kinetic energy from all the face-fanning that resulted from him saying that Liz Cheney needed to actually be forced to fight in the wars she and her daddy supported was enough to power a small country.
Unfortunately, most of that energy was spent in efforts to, um, disinform the echo chamber about what Trump actually said.
Yeah, quite funny to see Obo, in the closing days, pretend he really didn't know the "very fine people" hoax has been completely debunked a million times.
Agree that for the most part he ran a disciplined, excellent campaign. He even kept the insults to a relative minimum, especially by his normal standards!
Kamala on the other hand couldn't even muster the basic self-control and discipline needed to stay sober for four freaking months during the one and only shit she'll ever have to become president, which is kind of insane. It makes me wonder if even she knew deep down inside she had little to no chance of winning.
Her political career is now over, she's about to get tossed aside and forgotten like a dirty tampon. MAYBE she'll get a pity weekend gig on MSNBC if she's really lucky. But if she does, it won't last long. Watching a drunken idiot babbling nonsense for 30 minutes will be mildly entertaining for a week or two, but not much beyond that.
she will be like Hillary, trotted out every election cycle to claim misogony lost her the office and its all because of far right wingers and miss information
Thing is...a primary would have shown the Democrats that 2019-20 was not an aberration. She is an f'n horrible candidate.
I’m guessing professorship.
Bingo!
...OH and a book deal , maybe a Netflix "producership" deal for a few mil.
I just dont see her in front of the camera.. she has to learn how to speak first.
Forgotten surely. But the left uses it's control of the education system to reward sinecures to its followers who cannot find productive work. John Edwards was hired by the University of NC system for example.
“Have fun and entertain your voting base. ”
The McDonalds trip was such a slam dunk. Made for some great photos too (like him hanging out the drive-thru waving).
The memes about his "amazing job improvement" entertain me.
"From fry cook to President in a month? Wow"
I took a different route to work today down a side road. Someone had a dummy wearing the yellow jacket he wore when he did the garbageman bit standing and waiving next to his Trump signs.
MAPedo Pipeline Pending Closure?
With the illegal alien recruitment policy of deposed Biden-Harris soon to sunset, expect an influx of illegal aliens prior to January. Possibly related, sales of Weber grills might increase while shares of Petsmart could plummet.
Possibly related,
salesthefts of Weber grills might increase while shares of Petsmart could plummet.If the DR can do it...
[Haitians shaping up to resemble Palestinians in the sense that nobody wants them in their country...]
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/americas/dominican-republic-deport-haitians-intl-hnk/index.html
Dominican Republic to deport up to 10,000 Haitians a week, citing an ‘excess’ of immigrants
Jeff wants them in the US, just in small rural towns.
After yesterday, not in rural Arizona towns.
How about Matha's Vineyard? Perhaps they would take better to French-speaking visitors. Euro-culture and all that.
Would they settle for French-based Haitian Creole?
Free pizza and you get to sleep on the church floor for the night.
=D
Consider the possibility (though Democratic strategists might not) that Donald Trump actually ran a pretty good campaign and Kamala Harris ran a pretty poor one.
Kamala’s campaign is also $20 million in debt.
Blew through over a billion dollars.
Typical chick.
Kamala is adept at blowing things: border security, budgets, elections, and supervisors.
Hey be once isn't going to show up to a rally to bitch for 4 minutes for free
I just can’t believe that the cardi b endorsement didn’t push her over the top.
Ho recognize ho.
Hope she stiffs the celebs she paid for endorsements.
They're just going to be happy that their Diddy tapes aren't released.
Biden Harris last executive order is to destroy all epstien and Diddy evidence
I rteally hope those lists are released. Those people must be named, shamed, and shunned.
She'll just put her head down and go to work.
Well, down, then up, then down, etc.
In a healthier republic bohem would have done the honorable thing and off himself
He's still hoping that the house will go blue and save the republic.
Is that reluctantly or strategically for him?
Well...as of right now it's 206 R to 192 D; and of all the house races not yet called, R's are leading in 14. Thinking it's a safe bet they will keep a majority there.
Bets Democrats, MSM, and celebs crank up the "save democracy" resistance angle; well because the majority of us deplorable human garbage are just too stupid to understand that "democracy" is whatever they tell us it is.
A campaign of 'I will favor this group in this area, and that group in that area, and never ever do anything for the garbage half of you that want to be free' vs. a campaign of 'I made everyone better the last time, and I will do it again'.
Yeah, I think his campaign was better run.
But he got the votes because his policies are better.
"claiming Trump would institute a nationwide abortion ban if given the chance"
Glad the election is over and I don't have to see any more Youtube ads of Harris telling that lie.
#AbortionAboveAll
Glad the election is over and I don’t have to see any more Youtube ads of Harris telling that lie.
Chase really missed his opportunity to appeal to the middle ground on that one. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
Chase didn't run an actually good campaign. Also I've heard he is gay.
Does Sarc know?
Damn. Glad i didn't vote for him now.
The Kamala campaign will live on at Reason HQ.
Reluctantly and strategically with Boehm.
How many Reason staff are still in pajamas from Tuesday night, and now out of tissues?
Talking head panelist on MSNBC last night still pulled "very fine people" lie claiming Trump praised Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottsville.
Pretty sad when even Snopes said it wasn’t true. Hopefully bankruptcy can finally put MSDNC out of its misery.
Look, outsiders have no right to challenge Holy Doctrine. How would you like it if Snopes fact-checked Moses?
CNN spent a lot of time on the maps "proving" only uneducated people voted for Trump and its their fault for being so gulible and of course misinformed
Kurt Schlichter:
The meltdowns on cable news were, predictably, glorious. It’s hard to choose one favorite rant, but I enjoyed Joy Reid’s amazing work, especially when she described Harris’s campaign as both “perfect” and “flawless.” I knew Reid was dumb, but I didn’t know she was so dumb she didn’t know what the words “perfect” and “flawless” meant.
Also later in same article
'They are entering the “Finding Out” phase.
Congressional Republicans (you know, the ones not named Trump, so the ones who might actually have a principled position on the issue) see that nationwide, everywhere it is on the ballot, abortion receives majority support (with the single exception of South Dakota). And there have been more than a few of them who have openly talked about instituting a nationwide abortion ban.
So I can easily see them sneaking in a nationwide abortion ban into a last-minute must-pass spending bill. And if that happens, do you really think that Trump will veto it?
Will there be bears in trucks of cars parked outside of the White House when this non-existent piece of vaporware legislation is placed on President-elect Trump’s desk?
I don't think this is an unreasonable concern that I presented above. Several Congressional Republicans have in fact declared their support for a nationwide abortion ban.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/house-republicans-national-abortion-ban-endorse-1234991746/
And I don't think Trump is a particularly principled person on this issue. Do you?
I don’t think
You should have just stopped there instead of indulging in your wishful thinking.
There are 435 members of the US house of representatives. I don’t doubt that several have interesting takes on issues. The issue is now at the state level where locals can decide what is best. Biden-Harris made a big mess and hopefully the focus is on cleaning that up.
Several Congressional Democrats have expressed their support for a Disinformation Governance Board.
Had Harris won and carried a Democrat majority into both Houses of Congress, I can easily see them sneaking it into a last-minute must-pass spending bill. And if that happens, do you really think that Harris would veto it?
Her principled stance on the 1st Amendment should of course force her to veto such a thing, right?
It’s in the states hands. As it should be.
You are a fat little bitch. Keep being you.
Poor Lying Jeffy.
Wondered when the resident asshole would show up. Good morning and fuck you too, Jeffy.
Scott Jennings on CNN panel:
"This is a big deal, this isn't backing into the office, this is a mandate to do what you said you were going to do," Jennings continued, as he mentioned Trump's priorities centered on the economy, crime, and immigration.
"I'm interpreting the results tonight as the revenge of just the regular 'ol working class, the anonymous American who has been crushed, insulted, condescended to, they're not 'garbage,' they're not Nazis, they're just regular people who get up and go to work every day and are trying to make a better life for their kids and they feel like they have been told to just shut up, when they have complained about the things that are hurting them in their own lives,"
"I also feel like this election, as we sit here and pour over this tonight, is something of an indictment of the political information complex...the story that was portrayed was not true. I mean, we were told Puerto Rico was going to change the election! Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley voters, women lying to their husbands...Before that it was Tim Walz and the camo hats. Night after night after night we were told all these things and gimmicks were gonna somehow push Harris over the line and we were just ignoring the fundamentals! Inflation, people like they were barely able to tread water at best, that was the fundamentals of the election."
"And so, I think that both parties should always look at the results of an election and figure out what went right and what went wrong, but I think for all of us who cover elections, and talk about elections and do this on a day to day basis, we have to figure out how to understand, talk to, and listen to the half of the country that rose up tonight and said, 'we've had enough.'"
"I do think the way this campaign was run, was basically on [how] the Democrats thought there were enough people who hated Trump or were willing to fear him to win the race and it turns out there's more to being president than simply not being Donald Trump in the eyes of the American people!"
"I'm a little worried about how Democrats are going to react...they've been told Trump is a modern-day Hitler, or at least he's a fascist, and now Kamala Harris I suspect is going to have to wake up and concede to that person, and then she's going to have to go to the Senate and certify the election...I'm just--I'm a little concerned about an election in which half the country was conditioned to believe that the person who just won the national popular vote, is going to be a dictator, eliminate the Constitution, create a bloodbath, and so on and so forth,"
We know how they will react. They're already doing it.
People are dumb and racist for voting for Trump.
The Biden Admin will "Trump proof" the government.
Letitia James has already threatened to continue to go after Trump.
Protests in the big cities have started.
Same as it ever was.
The self declared elitists will just elite harder.
The biggest takeaway I've seen on leftist media is they need to censor harder. Control messaging.
they need to censor harder. Control messaging.
I saw a lot of this yesterday, specifically going after X (Elon)
They are fucking clueless.
They are now blaming George Clooney for the loss.
"“I’m a little worried about how Democrats are going to react…"
Probably by shooting at him. Again.
Yeah, Trump's going to be dodging more DND and alphabet agency bullets between now and January than an Iraqi wedding party.
You can't dodge magic missiles, and there's no saving throw to mitigate damage.
1D4 +1 per
And 3 + level-above-first missiles per cast. Cast in one round. If you have it, add in Rary’s Mnemonic Enhancer trades a 3rd-level spell (like everyone’s favorite fireball) for three 1st level spell.
So a 10th level spell caster can pound out 12 d4+1 (24-60) damage in one melee round, that does not miss, has no saving throw, and they can do that again the next round, and the next…
Yeah but Shield is just a 1st level spell - "An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile."
I hope the secret service has a few wizards or sorcerers available.
thats why the alphabite agencies invented the "iranian hit squad" scare. gotta get their excuses in order. jus think of teh war if a "beloved" American President was killed by another counties terrorist. In reality i don't think Iran is that stupid but our government is
Scott Jennings is the only good thing on CNN. The way he makes his fellow panelists break down.
the anonymous American who has been crushed, insulted, condescended to, they’re not ‘garbage,’ they’re not Nazis, they’re just regular people who get up and go to work every day and are trying to make a better life for their kids and they feel like they have been told to just shut up
I think you mean the Unsilent Majority, big mouth.
"the political information complex"
If that is really how establishment media performers think of themselves, that is a nice revelation.
Mr. Jennings appears to be doing some much-needed introspection on the election. I would hope, but seriously doubt that most Democrats will do likewise. From what I’ve seen elsewhere, X and Facebook, they seem more intent on blaming others, calling them fascists, wailing, believing false ideas such as being taken away in the middle of the night to a camp or killed, and doing no introspection whatsoever.
Jennings was very good with realism this election cycle. He was worth watching. Only one on CNN.
they are claiming the 20 million vote difference from the last election were some how hidden or suppressed by Trump. in other words another republican stole another election just Like Bush stole his and trump stole his the first time etc etc....
The only thing that “suppressed” that vote was the RNC lawyers who made the count continue without stop until the end. No 3 am break for a massive vote drop.
Protests last night in the usual cities. Will Jeffy apologize for being snarky yesterday MORNING about there not being any protests?
We don't need no water, let the mother fucker burn. Burn mother fucker, burn!
Jeff crowing about "where are the protests??" 5 hours after the election was called really sums up the sarcjeff mentality.
No protest here; yesterday morning during a drive witnessed two Americans on a bridge overpass holding large American flags waving to drivers.
So you don't live in Philly, Chicago or Seattle? Smart man.
Philly
Does that mean their team won or their team lost?
Either way. Lot's of good reasons to riot in Philadelphia.
Shit, they boo Santa Claus in Philly.
Nope. The one super woke house that had Harris signs, a Ukraine flag, and one of those LGBTQnazi flags (if you put four of them together it forms a swastika) took all that crap down.
Ukraine flag down the street has been at half staff since yesterday.
Did illegal immigrant hunter bumper stickers surge there?
Have not seen any. You’ll like this. Ask sarc if he drives and older pickup truck that has some wear on it. If so, I think I saw him if it also has “Fuck Donald Trump” bumper stickers. The best part of it was that he was going about 10 mph below the speed limit (this is on the major interstate) and was weaving all over the lane including into the passing lane and onto the shoulder hitting the rumble strips.
That's just got to be our Sarckles.
To be fair the Soros checks had to clear first.
Jeffy apologize? Surely you must be joking.
He’ll just lie.
https://x.com/jakejakeny/status/1854023232996651269
The most pro-Israel president in history WON Dearborn. That’s how bad a candidate Kamala was.
https://x.com/johnddavidson/status/1854081900434104657
When they say this [“I can’t help but wonder if the American people have given up on democracy.”] after a presidential candidate has won the electoral college, the popular vote, and his party has won the House and Senate, you know that what they mean by “democracy” is not what you mean. And you know, too, that their institutions must be destroyed.
Anyone paying attention already knew the Democracy talk was BS. We know they only like democracy when they win.
Maybe some people who weren't paying attention will now see through the BS.
It was always (D)emocracy rather than democracy. Two homonyms with opposite meanings.
Hey, Democra is right in their name. Obviously they're the experts.
It’s misnamed. When they say “our democracy”, they really mean, “our bureaucracy”.
A video on how the bureaucracy is strangling the West: https://youtube.com/watch?v=V1vYhFCuh-Y
'Our (D)emocracy' is synonymous with 'bureaucracy'.
Another data point, point to one single tyrant/dictator/oligarch in the past two centuries (or throughout history) didn't increase the bureaucracy. For example, the Nazis grew the size of the bureaucracy 300% in the first three years in power. But remember how they accused Trump of being a Nazi for wanting to shrink the bureaucracy. No, you can't run a dictatorship without an extensive bureaucracy. Bureaucracies is how you control the people.
James Lindsay had a great podcast about the derivation of Our Democracy being from Stalin and it just means their party's purpose.
Democrats use a looking-glass vocabulary with words like diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, and, yes, democracy, that mean the opposite of what they did in past centuries. Of course, Marxists told us they would do this.
Indeed:
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
They don't care about democracy, they care about "Democrats, see". (Read that as one of those old timey gangsters.)
'Consider the possibility (though Democratic strategists might not) that Donald Trump actually ran a pretty good campaign and Kamala Harris ran a pretty poor one.'
Nuh uh, says Democrats. The are already blaming the results on the classics, including racism and misogyny, and on "dumb" Americans who can't follow instructions from their betters.
Left MSNBC on almost all day yesterday while I worked. My brain hurts now.
But virtually every guest panelist all day lead off with "racist", "sexist", "misogyny", "not willing to vote for a woman of color"...
I hope they keep it up, and eventually exile themselves out of our society.
If Biden got 81 million votes, not because he was likeable, but because people were voting against Trump, why didn't that happen this time?
Because Harris is even less likeable than Biden?
But they weren't voting for Biden, they were voting against Trump. A claim you repeated ad infinitum. Where are all the anti Trump votes? What was different about this time?
They must have put a tariff on Biden votes. It’s the only possibility.
Sarc can't follow logical construction.
Tell us again how tariffs and industrial policy are essential elements of free trade. Construct your argument logically, without any attacks.
Look I get it. You hate Trump and you hate Trump supporters even more.
But try to step outside of that for a minute.
On election night in 2020 they announced that they would stop counting about 2 AM in PA. At that point, Trump was up by 800,000 votes.
7 hours later Trump's lead was down to 600,000 votes.
They continued to count until Friday, when Biden took the lead, and then declared PA for Biden.
You don't think something was fishy about that at all?
Did one of the idiots I keep on mute just get a new account? How cute. Muted.
Sarc doesn’t have much to live for anymore, but by god he has that mute button!
I wonder if the mute button is emblematic of the entire left elite attitude for the rest of us.
Wow.
Ken muted Sarcasmic once when Sarc was harassing him and it just devastated Sarc. He's such an attention whore that Ken ignoring him drove him nuts.
Now he wields the mute button like a club because he thinks it will hurt others as much as it did him.
Thread.
https://reason.com/2021/07/15/drug-war-pandemic-likely-reasons-for-spike-in-u-s-overdose-deaths/?comments=true#comment-8995895
This lasted for weeks. Was hilarious.
Ken was accidentally correct when he said that Republicans are authoritarians and Democrats are totalitarians. He then had a fit when I hounded him for his demand that libertarians support authoritarians. But that movie was the last straw for him. He couldn’t handle me and others saying that ‘The Tomorrow War’ was a fun scifi flick, despise the reviews saying it was terrible. That broke his back.
That was the thread where sarc admitted that his marksmanship is like his social life: his groups are low and to the left.
'Ken was accidentally correct when he said that Republicans are authoritarians...'
That's not the way I remember it. I remember you looking like a complete tool. You obviously haven't learned anything.
I think the highlight of that thread is Sarc talking about "building guns" while bitching about posters here. So was this with your lurker friends, or what?
Because you lie and don’t mute anyone.
Wow, someone tried to reasonably ask sarc a legitimate question and he still muted them.
He must be so mad right now! I love it!
Thanks for proving you again don’t follow logical construction or understand what free trade is.
You don’t get to make up your own terms.
Ironically you're spiraling in the other thread where you ignore logical construction. Amazing projection from you.
Explain how game theory completely negates 250 years of economic thought, and how free trade is achieved through tariffs and industrial policies that raise prices. That is what you keep claiming. Can you make a logically constructed argument, or just more attacks? Explain how you’re so much smarter and wiser than Smith, Bastiat, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell and the rest of the economic world that you clearly hold in contempt.
Nobody should bother attempting to explain anything to you anymore. You've proven that you're a liar. You've proven that you don't know what most of the words you type mean.
One can't simply reason sarcjeff out of a position that he didn't use reason to get into.
Do you vote with your dishonorable discharge?
Is this ad hominem?
Sarc was homeless. He is a loser.
Are these the ideas you speak of, Sarc?
The fact they your initial assertion is game theory negates 250 years of economic thought shows your ignorance and inability to educate yourself. Lol.
Einstein also negated 300 years of physics right sarc?
Retard.
You claim game theory negates economics. That's your argument, not mine. Explain it. Explain why every economist is wrong.
Einstein also negated 300 years of physics right sarc?
Not at all. Newtonian physics works great as long as you don’t approach the speed of light. So for practical applications it works fine. I can see you’ve never done the math. Which isn’t surprising.
And you double down on proving your own ignorance. Lol. Anyone can look in the other thread retard. You simply can’t get past bumper sticker level understanding of any complex subject.
Game theory does not negate anything. At best game theory adds decision tree making to events in a market. Itnl is a behavioral consideration on top of economics fucking retard.
One of the first things any actual student of economics learns is not all actors are rational. Then they switch to assumptions of a rational actor. These are ideal state constructions which I literally address in the prior thread. Reality doesn’t exist in an ideal state. Markets dont exist in ideal states. Game theory is added onto the construction of ideal states to discuss non ideal deviations.
Sarc, I really hope you understand that your posts here continue to demonstrate how retarded and uneducated you are in the subject.
I can’t stress enough that you should read a fucking book.
Newtonian physics works great as long as you don’t approach the speed of light.
More bumper sticker understandings of a subject.
Read a fucking book.
I can explain many situations where newtonian physics breaks down or adds a significant enough error due to complexities added by state. Such as in hypersonic, one exple. Plasma effects, another. Newtoniaj physics is a really good approximation for most things, but physics has continued to evolve for where those errors from newtonian physics do matter.
You continue to show an extreme lack of education but express a surety from your ignorance.
The fact that you barely passed rocks for jocks doesn't mean you know dick about physics and economics.
You continue to show an extreme lack of education but express a surety from your ignorance.
As always you shamelessly accuse me of doing what you are doing while you are doing it.
Sarc has an epic hangover today.
Game theory is added onto the construction of ideal states to discuss non ideal deviations.
I'd believe that if the "lessons" of adding game theory weren't to throw away all economic thought over the last two and a half centuries and revert to protectionist mercantilism. I can smell that bullshit from a mile away.
By God he triples down on his attack of it negating prior economics. Sarc. You. Are. A. Fucking. Retard.
If we had stopped maturation of physics at Newton, many of the things you enjoy today wouldn’t exist.
Economics is not a set of hard and fast rules. It is a theory of complex interactions of markets.
The fact you think it is a hard set of rules shows how little you understand.
George Box said it best “all models are wrong, some are useful.”
All economic models are built on assumptions to simplify the complexity of human and market interactions. These assumptions are general assumptions, not to be treated as rules.
Please show me Adam Smith explaining the NFT market.
This is your problem. You think reading a wiki article makes you an expert with deep understanding when you don’t even understand the facial portion of a subject.
Is this why you drink? Yo convince yourself your false confidence is true?
I mean you're too ignorant to even understand there are different schools of economics lol. Based on the same base of economics you demand as gospel.
You're really an ignorant person sarc. One in denial of that ignorance.
If we had stopped maturation of physics at Newton, many of the things you enjoy today wouldn’t exist.
You slew that strawman! Bravo!
Here’s the thing. His three laws weren’t negated.
Your claim is that the basic laws of economics are negated. And that’s simply not true. Your claim is equivalent to saying game theory means an object in motion can stop when it feels like it.
Please show me Adam Smith explaining the NFT market.
That’s like leftists saying “The Founders didn’t have automatic weapons!”
Try to be better than the liars you hate.
Sarc, tariffs and excise taxes are how the federal government used to make money before 16A. It should be again. Also strategically used tariffs should protect US industries and convince companies to make products here. Flat out free trade is a bit overrated.
#RepealThe16th
Sarc can follow logical construction just fine. Sarc doesn’t want to follow the logical construction, which is why he’s trying to switch topics in his response like a little weasel.^
I'll need a cite on his ability to do so.
Same.
I just told you. Harris is less likeable than Biden. That was enough for many anti-Trump voters to just stay home since she's so unlikeable that it just wasn't worth turning off Netflix.
Did you study syllogism in your logic course?
The University of CNN didn't offer it.
15M did this?
Seriously?
A little under 20% of the vote...gone.
Yeah. Why wouldn't they? She's completely unlikeable. The economy is much better than 2020. The weather is nice. Why bother?
So where did those 15 million go? Did they just evaporate into the air? Die from Covid? Rounded up and put in FEMA camps? Please enlighten us.
Absence of evidence is evidence or something along the lines facts changed.
You provided zero evidence for your assertions. The opposite of what you've been provided for ours. You just dismiss it.
I love how your entire knowledge base consists of bald assertions to support your claims.
Yet you demand the Dave Chapelle level of evidence from the R Kelly skit for any claims against your beliefs.
The weather is nice.
Get a load of the climate change denier.
When NO winning President has even won 70M votes, much less 81M, the doubts many have about the 2020 election make a lot of sense.
15M did this?
Why did 15M less fraudulent voters turn out?
The RNC was competent with legal challenges on election day in many cases.
Hmmm...Maybe. I'll pay attention to this in the upcoming weeks/months as I'm sure more will be known.
Fuck off Dee.
OK D Kruger Mac
So if I've got this straight, 15M or so Biden voters who voted against Trump were SO put off by Harris (whom they had elected VP just 4 years ago) that they could not be bothered the vote against LITERALLY HITLER to keep the fascist hate monger from executing illegal aliens by the trainload and putting millions of Democrats into camps where women would be forced into Handmaid's Tale existence?
Yeah. Most people aren't political junkies.
Must be it. There are absolutely zero other possiblities.
I sense that some people are implying that more votes in 2020 are proof of fraud, or some such nonsense. Am I off the mark?
Well, Sarc, where did they go if we’re being told this is record turnout?
The cleanest election ever where every registered voter was mailed a ballot whether they wanted it or not, or even existed? Never!
It doesn't even make sense. It is the junkies who vote every election. That linear line that shows the outlier.
Must be it. It couldn’t be the 3am ballot drops. Nah, of course not.
Lol. Again. Fact free bald assertions to deny abnormalities.
15M or so Biden voters who voted against Trump were SO put off by Harris (whom they had elected VP just 4 years ago) that they could not be bothered the vote against LITERALLY HITLER
"Literally Hitler" resonates with very few, probably zero swing voters. People were put off by the Biden economy and saw Harris as part of that and nothing more.
To me, this seems to be a more logical explanation than that Dem's and the deep state suddenly decided not to cheat.
But in 2020 the record turnout is supposedly due to combination of people loving the Democrat promises so much and/or hated Trump so much that they had to vote against him and so they all flocked to the polls.
Harris would do nothing different--her own words--than Biden and Trump is still Trump, only worse this time! So what really changed?
"this seems to be a more logical explanation than that Dem’s and the deep state suddenly decided not to cheat."
Something like that. Perhaps they realized how bad 4 years of having Harris (or worse, Walz if they offed her) actually fronting the operations would be.
Combined with at least some of the COVID cheating vectors having been done away with making it at least a bit harder to cheat.
But in 2020 the record turnout is supposedly due to combination of people loving the Democrat promises so much and/or hated Trump so much that they had to vote against him and so they all flocked to the polls.
I don't buy that either.
decided not to cheat? were all set to cheat and were so overwhelmed by early voting their plans went poof.
A top down order? I can't imagine such a uniform change of plans otherwise.
no idea ... they tried to drop a truck-full of votes at midnight in Atlanta but Sherman had already spoken ... the vote chasm was too vast to overcome.
Joe had Harris derailed.
the vote chasm was too vast to overcome.
This could be, but it doesn't explain the 15M votes. There's 15M less votes in 2024 vs 2020. The implication being those are the steal votes. My question is how is the 15M vote difference evidence of 2020 fraud?
Joe had Harris derailed.
This would explain it, but also implies a large and organized cabal that would be impossible to keep secret for 4 years.
My question is how is the 15M vote difference evidence of 2020 fraud?
It is the evidence that they gamed the system. Lockdowns, work from home, mailing ballots in contravention of law, extended voting, ballot harvesting, paying people to vote, etc., etc. It was all contrived to put ballots in the hands of people and promise them the graft would continue if they voted for the graft to continue.
My son was in a position where he qualified for state benefits when COVID started. His situation changed, he tried to get off the benefits and was told that he couldn't. Benefits were locked in up to and past the election. Those 15 million votes were bought and paid for with PPP funds, extended unemployment and welfare.
It is the evidence that they gamed the system. Lockdowns, work from home, mailing ballots in contravention of law, extended voting, ballot harvesting, paying people to vote, etc., etc.
Yes, this I agree with.
This would explain it, but also implies a large and organized cabal that would be impossible to keep secret for 4 years.
They bragged about it in Time magazine. They prosecuted anyone who looked into it.
I can't explain +15 million votes without you screaming conspiracy! lol
I can’t explain +15 million votes without you screaming conspiracy! lol
Yeah I can be a pain in the ass that way.
2020 had an explosion of rule changes that allowed the ability of rampant fraud. Election rules were illegally changed. Even election observer rules changed. Remember cardboard over windows? Last 4 years courts have undone those changes and states fixed other issues with 2020.
Pretending these changes and differences don’t exist is probably part of why you can’t understand things.
So you'd have me simultaneously believe that there are enough people in authority to correct the security issues of 2020, yet they still cannot reveal, correct or prosecute any of massive fraud of 2020 because it's being protected by people in authority?
All it takes is more people looking and watching.
Don't you think this would result in a lot more observations of attempted cheating rather than everyone just deciding to be honest? Like you can slip 15M votes past the goalie in 2020 and virtually no one takes a shot on goal in 2024?
"Don’t you think this would result in a lot more observations of attempted cheating rather than everyone just deciding to be honest? Like you can slip 15M votes past the goalie in 2020 and virtually no one takes a shot on goal in 2024?
In 2020, the keeper and 7 other players were all red-carded out of the game. Shots on goal were basically free and carried basically zero risk, even if caught--just wave off the attempt and call it human error.
In Georgia, something like 7 different memory cards full of votes were "found" and counted later. "Oops, we don' t know why this wasn't included, some poll worker must have left it in the machine."
Things that did get caught just waved away...
ATLANTA — The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office says a vote tallying error discovered in DeKalb County was never entered into the official state-wide count after rumors circulated online Wednesday.
The chairman of the state’s Republican party, David Shafer, tweeted about what he said was a mistake a GOP observer witnessed in DeKalb County.
The observer filed an affidavit after witnessing what he said was an obviously incorrect tally, with only 13 votes in one batch for President Donald Trump compared to 10,000 for President-Elect Joe Biden.
Secretary of State official Gabriel Sterling dismissed Shafer’s claims outright on Wednesday afternoon, saying that the error was discovered early on and fixed before it ever entered into the official ballot count.
“The error was discovered, it was corrected. It would have been discovered and corrected even without the monitor there to have to point it out,” Sterling said.
“It’s a 9,000-vote discrepancy that was signed off by two official DeKalb counters and would not have been discovered but for the Republican observer,” Shafer said.
Thanks, for the specific cases, MO. I will look further in to this when I have some time.
Don’t you think this would result in a lot more observations of attempted cheating rather than everyone just deciding to be honest?
Do people try to cheat the same if they see the pit boss come over and watch them?
Businesses hire security guards for a reason.
Do people try to cheat the same if they see the pit boss come over and watch them?
If they could cover up 15M votes in 2020 and prosecute anyone that challenges them, then this would be no problem.
These 2 claims are not compatible.
Recall that any such conspiracy needed to only take place in a small handful of states (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona).
Recall that Biden narrowly won each of those: "just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College."
Recall that, for example, Fulton and Dekalb Counties in Georgia are notoriously Democrat AND notoriously corrupt (per the number of FBI takedowns of corrupt politicians in those counties). When "mistakes" adding 10K Biden votes are just "Oopsie, my bad" waved away WHEN CAUGHT, it's easy to imagine that several such "mistakes" could have occurred and slipped through.
And finally, realize that there does not need to be an actual coordinated conspiracy for this to have happened. A few dozen die-hard partisans in the right places, who believed that Trump had to be stopped at any cost and who could have mentally justified any action (in a "go back in time and kill Hitler as an infant" sense) could have slipped a few hundred or thousand Biden votes into machines. Cumulatively, this could have turned the trick.
After all, it looks like some 10-15M votes for Biden have vanished.
Note: I'm pretty sure Trump lost the election last time on his own accord. I'm pretty sure there was no massive conspiracy. OTOH, there for DAMN sure was shenanigans pulled by Governors and Secs. State all across the country that ought to have rendered a lot of votes "improperly cast" and never should have been counted.
Just the facts that hundreds on unattended ballot boxes were used raises serious doubts. And when apartment dwellers reported getting 4 or 5 ballots for previous tenants--unsolicited--you gotta figure some of those die-hard partisans just went ahead and voted all of the ballots that came to them in the mail.
That many of those unattended boxes were declared illegal (but challenges based on them were declared moot), and disallowed going forward, and the mass-mail ballots reverted to more normal requested absentee and in-person early and day-of voting, might well have cut off some of the easiest chat vectors. Might account for at least some of the missing 15M (or whatever is end up being...probably closer to 10M when California finishes counting).
Thanks again, MO.
Your case deserves due consideration. I'll say you've made the most convincing case I've seen yet. Saying no massive conspiracy, but a nickle here, a dime there could have tipped it....I'll agree, it could have. If this is happened though, we could never know for sure. We can't have the 100% confidence it was stolen as some profess.
lost in the mail
Move those goalposts, sarcky.
It didn't happen last time.
Because a lot of the cheat vectors enabled during COVID have been rolled back? Mass mailings of ballots, unattended drop boxes...
Because Joe ran as a rust belt democrat but then staffed his admin with progressives who proceeded to run the country with their identity grievance politics and spent trillions, making inflation worse. Because the admin spent the last bit of their credibility on pretending Joe was fit for office up until the very end, when no matter what they did they couldn't hide the fact his mental facilities had deteriorated, badly.
Because a lot of anti-Trump voters from 2020 don’t hate him as much anymore, or maybe even like him, and what they thought they were voting for – something better, in contrast to the chaos of Trump – they didn’t get.
A huge part of the vote against Trump in 2020 was his perceived handling of COVID. That he didn't do enough, that he dithered while people were dying, etc. That criticism is not relevant today.
Your team has done a good job of normalizing Trumpism, so I guess you should be proud of yourselves for that.
has done a good job of normalizing Trumpism,
Normal people: A woman has a vagina.
Garbage people: Use my pronouns, Hitler!
So now is this correct?
Jeff would stab you over the first statement.
Not Jeff, that be too much like exercise.
Oh good Lord. Why does everything have to be some type of zinger or gotcha.
This from the guy who routinely refers to others as garbage.
Because I'm a smart ass and your an insufferable prick who advocate and supported the suspension of my civil liberties.
I did? What was the context of that claim?
You see, he liked to drive around with a certain type of animal (bear) in his trunk, but you kept advocating for stopping people from doing that, as it could get out and maul unsuspecting bystanders.
Also you wanted mask mandates, right? If people would just do what they are supposed to do, the government wouldn't need to mandate it--or something to that effect.
I would also add, there is a fair contingent of voters out there who can't really articulate what they want, but they definitely know what they don't want.
So they observed Trump from 2016-2020, and concluded "I don't like that, I'm voting for the other guys."
And then they observed Biden/Harris from 2020-2024, and concluded "I don't like that either, I'm voting for the other guys."
Maybe they support abortion rights but want low taxes, maybe they support gun rights but still think racism is a real issue that needs to be dealt with (what you all would call 'wokism'). They have a mix of beliefs, not all coherent or consistent, and when they see the guys in charge disappointing them on one or more of this inchoate set of beliefs, they vote for the other team.
We reject rejects like you.
You lost jeff.
Yup.
Sycophant much?
He's a reject as well. Bums stay together.
Translation: Jeffy is whining about losing and finding any and every excuse as to why.
Perhaps one takeaway for Democrats could be that just handing people money doesn't work,
Hopefully this means the reason romance for UBI is dead.
'Remember how, years ago, he was obsessed with how efficiency standards and how many flushes modern toilets require?'
Ha, good one, Liz. Trump might go Andy Rooney and rant about trivial life annoyances, but Democrats are the ones who enshrine their trivia in laws and regulations, like for toilets.
Complaining about efficiency standards is not obsessing.
Haven't mcdonalds dumps always taken multiple flushes no matter the standard?
Quite a commodetion about this. Would guess that wisegal Liz is flush with better topics to discuss.
Just don't leave the seat up.
Kohler heads will prevail, just give them time to wipe the stain, Joe Biden left on the seat of power.
We need to gut the administrative state.
Apparently “obsessed” means “talked about it once, here is a single CNN article about it.”
Great stuff.
Remember how, years ago, he was obsessed with how efficiency standards and how many flushes modern toilets require?
No, but now I'm wondering how many MAGA-level flushes it's going to take to get these shitty media takes to go away.
A series of tweets from Democrat Congressman from the Bronx, Ritchie Torres (https://x.com/RitchieTorres)
Popular explanations for the outcome of the election seem to include white supremacy, patriarchy, misogyny…
I am going to state the obvious here: vilifying voters of color as white supremacists will not attract them back to the Democratic Party. It will drive them further into Trump’s camp. The purpose of politics is not to repel but to attract. Condescension is the most powerful repellant in politics. Voters viscerally resent condescension and will punish you for it at the ballot box.
----
Donald Trump has no greater friend than the far left, which has managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like “Defund the Police” or “From the River to the Sea” or “Latinx.”
There is more to lose than there is to gain politically from pandering to a far left that is more representative of Twitter, Twitch, and TikTok than it is of the real world. The working class is not buying the ivory-towered nonsense that the far left is selling.
----
The signs of a decisive defeat were staring us in the face all along. We were simply in denial about them or willfully blind to them, substituting magical thinking for actual analysis.
In recent history, there’s no precedent for an incumbent party winning a presidential election when the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the right track or headed in the right direction is in the 20s. The structural challenge was simply insurmountable.
So he's saying the democrats being who they are alienate voters, so the dems should pretend to not be horrible people to get elected, then go right back to being horrible
I've been saying for years now. Most of America is not buying what the left is selling. They claim to have numbers behind them but all they have is a megaphone that makes them look more popular than they are.
"I am going to state the obvious here: vilifying voters of color as white supremacists will not attract them back to the Democratic Party. It will drive them further into Trump’s camp."
We should encourage more of this.
Why? Let them do it to themselves; they don't need our help. Just our mockery.
The signs of a decisive defeat were staring us in the face all along. We were simply in denial about them or willfully blind to them, substituting magical thinking for actual analysis.
Yes
Those numbers that came out of the Bronx must have been eye-opening for him. Honestly, good on Torres for having sufficient self-awareness to realize that allowing a mandarin class to represent you while pontificating to their perceived lessers is not a good way to maintain a political coalition.
The question is whether the Dems actually learn from this, or double down on brain-rotted academia boilerplate.
The question is whether the Dems actually learn from this, or double down on brain-rotted academia boilerplate.
No it isn't. The party has been corrupted and taken over by Marxists. The question is whether they double down on brain-rotted academia boilerplate or double down on goading their antifa/BLM stooges into starting riots and physically attacking their opposition.
Rand Paul's neighbor that put him in the hospital with 7 broken ribs was sentenced by a lefty activist judge to time served before the state stepped in and demanded some justice for attacking a sitting Senator. You can also look at any comparison of Floyd riot sentences to 1/6 sentences. The Democratic Marxist Party is no longer interested in even the appearance of fair play.
NPR(C) is spending hours going on and on about Trump the felon and how he is cheating the system by getting elected and being immune from prosecution. 74 million people just agreed the guy is not a criminal and the left is losing their fucking minds.
'There's a frustration by voters in New Jersey on economic stuff, on crime issues, and I also think there's an underbelly in the stuff Trump tapped into culturally," Republican strategist Chris Russell told Politico.'
That's just rubbing SALT into the wound.
Yeah, @LizWolfe is crazy if she thinks that the People's Republic of NJ will ever be a swing state. Nope. NJ is deep blue, and will remain that way for her lifetime.
No need to take advantage of Liz Wolfe's youth and inexperience. 😉
Bridget Phetasy
@BridgetPhetasy
·
Follow
There will be a lot of ink spilled about why Americans elected Trump and Republicans in a red wave but I can sum it up.
“He’s not Hitler. I’m not racist. Fuck you.”
Jeffsarc, who did this as recently as yesterday, hardest hit.
Given his large mass, even being hit hard might not cause him to budge much. In physics we learn that objects at pederest tend to stay at pederest.
+2 Entendres
Any hill is a hill that fatfuck jeffsarc will die on.
Simply because he’ll be out of breath before he gets to the top of it.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/06/the-biggest-f-you-in-american-history/
Last night, a political earthquake shook America. Donald Trump – a man whose political obituary had been written many times – won a decisive victory over Kamala Harris. His projected 312 to 226 electoral-college votes sealed a commanding victory. Trump’s Republicans also gained majority control of the Senate and are expected to do the same in the House of Representatives, handing them an opportunity to shape the political landscape for years to come.
Trump’s victory represents the most amazing comeback in American political history. Not since Grover Cleveland in 1892 has a president been re-elected after losing office. It is also more impressive than Richard Nixon’s political rebound to take the White House in 1968.
It’s hard to overstate the weight of opposition Trump had to overcome to achieve this victory. He has faced multiple investigations and was impeached twice by Congress. He was declared politically dead after the ‘January 6’ Capitol riot. He’s been charged with four criminal indictments and convicted on 34 felony counts in Manhattan. He faced two assassination attempts in the space of two months.
Democrats have always claimed that they weren’t pursuing a ‘lawfare’ campaign against Trump, just applying the law in a non-partisan way. But it was unprecedented to undertake a massive, banana-republic effort to jail a political opponent. This move totally backfired on Democrats, as it made Trump a sympathetic victim of a repressive state and consolidated Republican support behind him.
Now, with Trump’s resounding victory, a majority of the American public is effectively saying they judge the Democrats’ lawfare charges to be so much trumped-up bullshit, an abuse of state power. It’s a triumph of democracy over an overreaching legal system.
The walls are closing in.
Maybe my Giant Meteor candidate won after all.
I didn’t think JB Pritzker was on the ballot.
Giant Meteor, not Giant Meateater.
The first thing Republicans should do is propose ending the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court. It would be fun to watch Democrat's heads explode.
I'm sure Wyden would lead the charge on passage.
Not sure why Jeff posted this to TikTok.
https://x.com/DrewHLive/status/1854206889157919138
Lol - performative.
I didn’t even turn on the sound and it was still funny.
Who was mean enough to draw a beard and put ugly glasses on a little baby?
Someone should tell him that brushing his thinning hair forward doesn't hide his five-head.
There is no joy in Mudville...
Bwahahah...
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2024/11/06/enjoy-some-of-the-most-unhinged-and-delicious-reactions-to-trumps-victory-on-social-media-n2181653
https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2024/11/07/watch-the-lefty-meltdown-continues-over-trumps-victory-including-one-woman-who-shaves-her-head-in-rage-n2181671
These videos have been hilarious. Maddow crying in 2016 was still the best though.
She couldn’t get the clippers to work.
Guess she needed a man to show her how mechanical things operate.
Actually made me laugh out loud, but then I realized she needs to be in a mental institution.
Woman says people who didn’t vote for President Trump will be wearing blue bracelets so that everyone knows
I kinda want to pay a woman $1000 to convince other women that they should voluntarily tattoo numbers on their own forearms in order to virtue signal that they didn't vote for Donald Trump.
You know, just like any other regular old business transaction.
And get them to shave their heads, a classic signal of mourning.
So many nose piercings.
OMG!
We really, really need some new laws to keep children from voting.
I find it sad in that were brainwashed by democrat media outlets and now they have to deal with reality.
Trump was never like Hitler. You're a moron if you really believe that.
Most Trump fans are not hateful racists. Many are the kind of people that would pull over and help you with your car problems. Same with gun owners.
The people that were demonizing people, can't handle being in the losing column. Snowflakes indeed.
I know a couple of women that now think Trump is coming after them. Literally, they think they will be round up and taken away. In the 70s we called that paranoia.
This is the second time democrats in the quest for power has caused a serious mental health crisis.
They live in a world where only style/performance matter.
"This is the second time democrats in the quest for power has caused a serious mental health crisis."
"LGBTQ+ crisis hotlines report spike in calls after Trump victory" - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/11/06/lgbtq-election-trump-trans-youth/
This one was f'ing hilarious.
https://x.com/DrewHLive/status/1854242834301309311
This one describes pretty well the reaction by Team D partisans.
Is the screaming thing one of those 1000 genders I've heard about?
I was actually thinking it's an improvement over all the TikTok videos where people start the video to "front" other "alters" and *then* do batshit stupid stuff while faking DID/MPD.
Screaming out your insanity isn't obfuscating people actually suffering other disorders.
I'm still not convinced MPD actually exists.
Maybe 'faking' is the wrong word and 'actionable' is better.
It seems like there are people who actually are "I'm always tired and sometimes I wake up in strange places with no memory of how I got there and I want it to stop. You're a professional and I need help." and then there are people who revel in their condition and whether they suffer from MPD/DID or insane narcissism or a victim complex or whatever is a moot point as they are better off sedated and forgotten about anyway.
But, yeah, long held and known that as we license more mental health professionals mental health pathologies and treatments, dubious and potentially effective, increase not decrease.
my. nephew. asserts. he's. a. girl.
Awww, he cut it off before his mom called from downstairs for him to get his chicken nuggies.
I really wish TikTok had been around when Hitler was alive.
A few of his whiney ass speeches that got caught on film remind me a little of these people.
"Marriage is off the table now"
https://twitter.com/i/status/1854178891755389080
I'm sure she'll be happy with her cats.
Looks like a couple guys dodged a bullet there,
'This Politico piece, full of Democratic strategists saying that the country is "not ready for a woman president," is pretty amusing; I am not sure "more identity politics!" is the takeaway'
Look, a core philosophy for Democrats is that anything they don't like is someone else's fault. Couple that with the Racism! core principle, and Poltico can't help itself.
ps. "Racism" is an all-purpose slur that includes skin color, gender, body shape, hair style, clothing, and all other external characteristics.
“Racism” is an all-purpose slur that
includes skin color, gender, body shape, hair style, clothing, and all other external characteristicshas been co-opted to identify and balkanize various nominally-oppressed character traits against White/Western and Democratic/Individualist Culture.FIFY. If someone calls someone else “Lefty”, it’s no problem. Unless the speaker is White and the person being addressed is black, then it’s potentially problematic. Even if the person addressed has lived a privileged life, the addressing as such is in reverence, and the speaker is the one who actually got their hand smacked with a ruler in school as policy.
This was pointed out to me back in school. My roommate was from New York of Jamaican decent. His girlfriend was white, also from New York. Every once in a while he would play the race card about something on campus. About half the time, she would remind him that it doesn't play around here. He would reply that it's because we're all a bunch of inbred rednecks. She would reply it's because he's here on a track scholarship and most of the white boys paying their own way had spent more time in the field than he had on the track.
Or that MAGA Country we call Chicago.
Jussie vindicated!?
“He’s not Hitler. I’m not racist. Fuck you.”
Now that would have been a fun yard sign.
'Congress is constitutionally the most powerful branch of the federal government'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Uhmm, pretty sure the Constitution is set up in such a way that none of the three branches is supposed to be more powerful than the next. It is unfortunate that we've allowed the Presidency to gain so much powers but a lot of that is because the legislature doesn't legislate anymore.
Question: If Harris had won, would there have been notes sent to students at universities and high schools expressing how it would be understandable if you couldn’t come to school today?
Would Newsweek have written this sort of article?
https://www.newsweek.com/how-talk-kids-election-stress-1980536
———
Fieldston is allowing any of its students who become “emotionally distressed” over the election to skip school Wednesday — an offer immediately ridiculed by one of its famous former parents, comedian Jerry Seinfeld.
“What kind of lives have these people led that makes them think that this is the right way to handle young people?” he told the New York Times incredulously. “To encourage them to buckle. This is the lesson they are providing, for ungodly sums of money.”
J.K. Rowling is a treasure.
The fact that most (all?) of the Harry Potter actors now hate her is perfect.
In spite of the fact she made them all wealthy.
wealthy, and relevant.
The main 3 kids would go on to star in or be included in multiple other movies. They got fame, money, and a whole ass career from being included in her movies.
Thankless cunts.
I think only Radcliff is relevant anymore (if that). The red head didn't do much at all after the movies and the girl stopped being in things when Weinstein went away.
The main 3 kids would go on to star in or be included in multiple other movies.
Not to generate sympathy (and specifically not antipathy towards Rowling) exactly but I was actually thinking the exact opposite. They starred in other movies but were no more notable than other similar actors that others would regard as "failures" like Macaulay Culkin or Edward Furlong.
Nobody hires Emma Watson or Daniel Radcliffe. Everybody around the world above the age of about 4 recognizes Hermione Grainger.
But, agreed that, ironically, like petulant teenagers stuck trying to escape their parent's massive and gracious shadows and providence.
Yes she is.
At one point on CBS (I think) they showed a map of counties where Harris outperformed Biden. It was empty. "Not one county? Not a single one."
It was 0 states. Only 46 of 4000 counties.
The more telling video was where CNN showed a map of which areas of the country had wage growth exceed inflation (green) or inflation greater than wages (grey). They had to zoom in to find green.
Probably zoomed in on some dude that found a 20 on the sidewalk one day.
Nah, he found one them COVID checks in a draw, and ran out to cash it.
As noted in a previous article this whole "Inflation is gone and you people are making more now!" story is as big a fabrication as the "Crime is down" nonsense. It is all lying statistical games.
People spent 4 years losing ground. Many of them did not get raises, even if new people coming to their company were being hired at higher rates. Even IF their Salary has caught up, it doesn't change the fact that they were struggling the last 2 - 4 years. Maybe they are just catching up, but that doesn't make them whole again.
What really dismays me is how much Reason has put stock into these "Don't believe your lying eyes" narratives. They have been proven wrong again and again, but because they live in their blue bubbles they drone on and on about it.
Apparently, it was CNN. I was flipping around so much I lost track. But this popped up in my feed this morning. I had assumed that the comment "Literally not one county?" meant we were looking at a county-by-county map, but that seems to have been a bad assumption on my part...
“One of the best moments of Election Day came when CNN host Jake Tapper realized live on air that Harris had failed to outperform President Joe Biden’s 2020 results in even one county in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. It was then that Tapper appeared to finally understand that Trump was going to win this election.
From The New York Post:
Tapper asked CNN chief national correspondent John King to pull up a graphic showing in which states Harris had gotten at least 3% more votes than Biden had in the last election — just to be presented with a gray map reflecting her failure even in that.
“Holy smokes!” Tapper gasped. “Literally nothing?”
“Literally nothing,” King confirmed.
The slide, which would have lit up states where Harris outperformed Biden by 3% or more, was instead completely gray.
“Literally not one county?” Tapper asked again, still sounding shocked in the footage.
King proceeded to show counties instead of states. He pointed out that Harris only outperformed Biden by 3% in just 58 counties.
“So in counties, in 58 counties,” King said. “We just showed Donald Trump was over a thousand counties of the 4,600 counties and townships across America.”
Well she would have had a few more if people hadn't fled CA because of their disastrous policies, that she wanted to enact countrywide.
The View: "uneducated white women votes against [their self-interests]"
The condescension, it burns.
Democrat elitists, please, please, please continue to indulge and proclaim your superiority complexes.
I know, I know...I want to say: Just stay stupid, Team D.
But are any women less educated than the View?
I know that women who watch the View get dumber.
Just when you think you couldn’t hate Democrats enough, they go and prove me wrong.
She lost ground (or outright lost) basically every demographic there is, except sad single women with degrees.
Catering to the most insufferable demo, the girl boss demo, apparently was a turn off to literally everyone else.
…Maybe hollywood can learn a similar lesson here
“votes against [their self-interests]”
I’ll take “phrases that get me to ignore you instantly” for 100, Ken.
"Giving your money to a presidential campaign is almost as bad as giving it to Harvard."
Trump's ads had to be far more cost-effective, given that largely all he had to do was show news footage of Harris speaking.
AKA spreading "misinformation".
Yes. Funny that several of the Kamala ads made me watch to the end to see if that was her campaign or Trump’s that aired her stupidity.
Morning Joe harped and harped on the black guy telling us that 'Kamala wants taxpayers to pay for transgender surgery for inmates and illegal aliens...Harris is for they/them' ad yesterday...clearly one of the more influential ads run. His point did seem to be that Harris saying such a thing was perhaps, in retrospect, unwise.
The oppressed vs. oppressor prism doesn't explain why Trump made big inroads into that bastion of White supremacy otherwise known as the Bronx. Or that MAGA Country we call Chicago. All around America, our major cities, while still blue, got redder.
Alternative Theory: MAGA Country and Major Cities stayed the same colors they always were and the DNC turned a more insanely diverse, psychadelically black-field-and-red-star, rainbow, pink-white-and-blue, black-white-red-green, color.
I want to explain this to my in-laws who are still screaming “racism and sexism won!”, but it’s not worth the effort.
Might be more fun to tell them deliberately nasty fiction about Trump's Nazi pogrom.
As has been pointed out, despite all of the Dem talk about eventually turning Texas blue --- NY was closer to being red than Texas was to being blue.
And watching Cruz kick eight types of crap out of his opponent was amusing.
Yeah, that was amusing and satisfying. Even Illinois was closer to flipping red than Texas to flipping blue.
The GOP has a chance to fully morph into a working class party and leaving the "elites" (who seem to be incompetent at everything) with the Dems.
I'll take the trade. The productive over the wannabe productive.
There will be a lot of ink spilled about why Americans elected Trump and Republicans in a red wave but I can sum it up.
“He’s not Hitler. I’m not racist. Fuck you.”
+1
Chat with my brother yesterday:
Me: "And then, for no particular reason at all, the German People elected Adolph Hitler to a second, non-consecutive term."
Him: "In Kamala Harris' America, the garbage takes you out."
Ha! Funny guy.
Nice!
funny. also note Bridget got the point this whole staff missed.
Nancy Pelosi talks about Trumps "cognitive degeneration"...
The irony burns SO VERY MUCH...(can she say Joe Biden?)
“I think that what the ex-president just said is further indication of his cognitive degeneration. You saw recently, when he was talking about electrocution or being eaten by sharks, something is very wrong there,”
“I think people who might be thinking about voting for him have to know that he can’t last as president for four years with his brain deteriorating at the rate it is, and it is clearly evident, and they may be voting for President Vance, which would be a horrible thing for our country,”
Doesn't Nancy have some final insider trading deals to wrap up?
The biggest failure with the Harris campaign was in males. Black Males. White Males. Hispanic Males. Married Males. Young Males. Unmarried Males. Harris lost the male vote.
Now you can say that is all because of sexism, but that tacitly admits that the Democrat party has traditionally been filled with sexists, who are reliable blue votes unless confronted with Vaginas. While that may have benefited Trump, it says more about the Democrat party than anything.
I think the more compelling answer was provided by the Media back in July when they were top-to-bottom insisting that Kamala Harris was a deeply flawed candidate whose career was filled with favoritism and failure. She did nothing in her career at the federal level other than check a DEI box. Exit polls indicate that Harris lost significant ground with WOMEN, not just men. Kamala's margin of victory with women was only 10%- that's 5 points lower than Biden in 2020. Even among YOUNG women- the staunchest Democrat bulwark, had a 7% drop (65% to 58%) between 2020 and 2024. These numbers are also way lower than Clinton's results in 2016.
Note, that Gender could have something to do with it- Men do not prioritize abortion, and so that one wedge issue was not enough to keep them on the reservation. But as noted above, it still wasn't enough to give Harris the level of female support that she needed.
I think the real story is young men. Trump's support went from 41% in 2020 to 56% in 2024. That is huge, and it portends a major difficulty for Democrats if it persists into the future.
I am probably projecting, but my read is that a significant percentage of our population remains meritocratic, and Men are more likely than women to have these views. Many of these people may believe diversity is important, but when we are talking about the number 1, top spot, big boss, they aren't going to trust a person with no record. I believe men are more likely to be sympathetic with this view, because they spend much of their lives still being rated on their accomplishments. Regardless of their views on diversity and inclusion, they have experienced why it is important to accomplish things- to prove that you can do a job before being given that job. And they are going to hold the most powerful person in the world to that standard.
I have written before that the US is aligning on an Elitist vs Populist axis- replacing the conservative vs liberal axis. And we see that many people rejected what they saw as a deeply Elitist and Authoritarian choice offered by the Democrats. This should be a wake up call for media and government. Enough people know when you are bullshitting them. They noticed when the media did an about face on how viable Harris was.
I would love to see voting stats for women who are married to men, or just not at ideological war with men. I will bet that Harris majorities only correlate with hard core Nth-wave feminists and lonely cat ladies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
Gender by marital status (D vs R)
Married men (28%) 38% 60%
Married women (26%) 48% 51%
Non-married men (20%) 47% 49%
Non-married women (27%) 59% 38%
Other interesting tidbits
Are you gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender?
Yes (8%) 86% 13%
No (92%) 45%53%
Is this the first year you have ever voted?
Yes (8%) 43% 56%
No (92%) 48% 50%
Do you think the condition of the nation's economy is:
Excellent (5%) 89% 10%
Good (27%) 91% 8%
Not so good (35%) 44% 54%
Poor (33%) 10% 87%
Thanks, MO. I win the bar bet!
That kinda narrows the (D) base.
Your analysis distinctly blocks or blackballs gay men from generating a (D) outcome.
The married gay couple I know voted for Trump. My unmarried gay and lesbian friends almost certainly voted for Harris (by unstated agreement we generally avoid talking politics, but based on FB postings...).
My neighbor down the street put up a blue "Vote" flag. Which, to me, was a "Vote Blue" flag. My BIL and his husband, had up the same blue "Vote" flag. I wasn't entirely sure whether it was a gay thing or a "I want to virtue signal but don't want to incur the ire of people I think are voting for Trump." thing.
This is, of course, the same BIL who told his sister not to tell me when he came out of the closet because he was afraid I might stop the kids from coming over to visit and, when "we" go to help him move, has a big "I'm with Her" magnet on his fridge.
The commercial they showed where the Republicans were gonna take away their porn is a great example of just how much they don't get it.
For a huge chunk of men under 35, they view porn the same way someone with throat cancer views cigarettes.
For a huge chunk of men under 35, they view porn the same way someone with throat cancer views cigarettes.
IDK that 'huge' or throat cancer is exactly correct. I would definitely agree that it was kinda like trying to scare men into voting Democrat by saying Republicans were going to ban smoking. The only people you're going to win with that ploy are the ones who really do have a problem.
Note, that Gender could have something to do with it- Men do not prioritize abortion, and so that one wedge issue was not enough to keep them on the reservation.
As it turns out, the only group that prioritized abortion... hard was childless cat ladies.
...who have already reached menopause.
And/or have body counts in the triple digits.
Young cat ladies whose primary source of income and gratification is OF, too.
Don't make me jealous.
There was an unintentionally comical Sherrod Brown ad in which three steamrolling bitches condemned Bernie Moreno for pointing out this fact. All were well past child-bearing age and none of them looked like they had much mating success in their younger days.
I don't want to go overboard condemning wome. A huge support for Harris (but one that flagged severely compared to 2016/2020) is not old cat ladies, but young single women.
I am not going to belittle these ladies. I have daughters, and I see the world they are growing up in. From the time they started public school, they were regularly told- usually by women in positions of authority- that they were the smart, mature voice of reason in the classroom. Boys are belittled for being hyperactive, and girls are praised for sitting there and paying attention.
Of course, this recognition that the sexes are different isn't really new ("Snips and snails, and puppy-dog tails...Sugar and Spice and everything nice") but what HAS become different is how these people are tolerated in school.
There is very little tolerance for boys' default behavior in classrooms. And girls are praised just for showing up. Most young women come out of schools that have become custom fit to meet their strengths. Even when they struggled to accomplish goals in school (and most do) they were rarely taught that the struggle of personal improvement was THE definitive moment of their success. It is more often about getting people to acknowledge something they had all along. Even worse, I see this message reinforced all the time- "It's okay if you aren't good at math- some people's brains just don't work that way- focus on English Language instead!"
Look at popular culture- the message we are sending girls. How many female protagonists (Rey, Captain Marvel, etc) have no growth in their character arc- they are just special to begin with, and their entire arc is getting a bunch of men to acknowledge them?
Is it any wonder that girls come out of school expecting to be successful just because they showed up? That their initial thought is Harris is qualified just because she says so?
Meanwhile boys have been told over and over that they aren't worthy- that they need to improve themselves, control their urges and change who they are in order to be praised by teachers.
It should be added, cutting both ways, that a considerable number of women and young women went through the same ringer with older or younger brothers, cousins, boyfriends, peers, traditional and non-traditional parents, dads, and uncles, and didn't also develop the same batshit insanity.
I do wonder what the cross-tab between single, women Harris voters and being an only child is? And if they did have siblings, how many had a male sibling vs only female siblings.
I don’t know any dog-owning mothers who were the least bit offended by "childless cat ladies" comments. As near as I can tell, their daughters weren’t foaming at the mouth to see a female Jedi lead or Capt. Marvel either.
Further to Overt’s point, as somewhat indicated further above, “Women are to blame.” ignores the monumental contributions, direct and indirect, of homosexuals, trannies, and even “male feminist”/”Girl Dad” weirdos.
The point I was alluding to is, if a large percentage are single children or grew up with only female siblings, that they may have less empathy for males. Especially if they grew up without a father or had a troubled relationship with their father.
I'm not so sure that it's the meritocratic aspect of the male psyche at work here, although I'm sure that's part of it. Young men and young women have been dramatically diverging politically since Trump became a full-time politician, and I think what it boils down to is that we've had a generation and a half of young men being told that there is something inherently wrong with them for having a dick, the culture relentlessly telling them "girls rule boys drool" and men are useless, and being drugged into a stupor for their "toxic masculinity" rather than support healthy outlets for their natural energies and competitiveness. What we're seeing is a natural resistance to such cultural gaslighting and malicious misandry.
And it probably wont change any time soon, as young men continue to abandon college attendance while women make up an increasingly greater percentage of the student body. Academia is where all this nonsense starts, and unless academia is fully and effectively neutered, the trends will continue.
I touch on that in my reply above- and I think that what you say is complementary. Think about it- they are told all the time that they are inherently bad and need to change. Meanwhile girls are taught that they are awesome just for showing up.
The whole idea of "Male/White Privilege" is an analogue of original sin- you can't help your wickedness it is who you are. The problem is that the leftist worldview is "you have original sin, so shut up and step aside". That is very different from the Christian orthodoxy where it was "You have original sin, so you need to struggle to make yourself better."
Even the boys who have BOUGHT the message that they are unfit, and need to improve to be better are learning something about human nature that the girls are not- that it is possible to improve. And if their "lived experience" is one where they have to struggle each day to get better and prove themselves, they certainly are not going to respond to a candidate like Harris who was handed everything on a silver platter, with all of her personal flaws hidden behind a gaslighting campaign.
From my perspective, it seems the Harris campaign tried to impose their leftist identity politics on people who had not previously identified with any "community" and in the process pissed off pretty much everybody. I found out that I'm part of a white community and a men community and a white men community subgroup and a married man subgroup. A black man or Latino man might be members of some common community with me but they are members of separate subgroups. Apparently every group and subgroup has different interests, loyalties, and responsibilities to whatever community they find themselves in. All of this of course also applies to women wherever they find themselves on the identity scale. I personally find this all very offensive. I'm a member of the human community and I have zero obligation to any subgroup in particular whether I'm classified as a member or not. Fuck these assholes.
I think there is some of that, and also the fact that many of the so called identities don't make any sense. For example, Hispanics can be any race, and surprise, many of them consider themselves white. Or they don't understand the identities they push. For example, remember when some on the left got mad when Ariana Grande, someone of Italian ancestry, called herself a Latina. Oh she's not a Latina, she's Italian. It's like fuck folks do you even understand that Italians are the ultimate Latinas. For that matter, the word Latino/a basically means you descend from one of the latin based languages, which includes Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, but also French and Romanian (and a few others). Fuck, the left is as concerned with classifying people by identity as the actual Nazis were and just as inconsistent in how they classify those identities, too.
So does anyone know - did Bette Midler follow thru and drink the drano?
I’d bette she did not.
I find her talents to be pretty Mid..ler.
she'll never be my beast of burden.
Don't know but I'm pretty sure she drank the Kool Aid.
Giving your money to a presidential campaign is almost as bad as giving it to Harvard.
No shit, Nate. It's almost like, if you had two actual functioning neurons to rub together, you'd wonder how the establishment that spend more than 5X on Harris, Biden, Clinton, and Obama kept and keeps dumping money into 'investments' like this with zero ROI.
Did Trump Run an Actually Good Campaign?
If by super-troll-ey in the funniest way, yeah, I’d say he ran a pretty tight campaign.
Also, guys, as much as I love the big guy, one can’t understate the level of incompetence by his opposition. The DNC ran three of the worst candidates in party history over the last 3 election cycles, with Hillary Clinton arguably being the best of those three. All three, however, are representative of how far down the Democrats have fallen as a party. I shudder to think what would have happened had the Democrats ran someone who could (not in order of candidate):
1. Complete or construct a coherent sentence.
2. Be oriented to time and place*
3. Be remotely liked by their own normies in the party.
*those in the mental health field will know what this means…
>>super-troll-ey in the funniest way
master-class level trolling it was fucking beautiful every time.
I honestly wonder if Barron and his buddies weren't telling him how to conduct some of that.
Apparently Barron had something to do with Trump showing up on those comedian podcasts. Each one he went on had their highest viewership ever (except Rogan, the Musk one still has more views).
My son asked me if Harris’ supporters will try to do something like Jan 6th. I told him not to put anything past them. We live pretty close to DC so this is a real concern.
You mean walk between the red ropes at the capitol and have one rowdy supporter shot in the face?
*shrug*
What if they did? I would think it would result in a few arrests and slaps on the wrist for disorderly conduct– maybe some light property destruction for a broken window or two, and then we and the media move on…
I see what you did there.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/capitol-police-warn-post-election-violence-risk-jan/story?id=115538717
A Capitol Police intelligence assessment obtained by ABC News warns of a heightened threat to government officials and election-related sites in the wake of the 2024 presidential election.
The report highlights the "likelihood of violence and civil unrest" around the 2025 electoral vote certification process and the presidential inauguration.
Released earlier this month, the report states while there have been fewer threats to members of Congress in 2024 than in 2020, threats rose significantly after Election Day four years ago, a trend that Capitol Police anticipates will repeat in 2024.
The report adds that the escalating rhetoric on social media "could suggest an environment that is conducive to politically-motivated violence following the US Presidential Election."
Capitol Police expect demonstrations targeting the electoral certification process and say an activist group "with a history of large-scale demonstrations involving illegal activity plans to protest the Inauguration regardless of the outcome."
They also expect protests related to the ongoing war in Israel, noting that the groups are "nearly certain to target the Inauguration."
The report emphasizes that threat actors view electoral vote certification and the inauguration as "their last opportunities to influence the election results through violence."
November 5, 2024, 4:21 PM
Yeah, when the legacy media still thought Kamala was going to win.
Oh! Good catch, I didn't notice that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37946231
It's not a question of will they, they already did. Here's one link but there were also riots in DC (remember pussy hats?) including arson, robbery, and vandalism. Dems only began opposing riots when the right finally adopted the tactic.
"...Remember how, years ago, he was obsessed with how efficiency standards and how many flushes modern toilets require?..."
No, I don't but isn't that a reasonable inquiry into how regulations actually make things worse?
Seems kinda libertarianish to me but I'm not a high paid political pundit like Liz.
>>Not on libertarian grounds, in terms of which policies each candidate was advocating,
is there one Reason author concerned about the liberty part of libertarian or are all of you just policy wonk dorks who don't understand some people hate being Ruled? asking for a friend.
It's astonishing to me how far the Reason writers will go to NOT acknowledge he has some of the most libertarian-leaning positions of any major party candidate in our lifetimes.
I could go throw literal tomatoes but NYC is expensive ... and filthy again
>>Don't try to buy people's votes!
lol those idiots blew a billion dollars in 8 weeks and are -$20million right now. expensive mops to clean up after CardiB?
"Trump-support vote totals in traditionally blue areas"
Like Vermont? Election day's most successful Democrat by far was Bernie Sanders who garnered more than 60% of the vote. He was shunned by Harris during the campaign and never appeared with anyone whose last name was Cheney. Instead, he ran on a socialist platform, unlike Harris, emphasizing opposition to genocide, universal health care and other programs Harris saw fit to repudiate.
Vermont is a lost cause. She means like Chicago, misconstrueman.
"She means like Chicago"
Harris, a corporate shill like Biden, ran in Chicago. She was pro-genocide, silent on socialized health insurance, and she never came close to matching Sanders' strength with the voters. Uncomfortable facts, but you can't deny it.
“Pro-genocide”? Seriously? It’s the worst genocide ever.
Trueman hasn't said aPaRtheID yet, but I'm sure that's coming too.
" It’s the worst genocide ever."
At the moment it's the best one going. And Harris was fully supportive. She also never promoted socialized medicine or any of the other items on the socialist laundry list that Sanders supported (and he was the most successful Democrat candidate.)
The same guy who saw his popular support get shanked by the DNC establishment, twice, before going on to endorse the very candidate who did it to him?
Don’t bring up Bernie. That guy is the biggest Jobber To The Stars in American political history.
"The same guy who saw his popular support get shanked by the DNC establishment, twice, before going on to endorse the very candidate who did it to him? "
The very same. Bernie Sanders, if my previous post wasn't clear enough.
" That guy is the biggest Jobber To The Stars in American political history."
He was election day's most successful Democrat in terms of percentage of votes received, and also ran on the most leftish platform. I can see why you'd want to ignore him. Liz Wolfe, too.
FOAD, you pathetic piece of smug shit.
>> I can see why you’d want to ignore him.
everyone excepting ~230,000 people living under his purview wants to ignore him.
Sanders was the most successful of all the Democrats running for office on election day. He ran on an unapologetic socialist platform and garnered over 60% of the vote. Check for yourself if you need confirmation.
So does John Barrasso getting 75% of the vote in Wyoming on an unapologetically non-commie platform mean the same thing in the inverse?
John Barrasso may have been the most successful Republican candidate. But Bernie Sanders was the most successful Democrat(ish) candidate. He received over 60% of the vote and ran on a socialist platform, and didn't make any appearances with the Cheneys.
"So does John Barrasso getting 75% of the vote in Wyoming on an unapologetically non-commie platform mean the same thing in the inverse?"
75% may be overkill. You only need 50% to win. Harris failed to get that. She lost. Sanders won, and was actually the most successful Democrat of the night getting over 60% of the vote, thanks to his brazenly socialistic platform. You can't deny it.
“thanks to his brazenly socialistic platform” doesn’t follow since, as pointed out, a democrat with a less brazenly socialistic platform performed just as well as he did.
Head back to the drawing board and start over, man.
Lol--"Hey gaiz, a commie Senator got huge support in a deep blue state! Isn't that profound and interesting?"
"Isn’t that profound and interesting?”
Not so profound or interesting. It merely shows that Liz Wolfe's analysis could do with a little more analysis. ie How did the Democrat's most successful candidate manage to simultaneously run furthest left? And why? And what does it all forebode for our future? I don't suppose you have any answers, do you? If you do, why not share them?
"Some more analysis is needed to acknowledge that a commie got over 60% in a deep blue state!"
There's no shame in acknowledging the truth. Refusing to do so is the mark of intellectual cowardice.
This is the truest thing you’ve said. You are indeed an intellectual coward, in addition to a moral and physical coward. If you had any courage of your convictions, you would have relocated to Gaza years ago.
I think Sinwar’s brother is still alive; he could probably use an extra bodyguard.
The fact that you feel the need to abandon my point of Sanders and take up again your ridiculous suggestions for me to go to Gaza to do things there speaks volumes.
I haven't abandoned your point about Sanders, I've asked you, up and down the thread, to elaborate on it, and address the facts that undercut it.
My suggestion to relocate to Gaza is so you can better support your allies there.
ya bro I gave you his vote total. your 60%!!!! is 230,000 people. a good podcast audience.
" 230,000 people. a good podcast audience."
But not enough for a seat in the Senate.
That is literally the number that just won him a seat in the senate; do you even know what you're arguing about?
You need to get your fucking head checked, pal.
"do you even know what you’re arguing about? "
I'm not arguing about anything. I am simply pointing out that election night's most successful Democrat was also furthest to the Left, as in commie, progressive etc. Get it? Are you trying to make an argument? Or just your usual ankle biting and whimpering.
You claim not to be arguing, and then immediately describe your argument. Any democrat would have been as successful as Sanders, in the context of Vermont. Evidence for this - the less socialist Harris received a similar percentage of the same body of voters.
" Any democrat would have been as successful as Sanders,"
That's an assumption based on faulty reasoning. You're assuming that Vermonters voted Sanders purely because he's a Democrat. This is wrong. Sanders is, in fact, an independent. Look it up if you don't believe me. I assume, rather, that Vermonters voted for Sanders because they trusted him to represent their interests and agreed with his socialist agenda. Whether he was Democrat (he's not) didn't factor.
Everyone knows he runs as an independent, even though (as you have endlessly pointed out) he is in fact, a socialist. In 2016, did he compete in the democrat primary, or the independent primary, or the socialist primary? Hmmm.
I wonder how well he would have performed tuesday if he had been honest enough to run as Bernie Sanders (S) Vermont? Why doesn’t he campaign that way?
Can you explain why Harris, the milquetoast, was actaully more successful with the voters in vermont than Sanders, the brazen socialist?
I answered you already several times. How about anti-semitism?
"I answered you already
severalzero times."Fixed.
I will ask two questions, as simply as possible:
Can Sanders' decline in Vermont between 2018 and 2024 be attributed to his brazen socialism?
Can the fact that Harris outperformed him in Vermont be attributed to his brazen socialism?
Meh. Kammy, and Brandon before her both ran on a platform of giving away free shit as well. Didn’t do them much good.
Commie ideology is dead, sanders is irrelevant, and you are an idiot. Haha.
Per Real Clear Politics, Harris received 64% of the vote in Vermont as well; so she did about as well as Sanders, no? Isn’t this more of an apples-apples comparison?
Hell, in D.C. she got 90% of the vote. Doesn’t that make her the most successful dem running on Tuesday?
Your bullshit falls like a house of cards, as soon as any context is applied.
"Harris received 64% of the vote in Vermont as well; so she did about as well as Sanders, no?"
Harris lost. ie She didn't win. ie She wasn't successful. Sanders was successful.
Nobody gives a fuck about sanders outside of the hippie enclave of Vermont..
I am simply telling you that the most successful Democrat on election night was Bernie Sanders, who ran on a socialist platform. He got over 60% of the vote. You can’t deny it.
Sure we can. Bernie is a powerful veteran Senator. Tiny Vermont doesn't want to lose its most powerful voice in DC. If you want to pretend Bernie doesn't participate in the graft, you are a fucking gaslighter.
Harris lost because she had to appeal to a broader audience than Sanders. When she had the same audience as Sanders, she did just as well as he did.
” Bernie is a powerful veteran Senator.”
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Want to know something not so obvious? Sanders was the most successful Democrat candidate and the most socialist. So unobvious that it went unnoticed by Liz Wolfe and the commenters here until I graciously pointed it out. You’re welcome, by the way.
And I haven't pretended anything. In case you missed it, I'm pointing out that the most successful Democrat candidate and the most socialist. I thought that should have been obvious by now.
Can you explain why Harris was more successful in Vermont than Sanders?
Harris was running for national office. Her success is determined by whether or not she won the presidency, not her performance in any particular state. Sanders was running for the Senate in Vermont. His success is determined by whether or not he won his race, which he did.
You're arguing that he was the most successful dem this year because he is a brazen socialist. I'm pointing out facts that undercut your argument. That you refuse to address those facts indicates that you don't have an answer for them, i.e. you didn't think through your bullshit before you posted it.
"You’re arguing that he was the most successful dem this year because he is a brazen socialist."
I point out that Sanders, a socialist, was the most successful Democratic candidate. I claim this because he received more than 60% of and he won. His voters presumably agreed with his agenda, and had confidence in him. Same can be said of Trump's voters and Harris' voters. However, many who voted for Trump or Harris did so out of visceral disdain for the opponent, but I doubt the same could be said of Sanders' opponent in the senate race.
You seem to be claiming that Harris was the Democrat's most successful candidate, despite losing her bid at the Whitehouse. That smacks of desperation and an unwillingness to concede the obvious fact. That you feel the urge to move on to urging my relocating to Gaza only underscores this and your intellectual cowardice.
You seem to be claiming that Harris was the Democrat’s most successful candidate
Nope. Just that she was very successful in Vermont, and in fact a little bit more successful there than Sanders was. It's true she got trounced in the general election, but its also true she performed very well in Vermont, with Sanders' constituents, despite be a marked contrast to Sanders in the ways that you've pointed out.
I ask you again - Can Sanders' decline between 2018 and 2024 be attributed to his brazen socialism?
She was equally successful as your man sanders, with the exact same group of people (Vermonters), despite being all the things you're denouncing - less openly socialist, wishy-washy on Israel, and campaigning with the Cheney's.
This is why the point you're pretending to make is bullshit (per usual for you).
"She was equally successful as your man sanders,"
No, she lost. ie not equally successful as someone who won.
You failed to respond to the entirety of the argument.
You fail to understand that losing an election is not a mark of success. Or you pretend not to understand. You feel the need to put on this pose, instead.
She won an election in Vermont, and received the 3 electoral votes that go with that win.
She wasn’t successful. Sanders was successful.
This is false. She was equally successful as sanders in Vermont, which is the only way in which a fair comparison between the two can be made. Give it up already, dipshit.
" She was equally successful as sanders in Vermont"
Harris was running not for the office of president of Vermont, but the president of the US. A race she lost. It was not a success. Rather it was a failure. I don't understand how you can confuse failure with success.
If Harris had been running for senator in vermont, she would have gotten about the same percent of votes as sanders.
"she would have gotten about the same percent of votes as sanders."
I'm dealing with facts. You can't dispute the facts so you fall back on subjunctives. Facts are cruel things, Bertram Guilfoyle. Best you stick to your fantasy world of hypotheticals.
How do you deal with the fact that Harris, the milquetoast, was more successful in Vermont than Sanders, the brazen socialist?
"was more successful in Vermont"
Harris was running for national office. Her success is determined by whether or not she won the presidency, not her performance in any particular state. Sanders was running for the Senate in Vermont. His success is determined by whether or not he won his race, which he did.
No shit. But for the millionth time, can you explain why she outperformed him in Vermont specifically? And why his support declined from '18 to '24?
" can you explain why she outperformed him in Vermont specifically?"
It's not a question that interests me. Why not answer your own question if you think it's important. I merely point out the fact that Sanders, a socialist, was the most successful Democrat of the election. Why? Because he won with over 60% of the vote. That is all. It's not at all complicated.
It’s not a question that interests me.
Ahhh. You could have just admitted this 20 hours ago when this conversation started.
You’re not interested in these facts because they put the lie to the lonely fact that you’ve been citing endlessly. Ignoring context that doesn’t comport with your view is not the mark of an “intellectual sophisticate”.
He was election day’s most successful Democrat in terms of percentage of votes received, and also ran on the most leftish platform.
Like George Gascon?
I realize you believe yourself to be some type of intellectual sophisticate, but you do understand what the fallacy of the lonely fact is, right? Your fellow commie Howard Zinn liked to indulge in that a lot, too.
"I realize you believe yourself to be some type of intellectual sophisticate"
Let's be honest. We all know that I am some type of intellectual sophisticate. That fact that you routinely try and fail to refute my pearls of wisdom is all the evidence we need.
Do "pearls of wisdom" include when you accidentally prove the exact opposite point from the one you were trying to make?
Someone who didn’t even know he was spouting the Dee Brown thesis, and thinks it’s amazing that Bernie Sanders got over 60 percent of the vote in Vermont, hardly should have pretensions about intellectual sophistication.
Your pearls aren’t anything more than boba balls, but that’s the way of all commie vermin.
It's interesting that Harris (slightly) outperformed sanders in vermont, which if anything, indicates his brand of democrat really isn't that popular.
"and thinks it’s amazing that Bernie Sanders got over 60 percent of the vote in Vermont"
It's not amazing. Vermont people evidently agree with Sanders' politics and believe he makes a good representative. Hence they vote for him. I don't think that is particularly amazing, do you?
You've been arguing that Sanders, the arch-socialist is successful because he is the arch-socialist, and not some milquetoast dem like Harris. But your argument is contradicted by the fact that the milquetoast dem performed just as well as he did with the exact same voters.
"You’ve been arguing that Sanders, the arch-socialist is successful because he is the arch-socialist,"
If you want to make that argument, go ahead. I've been repeatedly pointing out that the Democrat's most successful candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also the most socialistic. And you haven't denied this simple fact. If you have a more successful Democrat in mind, or a more socialistic one, do tell us. No need to be shy. If you think Harris was more successful than Sanders, make your case. It should be good for a laugh.
If you want to make that argument, go ahead.
It is you who are making that argument, as you said above:
“the most successful Democrat of the night getting over 60% of the vote, thanks to his brazenly socialistic platform.”
“thanks to” implies cause and effect.
Once you realized how asinine it is, you started doing the sarc pivot to “I’m not arguing anything!” Your main motivation, of course, is to sling bullshit.
“thanks to” implies cause and effect."
I'm assuming that those who voted for Sanders approved of him and his politics. If you have another explanation, don't be shy. You're welcome to share it with us.
The fact remains that the night's most successful Democrat was also the most socialist. If this irks you, tough titty. It's not my problem.
This neither irks me, nor surprises me. Vermont would probably vote for Stalin if they could, although maybe not as strongly, since they seemed to like Harris a little better than Bernie.
You do seem to be irked that Sanders’s support declined from 2018, and he actually underperformed Harris in Vermont. Why?
" Vermont would probably vote for Stalin if they could,"
Maybe, but I am not interested in dreaming up hypotheticals or inviting you to relocate to Gaza. I'm dealing with reality. The fact is that Sanders, a socialist, won his election with more than 60% of the vote, making him the most successful Democrat of the election.
True, but that same socialist (who is too chickenshit to actually run as a Socialist) also declined in support from 2018. As a self-proclaimed intellectual sophisticate, do you have any intellectual curiosity as to why? Oh wait, no, you don't. You told me so elsewhere.
Perhaps you're more of an anti-intellectual buffoon.
"Hey gaiz, did you notice that a commie got over 60% of the votes in a deep blue state? Just sayin!"
You didn't notice until I pointed it out, did you? Now you know. You're welcome, by the way.
You didn't notice that Harris won nearly the exact same percentage of votes until it was pointed out to you.
I've pointed out the most successful Democrat(ish) politician of the night was also the most leftist politician. How do you feel about that? It seems you have difficulty accepting the fact. You need to gird your loins and accept reality, even if it calls some of your most closely held beliefs in question, is my advice. Good luck. Be brave.
Literally no one has questioned that fact, guy – I’ve been acknowledging it constantly in my replies to you.
A democrat won an election in a heavily democrat state. There’s literally nothing surprising, or notable about this whatsoever.
Do you find it interesting that in 2018, he got 67% of the vote in vermont, and Biden actually underperformed him slightly, with 66%.
But Sanders actually declined to 63% in 2024. You’ve been arguing here that Sander’s win in Vermont can be attributed to his brazen socialism. Do you wonder at all then, why he declined in 2024? Do you wonder at all why Harris, the milquetoast, actually outperformed him in Vermont?
Will you ever answer this question? I've addressed all of yours.
the most successful Democrat(ish) politician of the night was also the most leftist politician. How do you feel about that?
I feel fine about it. He only performed that well in a democrat stronghold state, and a tiny one at that. I feel quite confident that if he ran for president (as a democrat, because he would never run for president as anything else) he would be trounced as much or more so than Harris just was.
I feel confident that if he decided to be honest, and ran as a capital-S Socialist (which you admit he actually is) he would be trounced even more thoroughly.
My confidence in all this is based on a holistic look at his polling results. Yours OTOH, appears to be based on one lonely fact (fallacy), divorced from context.
"I feel fine about it."
That's a relief. However your endless ankle biting and invitations to relocate to Gaza gives the impression that you don't feel fine about it.
"My confidence in all this is based on a holistic look at his polling results. "
I don't think you have any confidence. Hence your urge to fantasize about Stalin and change the subject to Gaza. As to why voter turnout declined, I can't say. I suggest you yourself dig deeper if you are curious. I can only point out that Trump lost votes from 2020 as did Harris under performed Biden's numbers. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. I think the farcical nature of the campaigns and the candidates turned off voters and many stayed at home. Again if you are curious, do your own research and enough already with you ridiculous ankle biting.
I can only point out that Trump lost votes from 2020 as did Harris under performed Biden’s numbers.
At least this is an attempt at addressing what I’ve asked you for the last 24 hours. However it isn’t responsive to my actual question.
Sanders’ percentage declined between his 2 elections, not total votes, and not total turnout which you’re trying to shift to. Sanders became less popular, while you’re trying to argue that his ideas are more popular.
You’ve been endlessly repeating “most successful democrat of 2024!”. Oh wait! You forgot that elsewhere you nit-picked others for calling him a democrat and not an independent. Oops.
Your goal with your original post was to say “look! a socialist was the most popular democrat in 24!”
My point has been that this statement, is technically true, it isn’t very meaningful at all, because it drops a huge surrounding context, which actually indicates that Sanders’ brazen socialism appears to be declining in popularity, not growing, as you insist.
And of course, everyone here knows that you’re also a self-proclaimed bullshitter, so talking to you is as worthwile as talking to a goldfish. It’s only worth doing for the sake of argument. Sewage like you should indeed relo to Gaza - it is your spiritual home, and sinwar, nasrallah, et al. are your spiritual fathers.
I think the farcical nature of the campaigns and the candidates turned off voters and many stayed at home.
Per Real Clear Politics, Vermonters turned out for milquestoast Harris in greater numbers than for brazen socialist Sanders (who won't actually run as a socialist, funny that). This puts the lie to the bullshit you posted yesterday, without thinking through it first.
Moved.
Hamas has had some openings lately - have you applied?
“Trump-support vote totals in traditionally blue areas”
Like Vermont? Election day’s most successful Democrat by far was Bernie Sanders who garnered more than 60% of the vote. He was shunned by Harris during the campaign and never appeared with anyone whose last name was Cheney. Instead, he ran on a socialist platform, unlike Harris, emphasizing opposition to genocide, universal health care and other programs Harris saw fit to repudiate.
Posting the same error-ridden comment multiple times doesn't strengthen your case.
To commie vermin, it does.
"doesn’t strengthen your case."
It's for your benefit. You can always mute me if you think my cases are too weak.
please stop with Nate Silver even if he stumbles into the obvious.
Perhaps one takeaway for Democrats could be that just handing people money doesn't work, because there are always consequences to this decision, and sometimes the consequences outweigh the gains. In fact, the economic hardship created by years of higher-than-usual inflation probably outstripped all personal budget padding (and, in many cases, increased economic activity in the form of spending) brought by the stimulus checks.
Maybe this analysis could be effective if Dem voters were evaluating reality. But unfortunately this describes roughly zero Dem voters. In reality Harris, and effectively all Dems, promise to force "billionaires", "corporations", and other enemies of the people to pay for it all. So if even if the total cost is many multiples of the total benefits (like Obamacare) Dem voters believe they still benefit individually. Breaking this understanding would take a vast education program effectively impossible while Dems still control our education system and media.
the "abortion was my gig, baby!" crowd exit-polling @14% was also delicious. life wins.
we have probably honestly seen the height of the abortion protest vote, and will see less and less now. It was very present in 2022. This was their chance to take that momentum and run with it, and it clearly died down.
Frankly, there is a lot of abortion access leaving it up to states. Many states have recently expanded it. The blue states all have loose or no restrictions. The red states have loosened up. Women arent actually dying in the streets, despite the rhetoric otherwise.
Hard to maintain outrage when the bogeyman objectively isnt that bad
All those Gov-Guns in everything ... just "isn't that bad". /s
Speak for yourself Gov=God worshiper.
Do you think I should thank you for killing "the land of the free"?
>>Hard to maintain outrage when the bogeyman objectively isnt that bad
this is the overarching lesson of 21st century America
Hell, abortion protection won in Montana, while ranked choice voting and open primaries went down hard. Montana where all four Republican candidates running for election won fairly easily (Zinke had a little trouble, but after the Missoula vote was counted, the rest of the night was pretty much his, Missoula really is turning into the Portland of the Rockies), and the Republicans won overwhelming majorities in both state legislative houses and Republicans won every statewide state office, easily (even bigger margins on average than Trump).
Never-mind every actual 'abortion' measured passed the 50% mark (Anti-Choice is a minority) the very premise you think Gov-Guns should have POWER between you and your own F'En body speaks mountains about your Gov=Gods religious tyranny.
P.S. Pre-Viable pregnancies don't have any *inherent* life. Just like PMS doesn't have *inherent* life.
my only premise is life. I was given life. I owe defense.
Defending the PMS's right to own the Woman?
Funny; PMS doesn't have rights so it's not the PMS rights you're defending it is ***YOU*** chalk-full of BS as a 3rd party pretending to be defending something that doesn't exist so ***YOU*** can Gov-Gun FORCE that Woman against her own will.
okay cool. someone needs to speak for the babies. did you not learn the lesson the rest of America just did about being yelled at?
also recently imaginary lines were drawn all over whereupon one side the gov-guns won't be pointed at the person killing the babies. you should feel awesome about this at least.
You are arguing with a lunatic. Having his own vocabulary should be the first clue (see:Hank)
paraphrased, "Only lunatics support the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution when I can't practice religious tyranny."
foolish to believe anybody on a message board would change a mind but I enjoy the conversations
Thus the very definition of Bigotry.
I'm a bigot because we differ?
Lobbying to Gov-Gun FORCE that 'differ' of "feelings" about a topic on others is the bigotry. There is ZERO Constitutional/Legal substance to the Pro-Life movement beyond one's own "feelings" (which are rooted in religion). Good grief the very movement was born out of the Catholic Church.
Your religious "feelings" has no USA grounds for Gov-Gun usage.
Least I forget Alito's "moral standards" (exact words in the ruling) excuse for dismissing the US Constitution completely.
my defense of life is based in nature not religion.
Free-ing your imaginary ‘baby’ isn’t equivalent to taking life in any other realm than your own religious bigotry.
Making false-equivalents to pretend you’re defending something that isn’t there is just excusing your aggressive Gov-Gun demands.
The biggest contradiction of the Pro-Life BS belief. Defending life from what? Being free’d? Stupid. Absolutely Stupid.
Free the Fetus!!! How come that is legislated against?
Only Guv-Guns can redefine an unborn as a clump of cells.
How did free-ing a ?baby? become equivalent to 'killing' it?
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom.
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
There is no 'killing' and there is no 'baby'.
It's all just BS propaganda (chuck full of BS imaginations 'religion').
Gov-Guns are there to ensure *inherent* rights aren't violated. Not to FORCE anything (even you) to be *entitled* to TAKE from people what they aren't willing to give you (like their own F'En body).
>>There is no ‘killing’ and there is no ‘baby’.
you wouldn't have much fun being Yin if no Yang existed.
Gov-Gun dictate Yin so Yang can have fun?
Sorry no. I don't find [WE] mobs of Gov-Gun dictation fun at all.
Maybe the Gov-Gun dictate fun gang should learn to mind their own business.
but then who would speak for the babies?
What ‘baby’? Pro-Life has invented a subject that doesn’t exist.
Precisely so they can pretend their “feelings” has subjective substance. Yet their very legislation is to keep any notion of an actual ‘baby’ from ever existing in a *REAL* world.
You think it’s a ‘baby’; let’s put that ‘baby’ into the *REAL* world and make it *REAL*….
What’s the problem? Your “feelings” and “faith” can’t muster the *REAL* world?
Not to mention. Under what substantial premise do you think you get to "speak-for" this imagined out-of-the-real-world 'baby'. Your politicians Higher-Authority as everyone's parental figure-head? Are you going to keep my grandma on life-support against her own will until she's 180-years old because you "speak-for" her too?
There is nothing. Nothing at-all that puts any precedented substance into Pro-Life legislation. It is all but religious "feelings" and perhaps the most dangerous place for Gov-Guns to be entertaining.
how does your philosophy succeed if nobody is born?
What part of my philosophy are you referring too?
'Guns' are not a tool that helps keep human population a-float.
>>In a healthier republic, we'd all be sitting on pins and needles to see the results in the Iowa 1st, the Pennsylvania 8th, the Virginia 7th, and so on," writes Reason's Eric Boehm.
first, citing Boehm always laughable. segunda, the fuck is he to tell me where to sit and what to watch and what to care about? third, how does he know I'm not?
Who gets elected should be of minor interest, as they would, in an ideal world, have minimal impact on our lives.
seriously. I love my life regardless who believes they lord over it.
Boehm, reluctantly and strategically is a fucking idiot.
my new assistant can't spell or punctuate so I'm learning to deal softer blows with my words lol
The LESSON every Democrat needs to learn.
The only unique thing about Government is its monopoly of Gov-Gun FORCE. When you send in 'Guns' to STEAL things from the producers the producers are NOT going to just take that loss. They're going to raise prices to offset that THEFT.
And that is why your CRIMINAL (STEAL) Gov-Guns are never going to make anything more affordable. They're just going to RAISE the price. 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
This is perhaps the most cogent and coherent TJ posting I’ve ever seen.
>>given that Harris ran a weak, short campaign having ascended to the spot via nontraditional means
most media types are congruently liable for not sounding the horn on the obvious “nontraditional means” baloney. a man got stabbed in the chest and nobody with a bullhorn said boo.
edit: the (D) voters are also liable for bending the knee at whatever was thrown their way they could have rejected Carmela right away
Relatedly: "If Trump was simply reliant on White resentment, he would have seen shrinking margins," writes Ethan Strauss.
Whoops, the Voice of Sanity destroys Jeffey and sarc's worldview. I'm willing to give long odds reality has no impact on them.
Don’t worry, both Jeff and Sarc will continue to live in denial and delusion.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president.html
Look at the "Shift since 2020" map...
Really all of their narratives failed.
It wasnt "muh electoral college is rigged!", he crushed the popular vote
It wasn't "bad men for Trump, good women for Harris", Trump won both
It wasn't whites bad, minorities good. Trump made big gains with almost every minority group
All they have left to fall back on now is the remaining identity politics cope of "the saintly and all important black women showed up, and only stupid uneducated white women were dumb enough to vote trump"...
And I say keep it up. Go ahead and cling to this proven strategy of failure, for as long as you can. A nice comfy blanket of victimhood for you political party's deathbed
Nah, they’re still saying everyone who voted for Trump is racist, sexist, misogynist, ‘bro code men’, and that any women or minorities who stupidly pulled the lever for him voted against their own interests.
So say the chosen few!
Enlightened Americans must now rise up and resist
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/enlightened-americans-must-now-rise-up-and-resist/ar-AA1tBS2k?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=633a6dac2f6e48d78eafab6ec30870cb&ei=38
This is clear: Much of America has voted for a fascist.
If that short, blunt opening offends your delicate sensibilities, then you, dear reader, best dispense finally with the saccharine-drenched myths about a divided, discordant nation that has elected a fascist as president – again.
This remains unclear: America’s fate.
An urgent task faces enlightened Americans who have made plain their admirable opposition to and rejection of every obscene aspect of a grinning strongman who will exact the comeuppance that has festered in his soul and mind like a seething cauldron.
Long before his once closest aides and cabinet ministers took, belatedly, to The New York Times or CNN to “warn” Americans that the crude demagogue they had served with such cloying deference was a bona fide fascist, silly columnists like me were raising alarm after alarm about Donald Trump’s defining autocratic character in column after column since 2016.
But we and, much more importantly, our blatant, billboard-sized injunctions were dismissed by the ever-so-polite cognoscenti as the hyperbolic musings of clickbait-seeking polemicists who had little understanding of the true nature of fascism.
Resistance is not futile. Rather, it is an imperative.
It will not be easy.
Enlightened America will be seized by fear and despair in the days and weeks ahead. This is to be expected in the jarring, disorienting face of a broad Republican victory.
When enlightened Americans emerge from this halting shock – and they will – they must resist the easy temptation to slip into recrimination and blame.
They must, instead, lock arms in defiance. They must mobilise and fashion a formidable force with one overarching aim: to be faithful to the constitution that they bear honest allegiance to and to protect each other, as best they can, from the harm and heartache that is sure to come.
It can be done. It must be done.
This grave mission will require a steadfast will and determination; the same will and determination that enlightened Americans have deployed in the past to make their beloved home a more fair, just and welcoming place.
This, I repeat, is your obligation and duty, enlightened America. You will need a little time to lick your raw wounds. Then, you have to go about the vital business at hand with the knowledge that you are the bulwark, you are legion and you are in the right.
>>the country is "not ready for a woman president,"
I would vote for Giorgia Meloni.
People who claim that Kamala lost because people aren't willing to vote for a woman are simply ignoring the glaring fact she is a retarded communist authoritarian.
kids across the street w/the Prosecutor&Coach '24 sign asked me about Carmela I said no fucking way in America we don't vote for Marxists ... they looked puzzled
And I would vote for Condoleeza Rice, a black woman.
if the Broncos return to respectability I may consider it
There's something about that woman I dig.
In 2008, Democrats weren't ready for the first woman vice president when they chose Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin.
There will be a lot of ink spilled about why Americans elected Trump and Republicans in a red wave but I can sum it up.
"He's not Hitler. I'm not racist. Fuck you."
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) November 6, 2024
Completely true, but Bridget omitted their closing lament that politics has somehow become vitriolic. Why can't you Nazis offer even basic respect for us heroes preventing the moral collapse your participation in society would represent.
The most notable feature of the 21st century left is how they act like they're entitled to ram their agenda and ideology down everyone's throat on even the slimmest of victory margins, then shift to groveling obsequiousness with appeals to "unity" and complaints about "divisiveness" when they lose, especially when it's a full-on ass kicking like they just got here.
No, you fuckheads, we know how you operate, and we know that these appeals are completely insincere neo-Maoist "unity-criticism-unity" dialectics to try and keep the Overton window from shifting back to the right. The "disagree better" dipshits at The Dispatch might buy into the nonsense, but thankfully they aren't running the opposition anymore.
The most notable feature of the 21st century left is how they act like they’re entitled to ram their agenda and ideology down everyone’s throat
See: 19th Century Marxism.
Along the same lines Leticia James the NY Attorney General stated yesterday her office will “fight back”.
Left wingers believe, subconsciously or not, that governmental institutions are appropriately theirs and thus simply winning elections is an attack on them justifying using those institutions to attack Reps. This is why it's so offensive people whine about Trump targeting his opponents using the legal system after saying nothing about how that corruption has already occurred. For example the NY legal system corrupted itself to go after Trump on bogus charges, and the Florida election system corrupted itself to try to overturn the 2000 election in favor of Gore.
This understanding has been created through the left’s decades-long control of our education system combined with the Dem party’s cultish approach of “the personal is political”. Normal people believe politics should be a small part of our lives, but this axiom holds that politics should be a part of everything they do. Their hiring, education, entertainment, and even friendships are based on politics. As such they are achieving the fascist goal of “everything within the state, nothing outside the state”.
>>If Trump was simply reliant on White resentment, he would have seen shrinking margins," writes Ethan Strauss.
did anyone ask Ethan Strauss thefuck is white resentment?
it means "things a liberal doesnt like".
Ooh, let me guess. Emotive longform pieces from Owen Jones complaining that American taxi drivers aren't reading enough Judith Butler?
Damn that woman is based...
she's good with the biting remarks.
At the end of the episode, Whoopi Goldberg introduced a Hot Topic segment about a woman who ditched an old flame mid-hookup after realizing he was a MAGA supporter — which, according to Behar, was the right move.
“I wouldn’t even let him give me the Heimlich maneuver,” she joked. “That’s how little I feel about people. I don’t — no.”
That's ok, though, because I'll say that I wouldn't piss on Whoopie if she was on fire.
Stepping away from the election, but sticking with the theme that "skin color is the most important thing"...
https://redrightdaily.com/lupone-faces-online-discussion-over-flowers-to-stage-hands/?utm_source=tpi&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TPI11062024WUC
Patti LuPone, a legendary figure in Broadway, recently made what seemed like a straightforward, polite request: she asked the producers of Hell’s Kitchen—a neighboring musical based on Alicia Keys’ life story—to lower the volume of two musical cues.
LuPone’s reasoning was practical; her two-person play The Roommate shares a wall with Hell’s Kitchen, and the noise from the musical was spilling into her show, disrupting the quieter ambiance intended for her audience. Hell’s Kitchen obliged, and LuPone followed up with a thank-you gesture, sending flowers to the Hell’s Kitchen sound team.
But for Broadway actress Kecia Lewis, who stars in Hell’s Kitchen, LuPone’s gesture was more than just a simple thank-you. Lewis posted a video on Instagram, accusing LuPone’s complaint—and her thank-you flowers—of being “racial microaggressions.”
Lewis explained that calling the predominantly Black musical “loud” was, in her view, an offensive stereotype. She argued that LuPone’s actions reflected dismissive and out-of-touch behavior and claimed they perpetuated harmful assumptions about Black art.
it's like the utes never heard of Aretha Franklin.
Don't you blaspheme in here!
aw ... long live Matt Guitar Murphy
I guess the tech strike that the NYT may be affecting things after all.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president.html
This map has not updated a lick all day. Still shows California at 56% votes counted. Or maybe they actually stopped counting votes in California, or maybe the NYT just can't be bothered anymore?
So I get it, you don't want to be lectured to and condescended to and told that you are racists and bigots. I get that, no sane person would want to be called those things. (Except perhaps the David Duke types, who are mercifully very rare.) Well, one thing in response:
If you want others to show you respect, you have to be willing to show respect in return. I am quite sure people on the other side don't want to be accused of being a bunch of authoritarian fascists who want to throw people in camps just for being conservative. And yet that is what happens every day here. I know a bunch of left-leaning people, and they are not horrible people. They are ordinary people just like everyone else. They have jobs and families and careers and hobbies and do ordinary things just like everyone else. They are helpful in their communities just like everyone else. So I agree, people who aren't racists and bigots shouldn't be accused of being racists and bigots only because they are conservative; but at the same time, people who aren't authoritarian fascist assholes shouldn't be accused of being authoritarian fascist assholes just because they are liberal. Can we find a way to coexist and not call each other demeaning names?
>>If you want others to show you respect, you have to be willing to show respect in return.
lol you should have attended one of 900 rallies. just one.
If you want others to show you respect, you have to be willing to show respect in return.
Leftists have been calling the right – including libertarians – racist as a class for decades, but only when the right starts doing the same in return does Jeffey think it’s a problem. Even then he frames the problem as those who finally tire of the left’s tactics and begin to treat them in kind. He has no criticism for the left, they are merely “ordinary people”.
If Jeffey held these principles sincerely he would have a long history of criticizing the left for breaking them. The reality though is a little different. I’ve reviewed every comment he’s ever made and here is the list of his comments criticizing the left for their antagonism:
.
The reality is that Jeffey protects the left calling people racist because this is his primary comment of everyone on the right and he now wants people to agree to forget that.
Just yesterday I commented that Oliver telling people they are racist solely for disagreeing with his policies was not a winning message. Jeffey, who was not previously part of the conversation, broke in to say they should stop being racist, accepting the underlying principles to Oliver’s argument. Literally one day after creating this kind of attack he pretends he opposes these kinds of attack.
He doesn’t have principles, he's just posing.
Principles and Jeffy aren’t exactly acquainted well.
Even if what you wrote is 100% true - it's not, but let's just pretend it is for the moment - it doesn't address the central point. You want people to stop baselessly calling you a racist. Right? So how do you want to achieve that? Calling them names in return isn't going to do that. It will just intensify the animosity.
This entire screed was you calling me names and putting words in my mouth and inventing strawmen positions and attributing them to me. How do you expect me to respond to this? With kindness?
Not only is what I said 100% true, I didn't even include that you outright lied to claim I specifically defended someone who seemingly advocated that we engage in South African style Apartheid. The truth is you will say anything at all to attack those you hate and this pretense at decency is entirely a facade.
You want people to stop baselessly calling you a racist. Right?
It's wholly irrelevant whether I want them to stop or not. I'm of two minds about it since it is an easy idiot-marker. Regardless you and the other left wingers aren't going to stop no matter what I or your other targets do. We know this factually because Dems did it for roughly three decades before the right started to respond. In all that time not a single Dem or leftist, even those like yourself who pretend to be moderate or against this practice, criticized them even slightly. Only now that you are losing do you want others to stop pointing out what you are, but even if we do stop the left is never going to give up blanket accusations of racism. There's an entire generation of activists working as journalists, NGO administrators, educators, and others who learned literally nothing in school other than how to call their enemies racist / sexist / homophobic. They aren't going to give it up, ever.
How do you expect me to respond to this? With kindness?
It never crossed my mind you were even capable of it. Everything I said was 100% true. Were you worried about my responding with kindness when you lied that I supported someone who wants Apartheid? If you believed offering respect was beneficial you'd take your own advice. But in reality all these things you claim are unfair to you, but are not, you engaged in just yesterday without a second's concern. That's because you have no intention of offering respect in turn, you're only interested in getting it.
But I believe in treating people how they treat others. Were there to be a decent and respectful leftist commenting here they would get respect in turn. But there isn't, there's just you and others just like you.
Not only is what I said 100% true
No, it isn't.
I didn’t even include that you outright lied to claim I specifically defended someone who seemingly advocated that we engage in South African style Apartheid.
No, I did not. Let's review: Your initial complaint was that Chase Oliver was a hypocrite when he complained about other libertarians "shooting inward" and attacking each other rather than "looking forward" and building the party apparatus. And you wrote in response:
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message.
And I responded by noting, correctly, that some of Chase Oliver's libertarian opponents, such as LPNH chair Jeremy Kauffmann, can fairly be considered to hold racist views, such as with Jeremy's defense of South African apartheid. So if Chase Oliver was calling anyone a racist, maybe it wasn't just as a slur against people who disagreed with his 'absolutism', maybe it really was an accusation that had some merit to it. And then you doubled down and claimed that "anyone disagreeing with absolutism does so for racist reasons."
So to me, it sure looked like you were trying to have it both ways: you both wanted to attack Chase Oliver for abusing the racism accusation as a slur, and also deny that there were some racists who really deserved that label.
I don't think you are a racist, I don't think you are defending Jeremy Kauffmann, I don't think you are defending South African apartheid. I think you are unfairly criticizing Chase Oliver.
(By the way, you seem very hung up on the whole hypocrisy charge....)
The truth is you will say anything at all to attack those you hate and this pretense at decency is entirely a facade.
Well, how convenient for you. You've constructed a non-falsifiable strawman. You do this a lot, and this is part of the problem here. You won't listen to what other people are saying. If I say one thing, you interpret it in the worst possible way and accuse me of something horrible. If I say something nice, you declare that it is a mere facade and project onto me what you think is my REAL motivation. So how is this any different than what you think the other team does to you? In your mind, I imagine, the other team thinks that you are an irredeemable racist bigot and nothing will ever change their mind. If you say you are not a racist, they will call you a liar. If you say anything at all, they interpret it in the worst way and often a ridiculous way in order to 'prove' that it's all the result of racism or some other vile pathology. You never get a chance in their eyes to prove to them that you are just an ordinary person, not a saint but not a horrible demon either.
That is what you are doing to me right now. I don't have the opportunity to prove to you who I really am, because no matter what I say or do, you twist it into 'proof' that I am an evil monster.
So my question to you is, how do we break through this impasse? How can I show to you who I really am, and not the caricature that exists in your mind? How can you show to everyone else who you really are, and not the caricature that exists in their head?
Of course you're lying again:
chemjeff radical individualist 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Jeremy Kauffman: Hey, maybe South African apartheid wasn’t so bad after all.
Normal people: Umm, that sounds kinda racist.
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT’S NOT FAIR!
It seems clear this is a claim I defended him. It's interesting you now realize how stupid it was and are trying to backtrack. Your hubris keeps you from just admitting it and thus you continue to ruin your credibility.
this is part of the problem here. You won’t listen to what other people are saying. If I say one thing, you interpret it in the worst possible way and accuse me of something horrible.
What the strangest about all of this is that if you were a normal person as you typed this you would realize you're describing yourself. What I criticized is something you now claim to not believe, but when I said it you had to criticize it anyway. Naturally you believe this was a fair interpretation and only my objection to it was misinterpreted.
(By the way, you seem very hung up on the whole hypocrisy charge….)
Hypocrisy is never the issue. I am testing to see whether you apply your principles consistently as this reveals whether someone's judgement can be trusted. As everyone knows you fail to uniformly apply just about every single principle you've ever mentioned, and revealingly these failures exactly match whether the principle would be damaging to the right or left in those particular circumstances. If someone made two comments that might be happenstance, a result of the specific issue under discussion. You on the other hand have probably made 100,000 or more comments and all of them single out one side. Not once have you ever singled out the left even when their own violations of whatever principle you are pretending to hold dear are far greater than the right.
It's not about hypocrisy, it's about recognizing what you are: a propagandist.
So how is this any different than what you think the other team does to you?
I have 100,000 data points on you with zero failures. You have zero data points. Only left wingers think these are equal. Further, I don't give a shit that a bunch of idiots call me racist any more than Einstein cared what third graders thought about relativity.
I don’t have the opportunity to prove to you who I really am, because no matter what I say or do, you twist it into ‘proof’ that I am an evil monster.
You've already proven it, including by claiming I defended someone who supports Apartheid and then lying about it.
How can I show to you who I really am
We all know who you really are. If you want to be different you can choose to change, but I won't hold my breath.
It seems clear this is a claim I defended him.
No, it is not. It is mocking you for pretending that whenever Chase called someone a racist, it was as a slur against people who were 'not an absolutist', and not because, perhaps, they were an actual racist. In this case, it is your hubris which is preventing you from admitting that your initial interpretation of my comment was incorrect. This is because, I suspect, that you are so locked in to the stereotype in your head that you do not listen to what I actually said.
I did not accuse you of defending Jeremy Kauffmann, I never accused you of defending Jeremy Kauffmann, not yesterday and not today. That is the plain and simple truth.
What the strangest about all of this is that if you were a normal person as you typed this you would realize you’re describing yourself.
Of course, I am a human being and therefore fallible. I have from time to time misinterpreted what people wrote, that is true. However, despite this admission, it doesn't change that you are doing the same thing to me right now. You misinterpreted what I wrote about Chase and Kauffmann, and even when I took it as a good-faith misinterpretation and tried to clarify and explain what I meant, you just kept going and accused me of bad faith behavior.
This is the problem here. I am trying to extend an olive branch here, and all you are doing is biting my hand.
I'll just skip to the chase here, past the "100,000 data points" (you just made up that number), past the claim that I never "singled out the left" - I have criticized people on the left plenty of times around here (no, not equal to people on the right, that is true, but it is not zero either, as you claimed) - and get right to the heart of the matter:
If you want to be different you can choose to change
Okay, I choose to change. What would you accept as evidence of a sincere intent to change? Seems to me, nothing I could possibly do would ever satisfy you. Is that correct? What would you accept as evidence?
It is mocking you for pretending that whenever Chase called someone a racist, it was as a slur against people who were ‘not an absolutist’, and not because, perhaps, they were an actual racist.
The problem is that I never said this, nor did I say anything that could be honestly misconstrued to mean this. You're still attacking me based on the idiotic strawman you created and are still asserting.
This is how I know you're not honestly changing, you're still lying about what I said because your imperative here is 'always attack the right". And if you have to lie to do so then you have no qualms with that. Even now when you're whining about how others interpret your comments in the worst way possible you refuse to recognize this is what you have done in every comment you've ever made including the ones where you pretend to want a better tone and respectful debate. You act like our recognition that this desire is fake is just a random choice, but in reality we see you are still duplicitous in these very comments.
I never accused you of defending Jeremy Kauffmann, not yesterday and not today. That is the plain and simple truth.
Of course you did. You remind me of the guy who sat in front of congress and said the government censoring speech isn't censorship. In your own mind claiming I defended that person was justified, but as we've seen the justification was your own strawman which makes it no justification at all.
I am trying to extend an olive branch here
Right. You realize I am effectively discrediting you and want me to stop so you can continue your propaganda. I have bad news for you: the only way I'll stop pointing out your logical failures is for you to stop making them.
I have criticized people on the left plenty of times around here
Dozens surely. Every single one when not doing so was hurting your credibility. Just like this exchange you're in it because recovering your credibility is necessary to continue your propaganda.
Seems to me, nothing I could possibly do would ever satisfy you. Is that correct? What would you accept as evidence?
Stop lying and misrepresenting reality. It's not hard, but as we see even in this thread you can't give it up.
You lost. You cannot dictate terms.
Can we find a way to coexist and not call each other demeaning names?
Why do you assume anybody here calls anybody demeaning names other than you, you arrogant dipshit? You come here almost daily to beg to have scorn heaped upon you by parroting Marxist talking points and defending the left. You fucking deserve it, which is why you get it good and hard.
Go virtue signal somewhere where people don't know you, lying Jeffy. Somewhere you never compared people who wanted to go for a walk in their neighborhood to someone transporting a bear in the trunk of their car.
Are you new to life and the internet or something?
Respect is earned here, not given, and you haven’t done jack shit to earn it.
I'm not talking about me specifically. I'm talking about those in general who are not in 'your tribe'. The vast majority are strangers to you. You would appreciate being treated respectfully by them, right? Maybe if you meet one of these people for the first time, you wouldn't want that person to immediately spit in your face and call you a racist. Right? You would appreciate it if this person interacts with you in a respectful and civil manner. But that isn't going to happen if the first thing YOU do when meeting this person is to spit in HIS face and call HIM an authoritarian fascist asshole. So if you don't want this person calling you a racist bigot, it would help if you don't call him an authoritarian fascist asshole. See the point here?
The problem here is that your tribe is the one running around and calling people “fascists”, “totalitarians”, “misogynists”, “racists”, etc. Most on our side try to be polite until shown otherwise.
It’s strange to see you complain about respect when you given long-winded diatribes about how evil the rest of us are here, gasbag.
Most on our side try to be polite until shown otherwise.
That is not what I observe. Instead, what I observe is that people on your side come here and denounce 'the left' as authoritarian fascist assholes without ever acknowledging that 'the left' are just like 'the right' in the sense that they are composed of ordinary people doing ordinary things, not particularly saintly or horrible.
Just read any of the many, many comments above, or on most any of the articles here. They are full of false accusations and unfair generalizations of 'the left'.
Look at how people treat 'left-leaning libertarians' around here. They are treated as if they are no different than AOC. Which is unfair and not warranted.
And again I'm not talking about me specifically. I'm talking about the generalization that occurs here. The big problem here is that many people who are not conservatives like yourself, generalize about you and assume you are a racist bigot without ever getting to know who you are and why that is an untrue accusation, right?
Just read any of the many, many comments above, or on most any of the articles here. They are full of false accusations and unfair generalizations of ‘the left’.
Remember this is coming from the guy who just yesterday lied that I defended someone who wants Apartheid and today he's all weepy about false accusations and unfairness.
This is what I call Left Wing Privilege. They believe they can say or do literally anything but the moral authority inherent in being left wing means they deserve respect and fairness even though they have never demonstrated either themselves.
This is what I call Left Wing Privilege. They believe they can say or do literally anything but the moral authority inherent in being left wing means they deserve respect and fairness even though they have never demonstrated either themselves.
I admit that there are people out there who have, shall we say, an asymmetric relationship with respect. They demand more respect for themselves than they are willing to give to others. But I don't think this is 'left wing privilege', I think it is just a human trait that anyone is capable of exhibiting.
Of course you do, because you interpret all facts critical of the left in the least damning way possible accepting only what is proven with certainty. By contrast you interpret all facts damning of the right in the maximal way possible accepting everything except what can be proven false with certainty.
But in reality this is not a randomly distributed trait. It is trained into them through a constant diet of propaganda. Because the left controls virtually all our institutions this trait disproportionately exists in the left.
See, there we go again. You are taking my good-faith response and twisting it into some bad-faith team cheerleading. You don't listen to what I say.
But in reality this is not a randomly distributed trait. It is trained into them through a constant diet of propaganda.
I suppose 'propaganda' can generate this type of arrogance, but it is not necessary. Lack of self-awareness, narcissism, insecurity, all can lead to this arrogant behavior. It doesn't have to arise via indoctrination.
Right wingers don't develop this because they don't have the institutional support to enforce it. It is the institutional support which allows left wingers to make idiotic assertions that would be career ending if they were anyone else and instead move on as if nothing happened.
This is the same reason studies show the right understands the left much better than the reverse. People on the right live in an environment eternally hostile to their ideas and as a result poor ideas are usually quickly refuted. On the other hand consider the 1619 Project. The left invented an entire pseudo history to support their political agenda and won a Pulitzer and made the popular rich and famous even though it is entirely fiction.
You refuse to accept how the world works because your only goal is defending the left.
Him and sarc were screaming homophobia just this morning. Jeff is a dishonest shit weasel. And that's me being respectful towards him. He is far worse.
"I am quite sure people on the other side don’t want to be accused of being a bunch of authoritarian fascists "
....
"To Fight Donald Trump, the Media Contemplates Vast Censorship"
And this isnt some one-off cook. This is frequently shouted from left wing outlets, from left wing normies, and was directly attempted by the Biden admin.
Ill stop calling them fascist authoritarians when they stop literally proving me right
Ill stop calling them fascist authoritarians when they stop literally proving me right
So, here is part of the issue. With respect to this particular issue, who is the "they"? If you actually read the article, the "they" are referring to precisely two people: Jen Psaki and Sara Haines. They are the ones who proposed the stupid idea of government regulation of social media.
So, based on this data point, would it be fair to accuse "the left" of being "fascist authoritarians", even including those on "the left" who are just ordinary regular Americans, not speciically TV show hosts?
I think you would find a lot of people, including some you would label as being "on the left", as objecting to government regulation of social media at least in this instance.
It’s somewhat humorous, in a pathetic sort of way, to see someone who starts many comments with the gross generalization and assumptions implied by the phrase “Your team…” now resorting to pedantry to pretend that Psaki’s comments are not actually indicative of beliefs of at least huge swaths of, if not all of Democrats.
I’m willing to acknowledge that she spoke only for herself. Granted. And yet I still harbor little doubt that if we lined up all the people who voted for Harris, repeated Psaki’s comments, and asked them their opinion, 9+ out of 10 would wholeheartedly agree. Yes, that’s a generalization that I’ve made. I could be wrong, but it’s my “lived truth” which I'm told is sacrosanct and not to be challenged.
And yet I still harbor little doubt that if we lined up all the people who voted for Harris, repeated Psaki’s comments, and asked them their opinion, 9+ out of 10 would wholeheartedly agree.
It is more like 7 out of 10.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/20/most-americans-favor-restrictions-on-false-information-violent-content-online/
So as I said:
I think you would find a lot of people, including some you would label as being “on the left”, as objecting to government regulation of social media at least in this instance.
I wish it was more than 30%, but it's not less than 10% either.
But the larger point, in the context of the current conversation, is that if you walked up to a random Democrat and said "You want the government to censor social media for so-called 'misinformation', you are an authoritarian fascist!", you would have a 30% chance of being wrong, but also a 100% chance of pissing off that person, because even if that person is in the 70% who would favor the censorship, you'd be insulting his motives and poisoning the well for any further discussion. And that person could hardly be blamed for responding to you, "Oh yeah? You voted for Trump that means you're a racist bigot!" and then you'd be pissed off. So let's not do that, and let's listen to people instead.
Maybe they exist and I haven't seen them, but I'm not aware of any videos of Trump supporters randomly coming up to Harris supporters and screaming at them. OTOH, it seems that almost daily get video of another progressive screeching at someone who's only sin was wearing a Trump T-shirt or something, throwing drinks at them, knocking their phones to the ground, physically assaulting them.
It's telling to me that your hypothetical is framed in the direction it is. I've never gone up to anyone and gotten in their face about their politics, but I have been verbally accosted for simply attending a Tea Party rally in Atlanta back in the day (the small group I was walking with had a guy on bike ride by screaming generally unintelligible things at us, but certainly heard "y'all fucking racists"). My experience is that it is usually the other side that starts these sorts of exchanges.
He really closed well.
Doing Joe Rogan was a great move. While he probably had his voters, the 3 hour long interview dispelled notions of his senility that Democrats were pushing, and it make Harris look bad when she refused to do the same.
The McDonald's gig was genius.
But I think people just remembered that things under Trump, at least until Covid, were better than under Biden.
Almost all states are showing >95% counted on NYT presidential election map. None show 100%. I assume the >95% means that everything has been counted but not all processes are complete (checks may be in progress to confirm the counts, maybe some provisional ballots or overseas military are still being processed, etc.)
The states not at this stage:
Maryland, 79%
New Jersey, 93%
Alaska, 76%
Colorado, 79%
Utah, 68%
Nevada, 91%
Arizona, 69%
California, 55%
Oregon, 77%
Washington, 79%
District of Columbia, 87%
WTF folks?
Also California's total went DOWN from 56% to 55%, and the California and other states have not reported any updates (or NYT has failed to update) all day.
I think California and Arizona are slow-walking their counting.
The main set of 'leaning R' in uncalled House races are in California and Arizona.
›California 40 Kim +13 +38,013 votes 71% 21h ago
›California 22 Valadao +10 +9,839 votes 56% Nov. 6, 2024
›Arizona 2 Crane +7 +22,340 votes 74% 2h ago
›California 45 Steel +4 +10,136 votes 70% 22h ago
›Alaska 1 Begich +4 +10,458 votes 76% 23h ago
›California 13 Duarte +3 +3,189 votes 52% 3h ago
›California 41 Calvert +3 +6,742 votes 76% 21h ago
218 FOR HOUSE CONTROL
›Arizona 1 Schweikert +3 +9,431 votes 69% 18h ago
›Nebraska 2 Bacon +3 +8,331 votes 95% 1h ago
›California 27 Garcia +2 +4,767 votes 69% 22h ago
›Arizona 6 Ciscomani +0.54 +1,598 votes 67% 8h ago
›California 47 Baugh +0.42 +1,133 votes 73% 22h ago
›Iowa 1 Miller-Meeks +0.19 +797 votes >95% 1h ago
Along with the 'leaning D' uncalled races...
›Maryland 6 McClain Delaney +0.11 +348 votes 84% 8h ago
>Ohio 9 Kaptur +0.33 +1,193 votes >95% Nov. 6, 2024
›Maine 2 Golden +0.37 +1,414 votes >95% 4m ago
›Colorado 8 Caraveo +0.76 +2,096 votes 83% 2h ago
›California 21 Costa +0.86 +1,009 votes 57% Nov. 6, 2024
›California 9 Harder +1.4 +2,049 votes 56% Nov. 6, 2024
›California 49 Levin +1.9 +5,221 votes 71% 22h ago
›Oregon 5 Bynum +2 +7,746 votes 75% 2h ago
›Washington 3 Gluesenkamp Perez +4 +12,019 votes 82% 6m ago
›Oregon 6 Salinas +7 +17,098 votes 72% 1h ago
›Arizona 4 Stanton +8 +18,972 votes 69% 18h ago
›California 26 Brownley +9 +20,220 votes 62% 22h ago
›California 39 Takano +10 +13,978 votes 62% 21h ago
›Louisiana 6 Fields +13 +38,580 votes >95% 23h ago
And the NYT refused to "call" Washington 4 as a Republican win until 49 minutes ago (about 19:10 EST on Thursday), even though only 2 Republicans are vying for the seat. Sure they might not know which Republican will win the seat just yet (and it seems fairly close), but you KNOW that the seat will be held by an R, so you could add it to the House R totals already (they finally did)!
Colorado has a lot of mail ballots. Most of those folks vote early - but not necessarily.
"Did Trump Run an Actually Good Campaign?"
Good enough to beat Comrade Kamala and Tampon Tim.
It's nice to think that the campaigns' effectiveness hinged on policy, but those were more talking points to the average voter.
Harris ran an abysmal campaign. She was thrust into the nomination without input from Democrat voters. The ticket was already tainted by everyone finally seeing that grandpa needed someone to take away his car keys. Harris didn't really campaign for a while and offered nothing but word salad. She consistently sounded dumb and her vocal affectation and cackling turned off many.
In contrast, Trump was less bombastic and used humour to his advantage. He went to different groups who hated him, listened, and offered what he thought he could do to address their issues. He brought Musk to his side and benefited from the growth of the Twitter right. He brought Vivek (someone Republican primary voters liked) and let him do the heavy lifting on intellectual campaign messaging. He courted the Libertarian vote. He won RFK over on pharmaceutical and deep state issues after Democrat corruption shut him out of the primary. He got Tulsi to become a Republican over war and free speech. He picked Vance as VP, who I thought was a weak pick, but ended up being an absolute asset. On top of all this, he had so many instances of pure gold optics. He had his mugshot as the result of multiple nonsense legal cases. He did the photo op working at McDonald's. He rode in a garbage truck. Bigger than anything else, he survived at least 2 assassination attempts. Even if you hate the man, the image of him raising a bloody fist shouting "FIGHT" after being shot is probably the most badass and iconic political images in the country's history.
Trump ran a great campaign regardless of how much you want to ding him on a shortage of policy proposals. In contrast, Harris effectively stuck with the 2020 Biden strategy of not really campaigning and instead relying on a friendly media structure to do all the work for her. It's actually concerning that the election was as close as it was
"Trump focused, quite aggressively, on border and cost of living."
This is sanewashing. Trump lied his ass off- aggressively- about the border and the cost of living.
Fortunately, his tariffs are going to fuck all of his idiot cult members as bad as the rest of us.
Still belching out those NeverTrump catchphrases, eh?
Your side lost. Your side got its ass kicked. And I can’t wait for you to kick off the next civil war so you and your family can be liquidated. Now fuck off back to Patterico's loser blog where you belong, you stupid jobber.
Harris set $1B plus of Democrat donor money on fire, is $20M in the hole, outspent Trump 3.5-to-1 and still lost.