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

[lenaitch]

Sure. Whatever. I'm not doing this again. Believe what you want. It was a well known US judge that explained the 3rd amendment linkage. But if you know better about the US Constitution than Judge Napolitano feel free to argue with him.

I must have missed that connection. All I see in the linked article is:

"The public reaction has been one of outrage and disbelief. Social media users are demanding justice, labeling the incident as an “abuse of power” and “an act of tyranny.” Comparisons to the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent, highlight the perceived severity of the violation."​

I searched for any references to 'Napolitano' and this incident (or anything halfways similar) and came up dry.

 

[QV]

Not worth worrying about. If people want to fight over the delivery mechanism rather than the content, let them waste their time.

Information control is what governments attempt when they feel like they're losing the information contest. Almost nothing has changed since furious kings raged impotently against pamphleteers publishing abroad. One thing that has changed: people used to recognize and reject such illiberalism when they saw it.

This is the most troubling aspect.

 

[Remius]

Bottom line is Trump has demonstrated he will site down for an unscripted talk with anyone, anywhere. The other side will not. This says a lot about the choices to a lot of people.

Sure.

If that is a metric that is universally accepted.

Some whataboutism to challenge your world view. PP has refused to send anyone for interviews with the CBC. Tell me what that says about the choices to a lot of people. I mention as a direct challenge to your worldview not so much the right or wrong of it. My suspicion based on what you have posted historically is that you are a fine with PP doing that but not fine with Harris doing it. Goose, gander and what not.

Now I agree to an extent. But I don’t think politicians should agree to interviews with anyone anywhere. The Alex Jones, Tucker carlsons, Elon musks of the world should be avoided by certain people. They aren’t honest brokers by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I am certain there are personalities on the left like Rachel Maddow, George soros’ son, or Jon Stewart. Nothing good can come from any of that,

By all means engage with media and such but guys like Musk (ie not a journalist, just a rich guy with access) aren’t worth it for any reason.

 

[brihard]

I'm inclined to believe Musk it was a DDOS attack.

Also, the EU Commission effectively threatening Musk over the potential of inciting violence by broadcasting a discussion with Trump.

That’s not how a DDOS works. It would overload the entirety of the service, not a single specific session being hosted. Twitter spaces simply crashed. Remember they downsized their IT staff considerably; sometimes stuff breaks when you can a bunch of your maintenance crew.

 

[QV]

Sure.

If that is a metric that is universally accepted.

Some whataboutism to challenge your world view. PP has refused to send anyone for interviews with the CBC. Tell me what that says about the choices to a lot of people. I mention as a direct challenge to your worldview not so much the right or wrong of it. My suspicion based on what you have posted historically is that you are a fine with PP doing that but not fine with Harris doing it. Goose, gander and what not.

Now I agree to an extent. But I don’t think politicians should agree to interviews with anyone anywhere. The Alex Jones, Tucker carlsons, Elon musks of the world should be avoided by certain people. They aren’t honest brokers by any stretch of the imagination. Just as I am certain there are personalities on the left like Rachel Maddow, George soros’ son, or Jon Stewart. Nothing good can come from any of that,

By all means engage with media and such but guys like Musk (ie not a journalist, just a rich guy with access) aren’t worth it for any reason.

I'm not aware PP has refused to send anyone for interviews with CBC and I don't know the context that which you speak. That said, I've witnessed PP engage with all kinds of media from what I can tell and has done well. And I think he should continue to do so. So your suspicion is quite flawed.

Politicians can choose to speak with whomever they like and there is an associated risk with any choice. The point is Trump will take risks and will engage in unscripted televised discussion with almost anyone - to the benefit of the people who get to see/hear him uncensored. The other side will avoid that like the black plague. This is a different frame of mind over traditional establishment politicians and it is worth noting.

As for your comments about Musk, probably one of the most intelligent people around and obviously one of the most successful people on the planet, when he was a democrat there was never an issue. When he saw how Twitter was being manipulated, and did something about it, and has publicly come out against the progressive left agenda - now he is just some nut to those far less tolerant. I'd wager 75% of the population see he is filling a gap the media have abandoned, and 25% of the population will always be wrong.

 

[QV]

That’s not how a DDOS works. It would overload the entirety of the service, not a single specific session being hosted. Twitter spaces simply crashed. Remember they downsized their IT staff considerably; sometimes stuff breaks when you can a bunch of your maintenance crew.

Sure. I'm still going to give Musk the benefit of doubt - he hasn't a history of deceiving the public to my knowledge.

 

[Remius]

I'm not aware PP has refused to send anyone for interviews with CBC and I don't know the context that which you speak. That said, I've witnessed PP engage with all kinds of media from what I can tell and has done well. And I think he should continue to do so. So your suspicion is quite flawed.

Yep. It’s well known that no MP from the CPC is to appear on the CBC for any interviews. So no, he isn’t following the anywhere with anyone mantra. In fact it’s an outright position they have taken. So I take your judgement of that sort of thing at face value then and that it shows us who they are then.

Politicians can choose to speak with whomever they like and there is an associated risk with any choice. The point is Trump will take risks and will engage in unscripted televised discussion with almost anyone - to the benefit of the people who get to see/hear him uncensored. The other side will avoid that like the black plague. This is a different frame of mind over traditional establishment politicians and it is worth noting.

I don’t disagree that Trump takes risks. And yes, that is one of the things I praised him for before was his willingness to engage in press conferences. No qualms about that.

As for your comments about Musk, probably one of the most intelligent people around and obviously one of the most successful people on the planet, when he was a democrat there was never an issue.

He didn’t really do personal interviews when he was a democrat and I doubt he had the same access. billionaires paying for access worry me on both sides of the equation. I also don’t think the CEO of Disney should be conducting interviews with presidential candidates either.

When he saw how Twitter was being manipulated, and did something about it, and has publicly come out against the progressive left agenda - now he is just some nut to those far less tolerant. I'd wager 75% of the population see he is filling a gap the media have abandoned, and 25% of the population will always be wrong.

Twitter is now a cesspool. No security and he’s lost more employees than he can count since he’s taken over. It’s unfiltered and a completely unreliable tool. X went from 27% percent of US citizens using it in 2023 to 19% in 2024 and keeps dropping daily.

It’s no wonder it was having issues last night. It’s failing.

And musk is just angling to keep his EV stuff alive given MAGAs hatred of EVs and other green projects.

 

[dimsum]

Bottom line is Trump has demonstrated he will site down for an unscripted talk with anyone, anywhere. The other side will not. This says a lot about the choices to a lot of people.

So are we counting when Trump refused to debate Harris after Biden stepped down, stating he would only debate the Dem nominee?

I'm not aware PP has refused to send anyone for interviews with CBC and I don't know the context that which you speak. That said, I've witnessed PP engage with all kinds of media from what I can tell and has done well. And I think he should continue to do so. So your suspicion is quite flawed.

A quick Google search shows one interview with CBC…when he was employment minister under the Harper govt.

He did an interview with CTV late last year, and an interview with Global when he took over as leader.

 

[Blackadder1916]

How casually the investigative function of the press and the importance of politicians demonstrating competence at thinking on their feet were brushed aside.

"Pig in a poke? Sure, if that's what it takes to win."

But does an oppositional interview actually "demonstrate competence at thinking on their feet" or does it only demonstrate an ability to speak whether or not the response is factual, a correct conclusion, or even that there had been any analysis made before responding? I'm not really sure that I want (or even require) politicians to think on their feet. Thinking on one's feet suggests a need for immediate reaction; a requirement for a response measured in seconds, perhaps a minute, most often without reference to others.

There's a difference between the immediate give and take of a debate or press interview (though it would be a difficult stretch to call Musk any form of journalist) and the functions of a politician holding executive office. The first is "politicking" that serves only the politician's goal; the second is the administrative/management function of government. While there are occasional requirements for government agents to act/react in seconds/minutes, those functions are mostly delegated to levels removed from the political leaders. That doesn't mean that there is no need for "timely" decision making by political leaders, but my preference is for ones who can do it after appropriate consultation with experts (those who know what they are talking about) and proper analysis of the factors and potential consequences (kinda like what we learned on JLC).

 

[QV]

Whatever people here want to characterize the Trump/Musk discussion and the attempts to limit access to it, it is increasing support for Trump and demonstrating a concerted worldwide effort to sterilize the discussion of one side in American politics.

Purporting to tell 100million people who they can listen to and who they can't is next level crazy. What's next, music?

 

[dimsum]

Whatever people here want to characterize the Trump/Musk discussion and the attempts to limit access to it, it is increasing support for Trump and demonstrating a concerted worldwide effort to sterilize the discussion of one side in American politics.

Purporting to tell 100million people who they can listen to and who they can't is next level crazy. What's next, music?

As I’ve said before, this isn’t some cabal of Dems and Globalists (or whatever the term is now) trying to limit access to an interview.

X didn’t have the bandwidth to do it, did it anyway, and was shocked when said lack of bandwidth caused technical difficulties.

It was an own goal.

 

[dapaterson]

Twitter has a lengthy history of failing under pressure. Having divested most of the staff who built it and understand how it works, it's no surprise that it failed again.

From one perspective, it's an indication that interest in the discussion outstripped the predicted demand - aka it was more popular than expected.

 

[KevinB]

Sure. I'm still going to give Musk the benefit of doubt - he hasn't a history of deceiving the public to my knowledge.

You aren’t really serious in that are you?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't mind the Conservatives not sitting down with CBC. It's no different than trudeau or singh refusing to a sit down with Rebel News. And yes, I'm equating CBC to Rebel. Both are highly and extremely biased and they base interviews on an hours worth of gotcha questions to people they dislike.

Very similar to the CNN interview with Vance that I watched. It was a Trump slamfest without even touching on the real issues of economy, inflation, open borders, crime, etc. A total waste of time for anyone wanting to hear what the GOP policies are.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I must have missed that connection. All I see in the linked article is:

"The public reaction has been one of outrage and disbelief. Social media users are demanding justice, labeling the incident as an “abuse of power” and “an act of tyranny.” Comparisons to the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against the quartering of soldiers in private homes without consent, highlight the perceived severity of the violation."​

I searched for any references to 'Napolitano' and this incident (or anything halfways similar) and came up dry.

Here's a hint. The 3rd doesn't just apply to soldiers but also encompasses agents of the government and quartering is not confined to living there. That is my last on this.

 

[QV]

As I’ve said before, this isn’t some cabal of Dems and Globalists (or whatever the term is now) trying to limit access to an interview.

X didn’t have the bandwidth to do it, did it anyway, and was shocked when said lack of bandwidth caused technical difficulties.

It was an own goal.

As far as DDOS, I think everyone can agree you aren't the authority on that. I'll believe Musk over you on this until proven otherwise.

You have conveniently ignored the EU Commission threats. Question, are you also ok with the UK's stance on jailing people and attempting to extradite foreigners over social media posts? Wondering where your limits are?

Twitter has a lengthy history of failing under pressure. Having divested most of the staff who built it and understand how it works, it's no surprise that it failed again.

From one perspective, it's an indication that interest in the discussion outstripped the predicted demand - aka it was more popular than expected.

Well holy shit...

 

[Brad Sallows]

But does an oppositional interview actually "demonstrate competence at thinking on their feet" or does it only demonstrate an ability to speak whether or not the response is factual, a correct conclusion, or even that there had been any analysis made before responding? I'm not really sure that I want (or even require) politicians to think on their feet. Thinking on one's feet suggests a need for immediate reaction; a requirement for a response measured in seconds, perhaps a minute, most often without reference to others.

A candidate for high political office ought be able to respond intelligently to question like "You were in favour of X, and now you are in favour of Not-X; why?" without a teleprompter and/or prior warning that the question will be asked. If a politician doesn't know her own policy positions well enough to articulate them without props, I doubt she is competent.

 

[suffolkowner]

A candidate for high political office ought be able to respond intelligently to question like "You were in favour of X, and now you are in favour of Not-X; why?" without a teleprompter and/or prior warning that the question will be asked. If a politician doesn't know her own policy positions well enough to articulate them without props, I doubt she is competent.

That horse left the barn a long time ago

 

[KevinB]

GOP Prepares Scapegoat in Case Trump Loses

Without it, they might force a government shutdown

open.substack.com

So I’m mainly sharing this as part of it pertains to the Save Act - and how it’s perceived.

If it wasn’t so important it would funny, as depending on one’s perspective it is either a major issue or a nothing burger.

Frankly I think Democrats miss a major aspect by not supporting/ignoring it. I tend to think most of the States do a good job vetting their eligible voters, but more transparency as to status of voters isn’t a bad thing, and would eliminate the perception that illegals are voting.

By and large the Freedom Caucus isn’t - and I’d gladly take a ball peen hammer to their heads if given the opportunity to not face any legal repercussions (the same for the bat shit crazy Squad of AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley)