US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[dimsum]

I have never seen a sorer loser in my life. Totally incapable of taking the “L” like a champ and moving on.

The whinging is strong in this one.

Harris’s quip about people being bored and leaving at his rallies was chef’s kiss. A regular person would just shrug it off but that got under his skin and got him on his “biggest rallies” tangent.

This debate really showed how easy it is to rile him up and have him say ridiculous things - seeing it in real time was definitely something.

Trump has said no to another debate but I’m pretty sure that if they really wanted, Harris can say something juvenile like “are you too chicken to face me again” and his ego won’t be able to let him do it.

 

[FJAG]

Except that in a legal sense, there is a distinction. The US has not declared war, so there isn’t a “war zone”. I could be wrong so will defer to @FJAG, but I didn’t think that the US has officially declared war on anyone since the end of WWII.

“Combat zone”? Definitely her mis-speaking. But not “war zone”.

I'll be brief, M'Lord. War initially related to a condition of armed hostilities between two or more nation states - hence the "Law of War" which dealt with specific treaties respecting war or international customary law. To some extent prior but mostly after WW2 we discovered a fair amount of armed hostilities taking place within one country or by actors who did not have the status of recognized nation states. Hence we started developing the "Law of War" into a "Law of Armed Conflict" which covered situations going beyond mere country v country situations.

When the US moved against the Taliban and Saddam were those wars? Sure. Country against country. When the US has troops in Iraq now, are they at war? No. There is no technical state of hostilities going on between the US and a specific nation states notwithstanding that there are specific state sponsored actors involved. It's close but no cigar. It's an area where combat conditions exist but no war per se.

The definitions have gotten muddy. Just try to rationally explain the governing factors as between the original four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols some day. Then throw in special operations as a complication. And numerous national regulations respecting service in or benefits associated with service in a war as opposed to a non war zone.

So yeah. I could parse the language as to what constitutes a "war zone" and what constitutes a "combat zone" but I doubt whether "Johnny Lunchbucket" or even "Mélanie the Legislator (without a briefing note)" could do it off the cuff.

If you have to resort to closely parsing doctrinal and institutional definitions to defend a statement you made to ordinary voters, you're losing.

Well, I wouldn't draw the conclusion of "losing" that you do here but I do agree that if you are running for high office you should be expressing concepts in a way that the voting public will easily understand without having to resort to a dictionary or law book. Your statement shouldn't be able to be misinterpreted. On the other hand there is a massive industry out there (and quite a few hobbyists) who like nothing better than to deliberately misinterpret just about anything and everything for fun and profit.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, I wouldn't draw the conclusion of "losing" that you do here but I do agree that if you are running for high office you should be expressing concepts in a way that the voting public will easily understand without having to resort to a dictionary or law book. Your statement shouldn't be able to be misinterpreted. On the other hand there is a massive industry out there (and quite a few hobbyists) who like nothing better than to deliberately misinterpret just about anything and everything for fun and profit.

I drew on the informal principle of "if you're explaining, you're losing". Your summary is correct. Speak to voters plainly; don't try to hide behind someone's dictionary if it plays poorly.

 

[dimsum]

More bomb threats hit Springfield, Ohio, after Trump elevates false claims about Haitians

Two hospitals sent into lockdown, government buildings shut down and local schools evacuated

www.theguardian.com

So here’s a concrete example that words matter. Trump can say “well I didn’t tell those people to call in the threats” but it is strangely coincidental that starting the day after the debate, when said the “eating pets” line, Springfield OH started getting threats to various buildings.

 

[brihard]

More bomb threats hit Springfield, Ohio, after Trump elevates false claims about Haitians

Two hospitals sent into lockdown, government buildings shut down and local schools evacuated

www.theguardian.com

So here’s a concrete example that words matter. Trump can say “well I didn’t tell those people to call in the threats” but it is strangely coincidental that starting the day after the debate, when said the “eating pets” line, Springfield OH started getting threats to various buildings.

What kind of imbecile thinks bomb threats to hospitals is in any conceivable way useful to express themselves on something? I really wish hoaxes like that got more serious punishment.

 

[FJAG]

What kind of imbecile thinks bomb threats to hospitals is in any conceivable way useful to express themselves on something?

It made the news, didn't it? The kind of imbecile that wants to make the national news.

I really wish hoaxes like that got more serious punishment.

Me too.

That's why I think this type of sentence is bang on.

Five activists of the Just Stop Oil environmental campaign have been handed prison sentences for their involvement in organizing protests that blocked a major London highway in 2022, PA media reported, sparking a wave of criticism from climate advocates.

‘Just Stop Oil’ co-founder Roger Hallam, 58, Daniel Shaw, 38, Louise Lancaster, 58, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, 35, and Cressida Gethin, 22, agreed to cause disruption to traffic by having protesters climb onto gantries over the M25 highway that encircles London for four successive days in November 2022, Judge Christopher Hehir said at the sentencing hearing at a court in the British capital on Thursday, according to the UK news agency.

Hallam was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment while the remaining four defendants were each handed four years in prison each.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/18/climate/just-stop-oil-prison-sentence-intl-latam/index.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Harris’s quip about people being bored and leaving at his rallies was chef’s kiss. A regular person would just shrug it off but that got under his skin and got him on his “biggest rallies” tangent.

This debate really showed how easy it is to rile him up and have him say ridiculous things - seeing it in real time was definitely something.

Trump has said no to another debate but I’m pretty sure that if they really wanted, Harris can say something juvenile like “are you too chicken to face me again” and his ego won’t be able to let him do it.

It's not anything people haven't seen before. People know Trump.. People saw him as POTUS for four years. He hasn't changed, nor have his policies. He doesn't need to be coached, he says what's on his mind. And he says it in language a normal person can understand and relate to. He's a salesman, a very successful one, a billion dollar one. He talks like a confident salesman, he uses phrases that you expect a salesman to use. He's been doing it all his life, he sees no reason to become a phoney politician, and change that. The debate was a joke. Nobody was surprised at how Trump acted. They knew what he'd do and say. They know his promises, if allowed to act on them, will be carried out. That's proven. There is nothing about the debate that people didn't already know. He doesn't need the debate. He can use his time more economically. But people watched Harris. They watched her, devoid of detail and couth. They watched Harris' moderators, including her sorority sister. They watch her lie, at least 25 times, then get a pass. Even high ranking democrats are calling for an investigation. Left leaning newspapers and other media have condemned it for the way it was conducted. Trump has agreed to every rule, venue and moderation. Both with CNN and ABC. In fairness, the next one should be carried out by Fox or NewsMax. Do you think Harris would agree? Remember, the democrats won't be able to control anything. They wouldn't take it, because they can't control it. Trump has not changed a bit since coming down the escalator. Neither has the 2019 Harris according to Bernie Sanders. She's still a progressive and is doing whatever she has to do to get elected, whether that be lying, cheating, posturing, whatever. Bernie calls it 'pragmatic'. She got nothing out of this debate, including the bump they wanted. Trump turned a lot of undecideds to his side. The persona that Harris spent 5 days locked in a room, being given acting lessons, was wasted. People didn't like it. She was wooden and uninformative.

More bomb threats hit Springfield, Ohio, after Trump elevates false claims about Haitians

Two hospitals sent into lockdown, government buildings shut down and local schools evacuated

www.theguardian.com

So here’s a concrete example that words matter. Trump can say “well I didn’t tell those people to call in the threats” but it is strangely coincidental that starting the day after the debate, when said the “eating pets” line, Springfield OH started getting threats to various buildings.

You're conjecting, guessing, fabricating. You're falsely implying it's Trumps fault.

Your talking about a guy that got shot in the head, quite possibly because democrats call him hitler, a dictator and a dozen other vile epithets designed to make people think he's a monster. That he is going to enslave and make people destitute.

Words matter.

"that appears linked to false claims circulating among the far right that Haitian immigrants there are eating domestic pets and wildlife."

Do you know what we used to say when clearing a lateral? We would say "lateral appears clear." It gave us deniability should something go south. We said it because we couldn't otherwise prove that it was clear 100%, within our equipment and time constraints. When a cop says "it appears," he's giving himself deniability if it turns out to be ANTIFA or BLM or someone else. Otherwise, he would've said "we have proof it was."

Words matter

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It made the news, didn't it? The kind of imbecile that wants to make the national news.

Me too.

That's why I think this type of sentence is bang on.

Leave their names out. No need to make them famous or martyrs

 

[Fishbone Jones]

“Just watch me”.

But to go back on topic, apparently Harris did do an interview yesterday. I screenshotted various headlines from it and no slant at all…

View attachment 87980

You forgot to mention what an absolute shitshow it was. Once again, she talked her head off and didn't say a thing, give any details or even stay on topic. Conducted by the same broadcaster being pilloried for their debate conduct. It was excruciatingly difficult to watch.

 

[FJAG]

You're conjecting, guessing, fabricating. You're falsely implying it's Trumps fault.

Your talking about a guy that got shot in the head, quite possibly because democrats call him hitler, a dictator and a dozen other vile epithets designed to make people think he's a monster. That he is going to enslave and make people destitute.

You do know that those two concepts don't connect on any level.

But for Trump and his sidekick's rhetoric about cat eating immigrant's, Springfield would still only be known as a possible home for the Simpsons. That's cause and effect, plain and simple.

As for Thomas Crooks's shooting at Trump, I think the jury is still out on the motivation for that. There is to this point no evidence that Crooks had any particular animosity against Trump, whether Democrat inspired or otherwise. He's a registered Republican with an assault rifle and so far there has been no one come forward claiming that they knew of any axe Crooks had to grind with the former president, no manifesto, no social media pronouncements.

Thomas Matthew Crooks was an intelligent, unassuming loner, who expressed an interest in guns and was far from outspoken about politics. .... Crooks seems similar to the dozens of other young men who’ve wreaked havoc across the US with high-powered assault-style rifles in recent years. He had few close friends, he would often go shooting at a local firing range, and he didn’t seem to display strongly held views that would suggest a politically driven assassination, according to CNN interviews with law enforcement and a review of notes from a briefing to Congress.

In addition to the former president, Crooks had searched online about President Joe Biden and had photos on his phone of other prominent figures from both parties. He searched for the location of Trump’s rally as well as the upcoming Democratic National Convention, the briefing notes say, and discovered that Trump planned to appear just an hour’s drive away from his home in the Pittsburgh suburbs. That suggests Crooks may have been looking to carry out a high-profile shooting, and the Trump event’s proximity and timing offered the most accessible opportunity, federal officials have speculated.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/19/politics/trump-rally-gunman-portrait-motive-invs/index.html

 

[dimsum]

It's not anything people haven't seen before. People know Trump.. People saw him as POTUS for four years. He hasn't changed, nor have his policies. He doesn't need to be coached, he says what's on his mind. And he says it in language a normal person can understand and relate to. He's a salesman, a very successful one, a billion dollar one. He talks like a confident salesman, he uses phrases that you expect a salesman to use. He's been doing it all his life, he sees no reason to become a phoney politician, and change that. The debate was a joke. Nobody was surprised at how Trump acted. They knew what he'd do and say. They know his promises, if allowed to act on them, will be carried out. That's proven. There is nothing about the debate that people didn't already know. He doesn't need the debate. He can use his time more economically. But people watched Harris. They watched her, devoid of detail and couth. They watched Harris' moderators, including her sorority sister. They watch her lie, at least 25 times, then get a pass. Even high ranking democrats are calling for an investigation. Left leaning newspapers and other media have condemned it for the way it was conducted. Trump has agreed to every rule, venue and moderation. Both with CNN and ABC. In fairness, the next one should be carried out by Fox or NewsMax. Do you think Harris would agree? Remember, the democrats won't be able to control anything. They wouldn't take it, because they can't control it. Trump has not changed a bit since coming down the escalator. Neither has the 2019 Harris according to Bernie Sanders. She's still a progressive and is doing whatever she has to do to get elected, whether that be lying, cheating, posturing, whatever. Bernie calls it 'pragmatic'. She got nothing out of this debate, including the bump they wanted. Trump turned a lot of undecideds to his side. The persona that Harris spent 5 days locked in a room, being given acting lessons, was wasted. People didn't like it. She was wooden and uninformative.

I think you saw a different debate than I did if after that, you still think he talks like a “confident salesman”.

He sure confidently sold that people were eating pets in Springfield, no?

Also, if Trump won the debate, he wouldn’t be on Truth Social whining that it was “3 v 1” and having to say that he won, almost a week later. The GOP would be also rallying around how he “won”, instead of some senior folks like Linsey Graham saying it was “a missed opportunity”…which doesn’t usually mean “we won”.

As for the debate turning undecided voters to his side, you tried showing that with the Newsmax “poll”, which as @Lumber mentioned, you had to join to vote. Non-Trump supporters, or at least folks leaning that way, is going to join a source that makes Fox seem left.

You're conjecting, guessing, fabricating. You're falsely implying it's Trumps fault.

Your talking about a guy that got shot in the head, quite possibly because democrats call him hitler, a dictator and a dozen other vile epithets designed to make people think he's a monster. That he is going to enslave and make people destitute.

Words matter.

"that appears linked to false claims circulating among the far right that Haitian immigrants there are eating domestic pets and wildlife."

Do you know what we used to say when clearing a lateral? We would say "lateral appears clear." It gave us deniability should something go south. We said it because we couldn't otherwise prove that it was clear 100%, within our equipment and time constraints. When a cop says "it appears," he's giving himself deniability if it turns out to be ANTIFA or BLM or someone else. Otherwise, he would've said "we have proof it was."

Words matter

@FJAG answered you far better than I would.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You do know that those two concepts don't connect on any level.

But for Trump and his sidekick's rhetoric about cat eating immigrant's, Springfield would still only be known as a possible home for the Simpsons. That's cause and effect, plain and simple.

As for Thomas Crooks's shooting at Trump, I think the jury is still out on the motivation for that. There is to this point no evidence that Crooks had any particular animosity against Trump, whether Democrat inspired or otherwise. He's a registered Republican with an assault rifle and so far there has been no one come forward claiming that they knew of any axe Crooks had to grind with the former president, no manifesto, no social media pronouncements.

I didn't definitively say that that the shooters motivation was thus. I said it was a possibility. We'll never know what his motivation truly was. So to suspect that Trump’s demonization may have been a factor is still within the realm of possibility.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think you saw a different debate than I did if after that, you still think he talks like a “confident salesman”.

He sure confidently sold that people were eating pets in Springfield, no?

Also, if Trump won the debate, he wouldn’t be on Truth Social whining that it was “3 v 1” and having to say that he won, almost a week later. The GOP would be also rallying around how he “won”, instead of some senior folks like Linsey Graham saying it was “a missed opportunity”…which doesn’t usually mean “we won”.

As for the debate turning undecided voters to his side, you tried showing that with the Newsmax “poll”, which as @Lumber mentioned, you had to join to vote. Non-Trump supporters, or at least folks leaning that way, is going to join a source that makes Fox seem left.


@FJAG answered you far better than I would.

Show me where I said he won the debate. My feelings on that have been previously posted.

It wasn’t just Newsmax that reported the undecideds. All you prove is that media is biased and you go with the side you believe. Discounted information is not a balliwick of one side or the other.

Discounting information because 'Newsmax' shows your own bias. You can't call them out without calling out the left media for the same thing.

 

[dimsum]

Show me where I said he won the debate. My feelings on that have been previously posted.

It wasn’t just Newsmax that reported the undecideds. All you prove is that media is biased and you go with the side you believe. Discounted information is not a balliwick of one side or the other.

Discounting information because 'Newsmax' shows your own bias. You can't call them out without calling out the left media for the same thing.

The media, as @The Bread Guy has helpfully provided diagrams on these few years, is on a spectrum. I don’t link to Crier or far left sources either.

Unless you’re suggesting that Newsmax and CBC are on equally opposite sides of said spectrum, to which I respectfully disagree.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The media, as @The Bread Guy has helpfully provided diagrams on these few years, is on a spectrum. I don’t link to Crier or far left sources either.

Unless you’re suggesting that Newsmax and CBC are on equally opposite sides of said spectrum, to which I respectfully disagree.

Are you suggesting Reuters is on the level of Newsmax because their own straw poll came down on Trump’s side?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump-2024-09-11/

 

[FJAG]

Are you suggesting Reuters is on the level of Newsmax because their own straw poll came down on Trump’s side?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump-2024-09-11/

Are we reading the same article?

First they say "Kamala Harris was widely seen as dominating Tuesday's presidential debate," then acknowledged that "a group of undecided voters remained unconvinced that the Democratic vice president was the better candidate." They then picked a sample of 10 such individuals to interview, six of whom leaned Trump's way.

The article was a way of demonstrating the fact that amongst undecided voters there are still some who have not been persuaded. It picked a specifically limited sample of interviewees to demonstrate that. That is a long way from saying a "straw poll came down on Trump's side." You are deliberately ignoring the introductory sentence which bears repeating "Kamala Harris was widely seen as dominating Tuesday's presidential debate against Republican former president Donald Trump." That has to be factored in as to what Reuters correspondent said.

Time for my lunch and then back to work.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm of the same mind as His Lordship... Harris needs to put in the work or she's doomed, like Hillary...

Trump ‘likelier winner’ unless Harris tackles two failings, says ex-ambassador​

Kim Darroch says the Democratic nominee must focus on US swing states and avoid repeating Hillary Clinton’s errors


The second error is that Harris appears to be hiding from the media, repeating a mistake made by Hillary Clinton. “Back in 2016, Trump was ever-present. He would accept any and every invitation. He would even, unbidden, phone the morning news shows to offer his views on the day’s issues. By contrast, Hillary Clinton locked the media out – and lost.”

Harris, he claims “seems to have adopted the Clinton playbook”.

Darroch says the UK embassy in Washington will no doubt be advising Starmer to try to meet Trump, perhaps taking time out from a meeting of the UN general assembly this week to do so.

“There is a lot to discuss with him, starting with his views on Ukraine. And however badly Trump performed in the debate, however visible his personal decline, he remains for many of us the likelier winner.”

Trump ‘likelier winner’ unless Harris tackles two failings, says ex-ambassador

Kim Darroch says the Democratic nominee must focus on US swing states and avoid repeating Hillary Clinton’s errors

www.theguardian.com

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Trump shooting attempt suspect was near golf course for 12 hours, FBI says

Ryan Routh, 58, was earlier charged with federal gun crimes having allegedly been seen with a rifle at the former president's golf course

www.bbc.com

Someone might have tried to take yet another shot at the Donald...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

KH is just a newer, more aware sockpuppet to replace the worn out Biden one. The hand that controls her is the same as the one that controlled Biden.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Trump shooting attempt suspect was near golf course for 12 hours, FBI says

Ryan Routh, 58, was earlier charged with federal gun crimes having allegedly been seen with a rifle at the former president's golf course

www.bbc.com

Someone might have tried to take yet another shot at the Donald...

1 in custody.