• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

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.

Aww Pity GIF by MOODMAN
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.
 
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.

🍻
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.


🍻
 
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.

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
 
Back
Top