Trump just lost the election

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 8/25/2024 at 9:11 AM, Carborendum said:

Liberals tend not to understand what "getting rid of Roe" means.  It doesn't mean abortion is to be banned all across the country in all cases.  It simply means that it is a controversial enough issue that we shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

On demand abortion demand to me means people want to whoremonger and then not have to deal with the consequences.  I believe it was a recent poll that said about seventy percent of Americans questioned think fornication is okay as long as both individuals are consenting.  It is sad that our nation has become so full of iniquity.

(And yes, I also believe there are exceptions for abortion.  Rape and incest and mother's life being in jeopardy are exceptions which are also very rare abortions.)

[Carborendum]

On 8/25/2024 at 8:32 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Coherent messaging:

To be fair, we have to temper these stats.  Some were Biden's fault.  Some were chance.  Some were luck, etc.

1. Trump inflation was slightly better than average.  Biden's was largely Trump's fault.  Remember the 2 year lag.  The inflation after the 2 year lag was higher than normal, but not terrible.

2. Gas prices were absolutely due to the Trump and Biden in their respective tenures.  I was in the midst of the oil industry.  And everything was specifically the President's fault.

3. Mortgage rates were fantastic under Trump.  Biden's spiked pretty high for maybe 6 months.  But apart from that, it was only slightly above historical rates.

4. Rent costs and housing prices went through the roof under Biden.  This was due to policies relating to the border and policing.  So, yes, they were due to the respective Presidents.

5. Nasdaq was due to the respective Presidents.  But Trump pulled a Bill Clinton.  They both had fiscal polcies that benefited them in the short term.  But would later result in bad economic times for their successors.

6. Grocery store prices were partially just a matter of inflation/monetary policy and partially how the FDA and and USDA handled farming during those eras.  Really bad bureaucracy.

7. Electricity was definitely due to the energy policies and trade policies of the President of the time.

8. Real hourly wages are due to a HUGE conglomeration of cause-effect chains that it is difficult to tell.  But one thing we can say is that Trump allowed for a lot more free market forces to balance themselves.  And to me, that worked well.

Edited August 29, 2024 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/us-army-rebukes-trump-campaign-arlington-incident/index.html
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/furious-veterans-slam-trump-team-s-altercation-at-arlington-national-cemetery/ar-AA1pBdGh
 

Trump angers veterans again. 

[Manners Matter]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/us-army-rebukes-trump-campaign-arlington-incident/index.html
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/furious-veterans-slam-trump-team-s-altercation-at-arlington-national-cemetery/ar-AA1pBdGh
 

Trump angers veterans again. 

Those are not legitimate news sources.

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, Manners Matter said:

Those are not legitimate news sources.

Okay. I get the feeling that any negative story about trump would get the same reaction, but this happened, and vets are angry. 

Edited August 29, 2024 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Okay. I get the feeling that any negative story about trump would get the same reaction, but this happened, and some vets are angry. 

 

Article said some were not.

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Article said some were not.

 

[Manners Matter]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Okay. I get the feeling that any negative story about trump would get the same reaction, but this happened, and vets are angry. 

They can be angry all they want but according to John Kirby (White House National Security Communications Advisor), Trump was invited by one or more of the families of the victims so there's that.

"And then, on your second question, I would say there are many ways that we as a nation and our leaders can observe the third anniversary of Abbey Gate. And Mr. Trump was invited by at least one, I think maybe several, of the families to lay a wreath at Arlington, and that is certainly a way to recognize the sacrifice and the loss. But it was a personal invitation by families."

 

Furthmore, permission had been given (by the cemetery and families)

Edited August 29, 2024 by Manners Matter

[mirkwood]

@LDSGator

 

Truth Details | Truth Social

 

Also see post above. 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Manners Matter said:

They can be angry all they want but according to John Kirby (White House National Security Communications Advisor), Trump was invited by one or more of the families of the victims so there's that.

"And then, on your second question, I would say there are many ways that we as a nation and our leaders can observe the third anniversary of Abbey Gate. And Mr. Trump was invited by at least one, I think maybe several, of the families to lay a wreath at Arlington, and that is certainly a way to recognize the sacrifice and the loss. But it was a personal invitation by families."

 

Furthmore, permission had been given (by the cemetery and families)

No one is saying he shouldn't have been there at all. The issue is that he shot video there and used it to take a jab at Biden on social media. I watched the video against my better judgement. It's sickening, and I would feel the same way if Kamala did something like that. 

35 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

@LDSGator

 

Truth Details | Truth Social

 

Also see post above. 

It doesn't matter if the family gave permission, and I doubt a few photos would have been an issue. The cemetery has rules in place to ensure that ALL of its occupants are treated with dignity and respect. Using a cemetery visit to make a self-promoting Tik Tok video is disrespectful and vile. I lost two friends to the Iraq War and brought a whole battalion of demons home with me. Military cemeteries are sacred to me and thousands of veterans.

And we lost 2,459 soldiers in Afghanistan, not 13. Every time someone (and it's always a Republican using violence against us as a political talking point) mentions the "13 troops", it makes my blood boil. Yes, those deaths were every bit as tragic as the other 2,446 and probably could have been avoided. And yes, I have serious beef with Biden about that. But hyperfixating on those 13 deaths is a calculated political play, and it's disgusting. I know not all vets share my sentiment, but quite a few do. We're not a monolith.

 

Edited August 29, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, Manners Matter said:

Those are not legitimate news sources.

How about this one??

army responds to alleged incident at cemetery

BEFORE I start quoting, I'd like to say something for once.  This outrage by Democrats is manufactured in my opinion.  Joe Biden filmed in the SAME AREA and used footage of it for his ads while campaigning.  This is a hypocritical move by individuals.

If I were Trump's campaign staff I'd start bringing those campaign ads which Biden USED during the campaign showing him there as evidence of the other sides hypocrisy in this.  They have no right to be outraged as they did the same thing already several years ago.

That said...Now I'll quote the article.

Quote

The Army claimed that the cemetery worker “acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption.”

“This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked,” the statement said. “ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve.”

also

Quote

However, Cheung posted a statement that Trump’s team received from ANC about media guidance and rules surrounding the event, saying that Trump was allowed to have his media team with him.

“Only former President Trump may have an official photographer and/or videographer outside of the main media pool,” the statement said. “If any of the other attendees DVs would like to bring media, they must arrive at 7:00 a.m. and be incorporated into the press pool. We recommend against bringing additional media due to limited space available in the press pool.”

 

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

It doesn't matter if the family gave permission, and I doubt a few photos would have been an issue. The cemetery has rules in place to ensure that ALL of its occupants are treated with dignity and respect. Using a cemetery visit to make a self-promoting Tik Tok video is disrespectful and vile. I lost two friends to the Iraq War and brought a whole battalion of demons home with me. Military cemeteries are sacred to me and thousands of veterans.

So, what I understand the rules were, is that the filming was not supposed to be for any political matter, but they were allowed to film and take pictures.  However, positioning it strictly as a political move and a political ad is what is the actual problem and where they got in trouble.

The problem is that those complaining are not actually FOCUSING on this part, but focusing on something that actually was done legally and taking outrage for that.

It is POSSIBLE that because they are taking this outrage at the WRONG thing, the army (from what I've heard) have already closed the case.  They made a statement and said the matter was closed.

From what I have heard, those families who were part of the 13 service members being honored who are also Trump supporters were actually very honored to have him there doing this.  I have heard that there was at least one family who were not there? that were not favorable to it.

I feel it's more complex than some are trying to make it out to be...however neither side is really truly being honest here.  The ones that I think it would affect most would be the families of those 13 service members.  It is obvious that some of those families were VERY happy with this event. 

Just remember, when you are shaming this event, you are ALSO shaming them and calling those families out and saying they should not be happy or honored with something they were happy and honored with.

At the SAME time, there is at least one family (and maybe more) that was NOT happy with this event.  When we try to say this was a great thing and nothing was wrong with it, perhaps remember that these people feel dishonored by it and by putting this event on a pedestal we are dishonoring their wishes about this.

Which means, I think the actual way to handle this is FAR more complex than any of us are actually willing to admit.  This is why there was the thing about not making this about politics if they were to film there.  Adding the political component makes this a no win situation for anybody, because with every way you try to frame it or go with it, someone is going to be unhappy and you will end up dishonoring some family or another.

 

PS: For clarity of how my opinion on this was formed...I should add, that my source for much of my information on this is actually biased, at least people here may think it was biased.  I heard an analysis of this on NPR today.  It was interesting that they were highlighting the actual problems vs. what is being portrayed by social media groups online. 

Edited August 30, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Phoenix_person]

52 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just remember, when you are shaming this event, you are ALSO shaming them and calling those families out and saying they should not be happy or honored with something they were happy and honored with.

Nope. As I said, there was nothing wrong with the premise of the event. 

 

54 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Which means, I think the actual way to handle this is FAR more complex than any of us are actually willing to admit.  This is why there was the thing about not making this about politics if they were to film there.  Adding the political component makes this a no win situation for anybody, because with every way you try to frame it or go with it, someone is going to be unhappy and you will end up dishonoring some family or another.

It's not complex at all. Don't politicize the graves of US soldiers. Pretty simple, really. The problem with Trump is that he's literally incapable of not making everything about him.

[Phoenix_person]

He's now on shaky ground with the pro-life movement after seeming open to voting for Florida's Amendment 4, which would effectively undo the 6 week abortion ban that went into effect earlier this year. He's also been consistent in refusing to commit to a nationwide abortion ban.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article291684245.html

 

[mirkwood]

@Phoenix_person 

Quote

I know not all vets share my sentiment

That was actually my point.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

He's now on shaky ground with the pro-life movement 

One thing Trump is doing, is pretty much single-handedly dragging the Republican party into the 21st century by changing the “no abortions never ever ever ever ever“ mantra.

He’s leading the charge to make it socially acceptable to be a right winger and talk openly about how exceptions for life of the mother and rape might not mean you’re going to burn in hell.

You should vote for him, Phoenix. He will do more good for the world than Kamala will.

Edited August 30, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

One thing Trump is doing, is pretty much single-handedly dragging the Republican party into the 21st century by changing the “no abortions never ever ever ever ever“ mantra.

Gay marriage will be next. 

[mirkwood]

Quote

Joe Biden filmed in the SAME AREA and used footage of it for his ads while campaigning. 

 

 

But it wasn't Trump so the left will ignore it.  I'm pretty sure if I start digging I can come up with Kamala, Obama, Clinton and a host of other Dems doing the same thing.  But. Not. A. Word. from the lefties.

[Carborendum]

I believe that the sentiment that Pro-abortionists put forth about a year before Roe was the correct position for America.  It was the position that the Church supported at the time.  And it is the position the Church still supports today.

• Abortions should be safe, legal, and RARE.
• They should be allowed ONLY under the standard exceptions.  

How to apply those conditions is difficult to sort out. And historically, this is why states had different laws regarding abortion.  And we were in the early stages of allowing society to feel its way through the right and wrong of what should be legal and illegal.

Then Roe came around and completely derailed the natural societal method of growing into a solution.  We now have the opportunity to allow society to grow into an equilibrium.  Between now and then, we'll have growing pains.  We'll have disagreements. We'll have times when both sides will misfire.  But we need to allow society to have the freedom to grow into that solution.

Until then, every politician will say something that is controversial... even to their own side.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

One thing Trump is doing, is pretty much single-handedly dragging the Republican party into the 21st century by changing the “no abortions never ever ever ever ever“ mantra.

He’s leading the charge to make it socially acceptable to be a right winger and talk openly about how exceptions for life of the mother and rape might not mean you’re going to burn in hell.

That wasn't lost on me. As painful as it is to admit, Trump is generally pretty pragmatic on policy, especially social issues. He used to be a Democrat, after all. That's what makes him so appealing to conservatives like you. I get that.

I also get that he's a raging narcissist who custom-built his own hateful corner of the GOP using xenophobia and fear-mongering. THOSE folks aren't going to move to center on abortion, and quite a few of those folks have worked their way into elected office. THEY'RE the ones shaping abortion policy in the reddest states, and they're not going to follow Trump's lead on that issue.

There's also the small issue that I trust literally nothing Trump says about actual policy because he's a well-documented serial liar who knows how to control messaging based on his audience. I suppose that doesn't make him terribly different from most politicians, but most competent politicians at least know how to work with opposition to find common ground and compromises. Trump thinks he can run the government like a corporation, but he doesn't realize that it's not the voters playing the role of the board of directors. We're all shareholders, but the board is made up of the other people we send to DC, many of whom Trump has labeled as Swamp™️ creatures. And I'm supposed to think he can work with them? His biggest accomplishment was a tax bill that will increase the deficit unless either Dems undo it or the GOP slashes Medicare and Social Security. His health care reform effort failed under a GOP majority and his successor passed the largest infrastructure bill in the nation's history. He loaded SCOTUS with justices who set reproductive rights back decades and will likely do the same to LGBT rights if given the chance. His resume doesn't impress me much.

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You should vote for him, Phoenix. He will do more good for the world than Kamala will.

Nope. See above. This election is bigger than policy. I'm not going to vote for the guy who watched the mob he incited storm the nation's capitol to stop an act dictated by the Constitution I was once sworn to defend. I won't vote for a guy who represents a movement that actively cheers the suicide rate of the transgender community and wants to inspect the genitals of every child that competes in sports. I won't vote for a guy whose inner circle has included several convicted felons and Jeffery Epstein. I won't vote for a guy who might try to throw a J6 sequel if he loses. I consider most of the posters here to be pretty reasonable people, but it's concerning how deeply the distrust of our electoral process has been ingrained even here. I'm not saying it doesn't have weaknesses, but so far no one has shown me anything remotely convincing enough to legitimize the idea that the 2020 election outcome was fraudulent (and it's certainly not for lack of people trying). What we DO have evidence of is Trump trying to get the Georgia SoS to find him some spare votes. Sounds kinda fraudulent, no?

I've long given up hope that any elected US president will do any real good in the world in my lifetime. That's why I try to put more time and energy into local elections these days and pull for the least bad option in the White House. It's also why you'll rarely see me gush over people serving in or running for federal office*. Locally, the DFL is doing great things, and the GOP is struggling to keep the lights on (a problem not unique to Minnesota).

I've lived in four US states in my life. Minnesota is the most progressive** of the four, and I don’t think it's a coincidence that it's also the best all-around place I've lived (and by a fairly wide margin). I have never considered myself a Democrat and probably never will, but they're the closest ideological match for me (I'm not convinced that the DSA is actually a serious political org), and they're gradually moving closer. 

*Except Walz. The people in my org (which endorsed his primary opponent in 2018) love the man to death, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a little infectious. Most DFLers would take a bullet for that man.

**Progressive in the ways that matter. Maryland and California aren't the states I'd showcase there. Heck, the best governor Maryland's had in decades was a Republican.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

That wasn't lost on me. As painful as it is to admit, Trump is generally pretty pragmatic on policy, especially social issues. He used to be a Democrat, after all. That's what makes him so appealing to conservatives like you. I get that.

I also get that he's a raging narcissist who custom-built his own hateful corner of the GOP using xenophobia and fear-mongering. THOSE folks aren't going to move to center on abortion, and quite a few of those folks have worked their way into elected office. THEY'RE the ones shaping abortion policy in the reddest states, and they're not going to follow Trump's lead on that issue.

There's also the small issue that I trust literally nothing Trump says about actual policy because he's a well-documented serial liar who knows how to control messaging based on his audience. I suppose that doesn't make him terribly different from most politicians, but most competent politicians at least know how to work with opposition to find common ground and compromises. Trump thinks he can run the government like a corporation, but he doesn't realize that it's not the voters playing the role of the board of directors. We're all shareholders, but the board is made up of the other people we send to DC, many of whom Trump has labeled as Swamp™️ creatures. And I'm supposed to think he can work with them? His biggest accomplishment was a tax bill that will increase the deficit unless either Dems undo it or the GOP slashes Medicare and Social Security. His health care reform effort failed under a GOP majority and his successor passed the largest infrastructure bill in the nation's history. He loaded SCOTUS with justices who set reproductive rights back decades and will likely do the same to LGBT rights if given the chance. His resume doesn't impress me much.

Nope. See above. This election is bigger than policy. I'm not going to vote for the guy who watched the mob he incited storm the nation's capitol to stop an act dictated by the Constitution I was once sworn to defend. I won't vote for a guy who represents a movement that actively cheers the suicide rate of the transgender community and wants to inspect the genitals of every child that competes in sports. I won't vote for a guy whose inner circle has included several convicted felons and Jeffery Epstein. I won't vote for a guy who might try to throw a J6 sequel if he loses. I consider most of the posters here to be pretty reasonable people, but it's concerning how deeply the distrust of our electoral process has been ingrained even here. I'm not saying it doesn't have weaknesses, but so far no one has shown me anything remotely convincing enough to legitimize the idea that the 2020 election outcome was fraudulent (and it's certainly not for lack of people trying). What we DO have evidence of is Trump trying to get the Georgia SoS to find him some spare votes. Sounds kinda fraudulent, no?

I've long given up hope that any elected US president will do any real good in the world in my lifetime. That's why I try to put more time and energy into local elections these days and pull for the least bad option in the White House. It's also why you'll rarely see me gush over people serving in or running for federal office*. Locally, the DFL is doing great things, and the GOP is struggling to keep the lights on (a problem not unique to Minnesota).

I've lived in four US states in my life. Minnesota is the most progressive** of the four, and I don’t think it's a coincidence that it's also the best all-around place I've lived (and by a fairly wide margin). I have never considered myself a Democrat and probably never will, but they're the closest ideological match for me (I'm not convinced that the DSA is actually a serious political org), and they're gradually moving closer. 

*Except Walz. The people in my org (which endorsed his primary opponent in 2018) love the man to death, and I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a little infectious. Most DFLers would take a bullet for that man.

**Progressive in the ways that matter. Maryland and California aren't the states I'd showcase there. Heck, the best governor Maryland's had in decades was a Republican.

Before I begin, I would make clear that I am not a fan of Trump – especially for president.  But there are some things about your post that I believe ought to be addressed:

First – I would agree that Trump has narcissistic tendencies.  I am not sure that calling him a raging narcissist is clinically accurate.  I would also interject that every professional politician (holding such a position as a lifelong pursuit) has narcissistic tendencies.  I would also interject that those that resort to name calling in the political arena by the nature of such also qualify as narcissistic in my mind and also have a tendency towards what you call “raging”.  I do not believe that a searl liar is capable of introducing the Abraham Accords and bring the world closer to peace.

Second – I would agree that Trump tends to exaggerate issues that he is passionate about.  I do not believe that qualifies him or anyone else that does so as a serial liar.   Again, I have not encountered any politician that does not tend to exaggerate the issues they champion or skew what their opponents have said or done.  I do believe that to testify falsely before an official magistrate fully qualifies as bearing false witness against you neighbor – the worse kind of a lie in my mind (which is exactly what was done to Trump at a FISA Court on 16 points of accusations).   I personally believe that bearing false witness against one’s neighbor does technically qualify someone as a serial liar.

I realize that in political arenas there is a tendence to talk about candidates.  I do believe that on this forum we ought to avoid name calling (such as raging narcissist or serial liar and talk specifically about promises in campaigning as opposed to actual efforts and accomplishments.)    I oppose Trump as president because I do not believe he is either capable himself or capable of putting together a team to address the corruption of Washington DC.  This was what I thought was his primary issue when he ran the first time and I really to do have a clear understanding what he intends this time around.  The only reason that I can see for anyone to support Trump is to keep the democratic party establishment from continuing down their demonstrated path as has been established during the past 3 democratic presidents.  In particular issues surrounding Israel  and even more so what was done under the current administration concerning the Abraham Accords.  Congress has been so economically undisciplined I do not understand why any current member of the House or Senate should be reelected.

 

The Traveler

[Suzie]

Historian Allan Lichtman (a professor with an impressive track at predicting the outcome of presidential elections) made his prediction today and said that Kamala Harris will become the next President.

[Carborendum]

Be prepared for Russia! Russia! Russia! again.

Meanwhile all the China! China! China! blatantly going on in the Oval Office is being buried.

Edited September 6, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ironhold]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Be prepared for Russia! Russia! Russia! again.

Meanwhile all the China! China! China! blatantly going on in the Oval Office is being buried.

Already happening.

Russia, it's alleged, used a series of cut-outs, including a rabid anti-Trump pundit, to finance the Tenet Media Group, which managed several online figures who espoused libertarian and conservative viewpoints. 

Even though the Department of Justice has declared that the online figures themselves are innocent victims who had no reason to distrust Tenet and had no direct ties to Russia, Harris sycophants are none-the-less spreading the lie that the online figures were all Russian operatives. 

[LDSGator]

20 hours ago, Suzie said:

Historian Allan Lichtman (a professor with an impressive track at predicting the outcome of presidential elections) made his prediction today and said that Kamala Harris will become the next President.

While I agree with Lichtman (even though I’m voting libertarian) I worry that the left falls into the same trap as the right. They only agree with news they already agree with. I’m sure I could find professors/historians who think Trump will win too.