Trump just won the election

[Phoenix_person]

9 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

I've been trying to explain to some Democrats I know that Trump's win was functionally a foregone conclusion, but *only* if you paid attention to what people were actually saying, which in turn meant turning off the mainstream news networks and engaging with people both in person and on social media. 

Regional bias is tricky. Here in MN, my experiences talking to people, even swing voters, seemed to favor progressive candidates (most of my organizing work is around local elections, not national). Locally, we actually got some great progressive wins on the school board and city council, including a city council president race that we were a huge underdog in. If I had been talking to swing voters in Ohio or Missouri, there may have been very different conversations. Our county and state went to Kamala last week by a pretty safe margin. 

[LDSGator]

28 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

 

I - and others - tried to warn those we know who are Democrats that this was coming, but far too often they refused to listen or just presumed themselves the betters of anyone who didn't vote as they did. 

I absolutely agree that democrats show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter. 

Republicans who “saw this coming”  show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter as well. 

In the past week I’ve met many people who “saw this coming.” They didn’t. It’s hindsight blurring their minds. These are the same people who saw 2008 coming yet still lost all their money because in reality, they can’t see the future either. 

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

I absolutely agree that democrats show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter. 

Republicans who “saw this coming”  show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter as well. 

In the past week I’ve met many people who “saw this coming.” They didn’t. It’s hindsight blurring their minds. These are the same people who saw 2008 coming yet still lost all their money because in reality, they can’t see the future either. 

"Hey folks - these are the trends I'm seeing and the sentiments that I've noticed are flooding across social media. Based on this, I suspect that these are the key issues to watch out for and the key concerns that need to be addressed. If they're handled promptly and deftly, the Democrats can potentially quell the unrest and lure voters back to their... oh for the love of... *who thought it was a good idea to let Tim Walz hold a shotgun?!* Did you learn *nothing* from Dukakis?"

- the general gist of how I was looking at things. 

At every step of the way the Harris campaign snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They could well have won if they'd have run a competent campaign and given square answers to the public instead of waffling. 

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

"Hey folks - these are the trends I'm seeing and the sentiments that I've noticed are flooding across social media. Based on this, I suspect that these are the key issues to watch out for and the key concerns that need to be addressed. If they're handled promptly and deftly, the Democrats can potentially quell the unrest and lure voters back to their... oh for the love of... *who thought it was a good idea to let Tim Walz hold a shotgun?!* Did you learn *nothing* from Dukakis?"

- the general gist of how I was looking at things. 

At every step of the way the Harris campaign snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They could well have won if they'd have run a competent campaign and given square answers to the public instead of waffling. 

I understand that, and looking back of course it makes sense now. 

I’ve been flooded these past several days with people who suddenly possess the great power of prophecy. When I ask them to put money in the stock market or place money on the Steelers vs Bears, they are suddenly quiet.

Everyone is a prophet-but when asked to put money on it, crickets. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by LDSGator

[person0]

Someone told me the other day that two reasons he typically supports one party over the other are because he is 'pro-choice' and supports the legalization of marijuana.

It really just hit me a moment ago that, when reduced to its simplest form, people are choosing someone to lead an entire country primarily based on the premise of wanting consequence-free sex and drugs.  How is this the real world?  🫤

Edited November 14, 2024 by person0

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Ironhold said:

They could well have won if they'd have run a competent campaign and given square answers to the public instead of waffling. 

You're assuming they were even capable of that.  I'm not just saying this just because she was the opposition candidate.  I honestly don't believe that either Tim nor Kamala have the public speaking skills to be able to give straightforward answers in a clear and concise manner.

This is actually an indictment on the leftist media.  They honestly thought she was a competent public official.  They honestly thought she had more than two brain cells and could string together a coherent sentence.  Even after all the word salad that she was known for, they believed in her. 

I saw one survey that showed that over 60% of Kamala voters did not think she was competent.  They just wanted to vote against Trump.  That's how much hatred the left was able to drum up.

The entire campaign wasn't about how great Kamala was.  It was about "I'm not Trump."  Well, that didn't work.

[JohnsonJones]

On 11/12/2024 at 12:38 PM, NeuroTypical said:

 I mean yes, it'll be nice if they can destroy the dept of education and just fork all that $$ directly to the states.   It would be nicer if the whole thing ended up costing less $$ than what we have now.  B

That money isn't going to go to the states.  The DoE is what gave that money to the states.  Once the DoE is gone, that money is not going to go anywhere close to the states at all anymore.

There will still be the taxes that bring that money to the government, but it's going to stay with the government (for who knows what, ideally it would be to pay down the deficit and debt, but if we see what Trump has done in the past, it will more likely go to enrich someone instead and the deficit will grow regardless).

[JohnsonJones]

On 11/12/2024 at 2:37 PM, Phoenix_person said:

They needed a bigger win in the House to nullify the Freedom Caucus' obstructive shenanigans. 

Dems are currently having a "come to Jesus" moment about messaging. It was actually the main topic of an organizer meeting I attended last night. The tricky part is going to be reaching out to swing voters and disenfranchised Dem voters close to center without compromising our support for the LGBTQ community. I think the "woke" messaging has a time and place, but Dems have insisted on making it a major part of their national messaging. 

I'm obviously super biased, but I hope Tim Walz makes another run at the White House. Having a party run by people from New York and California hasn't gotten us anywhere. I'm very encouraged by the news that Ken Martin may be one of the frontrunners for DNC Chair. He doesn't have Walz's Midwest charm, but he oversaw some impressive legislative and electoral victories, including two legislative sessions with a DFL trifecta. Minnesota is a blue(ish) spot in a sea of red. MSP was the only metro in the Midwest that got more blue this year instead of less (the DFL is giving rent control credit for that). We consider ourselves a sanctuary for trans youth, refugees, and women seeking prenatal care, but we're also run by a party of farmers and union workers (though I fear we're losing the former). I don't think I brought up trans rights once in all my door-knocking and phonebanking sessions this fall. Most voters don't care about that. They care about grocery prices, affordable housing, and health care reform. I wish the national Dem ads would have focused more on that and less on Trump.

You know, the obvious choices seem to be simply ignored by the DNC.

Mark Kelly or  Shapiro were the Obvious choices for a VP selection this time around, yet they chose someone who was from a relatively safe state that wouldn't really bring anything to the election itself (sorry, but Walz just didn't bring anything that would help Harris win iMO). 

Shapiro would have had the midwest just as well as Walz, but with the added bonus that he probably could have brought PA to her.

Mark Kelly on the otherhand has all the hallmarks that make people want to vote for him, Tragedy he overcame, American Hero, military experience, etc. 

To me, he should be the obvious rally point for the DNC...but will they choose something like that?

Nope, they'll probably go for someone that manages to offend everyone, even their own party members.

I also highlighted the groceries and affordable housing items above.  That's one item I think really sunk the Democrat message this election.  It doesn't matter how good they say the economy is (and I heard it repeatedly) if a young student or young adult can't afford to buy food and is one rent raise away from not being able to afford to pay to live where they are currently living. 

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I absolutely agree that democrats show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter. 

Republicans who “saw this coming”  show their arrogance and sense of superiority towards the average voter as well. 

In the past week I’ve met many people who “saw this coming.” They didn’t. It’s hindsight blurring their minds. These are the same people who saw 2008 coming yet still lost all their money because in reality, they can’t see the future either. 

I saw this coming.  I even have posts in the forum to show i saw this coming (or at least Trump becoming President again). 

I'm not a Republican (and definitely not someone who supports Trump, which is probably very obvious from those same posts).

In truth, (I don't think it's you influencing me) I think I may actually be leaning more towards a libertarian viewpoint these days.

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't think it's you influencing me

Ouch. Dude! 😉 

[Carborendum]

OK, so the AP has finally called it as well.  Two more districts are now Red.

A couple more may still be coming.

So, yeah, trifecta.

[Carborendum]

Senate Seats RECOUNT:

PA: Dave McCormick (R) wins by 0.4% = 26,000 votes (as of this writing).  Bob Casey (D) has demanded a recount.
WI: Tammy Baldwin (D) wins by 0.9% = 29,000 votes (as of this writing). Eric Hovde (R) has demanded a recount.

Both protesters are legally allowed to require a recount when the margin is less than 1%.  So, we'll see how it goes.

[Ironhold]

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I understand that, and looking back of course it makes sense now. 

I’ve been flooded these past several days with people who suddenly possess the great power of prophecy. When I ask them to put money in the stock market or place money on the Steelers vs Bears, they are suddenly quiet.

Everyone is a prophet-but when asked to put money on it, crickets. 

It *used* to be that several companies, like Disney, Hasbro, and Activision - Blizzard were perpetual "buy and hold" stocks, with their down periods being more than overcome by their up periods. 

Nowadays, even I'm hesitant to invest in any one given company due to corporate negligence and corporate incompetence. 

[LDSGator]

22 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

It *used* to be that several companies, like Disney, Hasbro, and Activision - Blizzard were perpetual "buy and hold" stocks, with their down periods being more than overcome by their up periods. 

Nowadays, even I'm hesitant to invest in any one given company due to corporate negligence and corporate incompetence. 

And that’s my point. It’s easy to claim that you can see the future when your own income/reputation isn’t on the line. 

[Traveler]

Recently I was talking to a friend about the election.  His wife, a licensed therapist, stopped our discussion and said that she does not allow political discussions in her home – because such discussions cause disharmony and arguments.   As a side note – she is not a liberal – I would classify her as somewhat nonpolitical but most of her family, including her husband, are big time Rush Limbaugh conservative.  

Being the kind of person I am (curious – among other things) I asked for her personal opinion.  If two people have different opinions, concerns and issues it is your professional opinion that they avoid any real or serious communications?  I did not get an answer.  I do not think she likes me very much, but I was thanked by her husband.

As much as we may claim or give homage to freedom of speech – I think that we all have a limit to speech we are willing to tolerate in our presents.  I have voiced on several occasions that I am willing to listen to anyone’s opinions (and jokes) as long as vulgar language and references are not used.   There are some limits to free speech – a good discussion limits certain things or should I say has guiding principles that should not be violated. 

I am convinced that when someone crosses the threshold of anger, they are no longer capable of adding anything of value to whatever the conversation is.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Businesses with a social media presence can be wise to ban political speech.  If you're not specifically targeting a certain demographic of customer via their politics, the only result will be ticking off a segment of your customer base.   Now in the military friendly happily red county where I live, there are absolutely businesses that virtue signal this or that set of politics.  A local car wash has "freedom" in it's name, lots of American flags, and it's own radio station playing traditional Christmas music and various patriotic stuff.   There's a windshield replacement place I hear on the radio that advertises how gun friendly they are and talk smack about woke.  

Thirdhour used to not permit talk of politics.  The folks at mormondialogue continue to ban it. 

Yeah, anger isn't the only threshold someone can cross before discussing issues becomes a waste of time.  I'd add fear to the list.  Actually, it seems like fear and anger often o hand in hand in talking religion and politics.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

we all have a limit to speech we are willing to tolerate in our presents. 

I really hate it when I have to tolerate such talk.

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Recently I was talking to a friend about the election.  His wife, a licensed therapist, stopped our discussion and said that she does not allow political discussions in her home – because such discussions cause disharmony and arguments

It’s funny how everyone is raised differently. My parents always told me not to discuss religion/politics in public unless you are with close friends. However, in private we talked religion and politics all the time.  

[Just_A_Guy]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're assuming they were even capable of that.  I'm not just saying this just because she was the opposition candidate.  I honestly don't believe that either Tim nor Kamala have the public speaking skills to be able to give straightforward answers in a clear and concise manner.

This is actually an indictment on the leftist media.  They honestly thought she was a competent public official.  They honestly thought she had more than two brain cells and could string together a coherent sentence.  Even after all the word salad that she was known for, they believed in her. 

In fairness—inability to give an articulate, concise answer in a debate-type venue may make one a poor politician; but not necessarily a poor president or legislator.  If you’re a careful thinker and are given a question about policy—immediately seeing multiple sides of the issue (and quickly deriving from all of that, which is the superior side) is one skill set; but quickly distilling all of that down into a thoughtful, memorable, and easily-quotable sound byte that reasonably-accurately reflects your entire thought process, is quite another.  Kamala’s supporters made that point; and while I don’t think it applies to her specifically—it is, as a general matter, often true.

I am increasingly persuaded that the traditional style of one-on-one oral political debates in this country needs to die; to be replaced by unedited long-form podcast interviews with individual candidates and/or written debates done via dueling forum/blog post or news articles produced over a period of days or weeks.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am increasingly persuaded that the traditional style of one-on-one oral political debates in this country needs to die; to be replaced by unedited long-form podcast interviews with individual candidates and/or written debates done via dueling forum/blog post or news articles produced over a period of days or weeks.

Any forum where politicians are able (or more likely expected, or required) to explain their position on issues and defend those explanations from reasonable, well-thought-out criticisms would be greatly welcomed. One-on-one so-called debates, in-depth interviews, whatever. I care less about the format than about hearing something more substantial than slogans or empty platitudes.

Both political sides engage in such chicanery, but the Democrats seem to rely on it almost exclusively. At least Trump squeezed some actual policy ideas in between his quips and insults. I don't remember Harris offering any solid policy points on anything at all. Mainly she just exulted in how she wasn't Donald Trump, and apparently expected to coast to victory based on that fact. I'm so, so glad that such a soulless, cynical, vacuous strategy did not work. (This time, at least; I rather suspect that it was the winning factor in Biden's candidacy. Because let's be honest, what else did Biden offer? At his best, he was never particularly intelligent, and his "policies" were Democrat talking points. His presidency really exposed his apparent utter lack of any leadership skills or any real policy ideas beyond what his advisors and echo chamber offered.)

[NeuroTypical]

I still think there are things we might be able to learn from Māori style of issue discussion.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Lm6yYy/

 

(I’m only about half joking.  Hakas never turn violent. Ppl seem to get along fine with their opponents afterwords.)

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In fairness—inability to give an articulate, concise answer in a debate-type venue may make one a poor politician; but not necessarily a poor president or legislator.  If you’re a careful thinker and are given a question about policy—immediately seeing multiple sides of the issue (and quickly deriving from all of that, which is the superior side) is one skill set; but quickly distilling all of that down into a thoughtful, memorable, and easily-quotable sound byte that reasonably-accurately reflects your entire thought process, is quite another.  Kamala’s supporters made that point; and while I don’t think it applies to her specifically—it is, as a general matter, often true.

I am increasingly persuaded that the traditional style of one-on-one oral political debates in this country needs to die; to be replaced by unedited long-form podcast interviews with individual candidates and/or written debates done via dueling forum/blog post or news articles produced over a period of days or weeks.

While you make a good general point overall, it doesn't seem to apply to Kamala.  She's had long form interviews and she still gave us word salad.  She had opportunities to speak at length on any topic of her choosing in forums that she was the star and people were doting on her.  And she gave us meaningless platitudes and promises that were so generic and general that we couldn't really depend on what that would really mean.  She never went into the details of any plan or idea.  And she had the opportunity to prepare a well worded statement and explanation.  But she didn't.  All she really gave us was "I'm not Donald Trump."

She was given the opportunity to speak with Joe Rogan who is known for being the opposite of "gotcha journalism."  And he promised that it wouldn't be about policies or politics.  He just wanted to have a conversation to get to know Kamala the person rather than the candidate/politician.  She refused when she found out how long the interview/conversation would probably take.

Long form would have hurt her even more than sound bites, if that's even possible.  That's apparently why she declined.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Kamala’s supporters made that point; and while I don’t think it applies to her specifically—it is, as a general matter, often true.

Yes, exactly.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Businesses with a social media presence can be wise to ban political speech.  If you're not specifically targeting a certain demographic of customer via their politics, the only result will be ticking off a segment of your customer base.   

You know how every June there's a parade of companies and organizations that alter their logos on social media so that they appear to be pride flags? 

About 2 - 3 years ago, someone got curious and began looking at companies that had both overall social media accounts *and* individual regional accounts. 

BMW and a few others got busted for *not* changing their logos to the pride flag in places like China and the Middle East where homosexuality is still stigmatized or even illegal, with people rightly calling out the fact that this meant they were likely not actually supporting the rainbow but just after more green. 

Ever since then, every June people now start checking to see who does or doesn't flake out.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

You know how every June there's a parade of companies and organizations that alter their logos on social media so that they appear to be pride flags? 

Heh. 

 

Adopting the rainbow in June (at least in the US) is largely due to the overwhelming acceptance of LGBT stuff, partnered with new generations entering the workforce who demand social justice messaging from business.    We fight back and forth about the notion of 'go woke go broke', and we keep laughing at Disney for getting the balance wrong, but yep, it's certainly here to stay.

It's absolutely endemic for places where most folks are gen Y or younger.   Behold - the popular Marvel heroes battle game - with their June update celebrating love and designating certain characters as allies that earn you extra bonuses:

 

Any way, you won't find a car wash or a windshield place like the one in Colorado Springs in any other populated place in the state.   We're about the only red city left in the state, and we're not ashamed.

I drive north to Denver for lunch with someone and go to the ice cream place with a warning sign saying "no haters allowed" and lots of pride flags and whatnot.  Standard blue city, and they're not ashamed.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

but yep, it's certainly here to stay.

No it's not. As soon as the Lord comes, it will go.