USA Election 2024

[MEJHarrison]

Wow! Just wow. Guess some of you are going to have to rethink your positions.

Rethinking...

Ok, I'm done. Doesn't change my vote. The choices still seem to be someone who is awesome and fantastic who might not agree with me 100% on every single issue. And on the other side is an old weirdo who I disagree with on pretty much every single issue.

I'm not sure what rethinking was going to accomplish. The basic facts are still the same. If you think this is going to sway votes and changes mind, I'd suggest you start paying more attention to our dislikes. They run slightly deeper than building a stupid wall. And if you thought I was going to be outraged at my candidate of choice, well you missed that mark too. When someone is a good and decent person, others tend not to turn on them at the drop of a hat.

Then I actually read the article you posted. The real story seems to be that she supports the bipartisan border bill the other guy had killed. Part of that bill, part of the bipartisan compromise, is to build some wall. To say she supports building a wall is technically true, but entirely misleading. She's in support of the much larger border bill, not that particular section of the bill.

It was a fun round of mud-slinging, but you seem to have missed the target. If you did get some mud on her, you'll need to point it out since I've missed it.

 

[KingOfPain]

Walz vs Vance contrast:

 

[Yoused]

Spoiler: Vance, on

Spoiler: Randy Rainbow

​

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Walz vs Vance contrast:

If Biden was still in the race Vance would be running around going "women are braindead sperm banks" while right-wing media would respond with "Finally some refreshing honesty this country desperately needs. The Trump/Vance ticket has to be the best in my lifetime." Alito and Thomas would entertain rescinding women’s right to vote based on this groundbreaking assertion.

But something changed.

 

[fooferdoggie]

 

[Yoused]

Geez, that cartoonist looks like he is channeling Gerald Scarfe. It is time we build The Wall around Individual-ONE.

 

[Yoused]

ShitGibbon says that if Jesus came down and counted the votes, he would win California (what part of Mexico Jesus is coming down from is not clear).


link goes to Xwixxex, sorry

 

[rdrr]

Rethinking...

Ok, I'm done. Doesn't change my vote. The choices still seem to be someone who is awesome and fantastic who might not agree with me 100% on every single issue. And on the other side is an old weirdo who I disagree with on pretty much every single issue.

I'm not sure what rethinking was going to accomplish. The basic facts are still the same. If you think this is going to sway votes and changes mind, I'd suggest you start paying more attention to our dislikes. They run slightly deeper than building a stupid wall. And if you thought I was going to be outraged at my candidate of choice, well you missed that mark too. When someone is a good and decent person, others tend not to turn on them at the drop of a hat.

Then I actually read the article you posted. The real story seems to be that she supports the bipartisan border bill the other guy had killed. Part of that bill, part of the bipartisan compromise, is to build some wall. To say she supports building a wall is technically true, but entirely misleading. She's in support of the much larger border bill, not that particular section of the bill.

It was a fun round of mud-slinging, but you seem to have missed the target. If you did get some mud on her, you'll need to point it out since I've missed it.

Didn't you know you were suppose to feel shame? I mean lets face it, everything we say and do is hypocritical. While people like @Herdfan can ignore, deflect, and or change the goal post to any item where the party of the orange turd acts and or says anything contradictory to past positions or actions. /s

 

[Roller]

Don’t care why it didn’t pass.

It’s more about how most posters here are/were 110% AGAINST the wall.

Just wondering if they are all of a sudden going to be OK with it now their candidate is supporting it.

What DO you care about? If you just get off pointing out every inconsistency and perceived flaw with Democratic candidates' positions and suitability for office while ignoring or downplaying the vastly greater threat posed by Trump and what the GOP has become, your contributions here are meaningless. I have great respect for what conservatives used to stand for, even though I often disagreed with their policies. But Trump and Vantz aren't conservative, they're evil.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

CNN dabbling in fake news again. They did a focus group of undecided voters after the DNC to get their opinion. One man said he’s voting for Trump after the DNC.

Issue #1. Even a minimal check of his social media shows he’s clearly pro Trump and far right. Nothing in there shows he’s ever soured on Trump. He even supported the stolen election narrative. So I guess their vetting of undecided voters was absolute zero.

However, issue #2. According to him CNN knew he’s pro Trump. If true, then they lied about the undecided voters label and tossed him in to support the horse race narrative and/or attempt to look less biased.

Not the biggest bombshell of this election cycle, but of course right wing media is using this guy as an example of how Trump is winning over voters even in enemy news media territory, especially after the DNC.

 

[Eric]

CNN dabbling in fake news again. They did a focus group of undecided voters after the DNC to get their opinion. One man said he’s voting for Trump after the DNC.

Issue #1. Even a minimal check of his social media shows he’s clearly pro Trump and far right. Nothing in there shows he’s ever soured on Trump. He even supported the stolen election narrative. So I guess their vetting of undecided voters was absolute zero.

However, issue #2. According to him CNN knew he’s pro Trump. If true, then they lied about the undecided voters label and tossed him in to support the horse race narrative and/or attempt to look less biased.

Not the biggest bombshell of this election cycle, but of course right wing media is using this guy as an example of how Trump is winning over voters even in enemy news media territory, especially after the DNC.

They're doing everything they can to drum up controversy where it doesn't exist. Kamala could lead by 30 points and they would say "it's neck and neck, it's Trump's election to lose".

However, what's different this time is the people are actually driving the narrative and NOT cable news and the regular nightly news broadcasts are actually reporting what's really going on. But yeah, keep trying to stay relevant, CNN.

 

[rdrr]

CNN dabbling in fake news again. They did a focus group of undecided voters after the DNC to get their opinion. One man said he’s voting for Trump after the DNC.

Issue #1. Even a minimal check of his social media shows he’s clearly pro Trump and far right. Nothing in there shows he’s ever soured on Trump. He even supported the stolen election narrative. So I guess their vetting of undecided voters was absolute zero.

However, issue #2. According to him CNN knew he’s pro Trump. If true, then they lied about the undecided voters label and tossed him in to support the horse race narrative and/or attempt to look less biased.

Not the biggest bombshell of this election cycle, but of course right wing media is using this guy as an example of how Trump is winning over voters even in enemy news media territory, especially after the DNC.

I am pretty much done with CNN. I use to have their news site up all the time, and watched them and MSNBC consistently. I stopped my daily consumption of both near the end of Trump's term. Mostly because it seemed to be the same thing everyday. I have been an occasional consumer of CNN since Biden was in office, but over the past year or more it just has seemed to take a very hard right turn. I am convinced most of the MSM has learned their viewership is greater with Trump being in the headlines than without him. Anyway... That is just my opinion.

 

[dada_dave]

CNN dabbling in fake news again. They did a focus group of undecided voters after the DNC to get their opinion. One man said he’s voting for Trump after the DNC.

Issue #1. Even a minimal check of his social media shows he’s clearly pro Trump and far right. Nothing in there shows he’s ever soured on Trump. He even supported the stolen election narrative. So I guess their vetting of undecided voters was absolute zero.

However, issue #2. According to him CNN knew he’s pro Trump. If true, then they lied about the undecided voters label and tossed him in to support the horse race narrative and/or attempt to look less biased.

Not the biggest bombshell of this election cycle, but of course right wing media is using this guy as an example of how Trump is winning over voters even in enemy news media territory, especially after the DNC.

Yup a classic. The NYT did this for years again after it was pointed out that their “panel of undecideds” were all pretty openly Trump supporters. But they all do it.

 

[Edd]

I am pretty much done with CNN. I use to have their news site up all the time, and watched them and MSNBC consistently. I stopped my daily consumption of both near the end of Trump's term. Mostly because it seemed to be the same thing everyday. I have been an occasional consumer of CNN since Biden was in office, but over the past year or more it just has seemed to take a very hard right turn. I am convinced most of the MSM has learned their viewership is greater with Trump being in the headlines than without him. Anyway... That is just my opinion.

Yeah, sure can't shake the feeling that the news stations want us to think it's always a horse race, so the Dems get wins for a couple weeks, the Trump cult (because the GOP is dead) get wins for a couple of weeks, as long as they can keep it up. Kamala stepping in was a huge win for viewership without a doubt.

 

[Yoused]

News is also business, and business tends to do better under Republicans, so the media propping up the ShitGibbon is really no surprise, since he would enhance their bottom line.

 

[dada_dave]

They're doing everything they can to drum up controversy where it doesn't exist. Kamala could lead by 30 points and they would say "it's neck and neck, it's Trump's election to lose".

However, what's different this time is the people are actually driving the narrative and NOT cable news and the regular nightly news broadcasts are actually reporting what's really going on. But yeah, keep trying to stay relevant, CNN.

I am pretty much done with CNN. I use to have their news site up all the time, and watched them and MSNBC consistently. I stopped my daily consumption of both near the end of Trump's term. Mostly because it seemed to be the same thing everyday. I have been an occasional consumer of CNN since Biden was in office, but over the past year or more it just has seemed to take a very hard right turn. I am convinced most of the MSM has learned their viewership is greater with Trump being in the headlines than without him. Anyway... That is just my opinion.

And some journalists are beginning to notice:

As Maggie Haberman Unabashedly Joins the Kayfabe, Tim Walz Sings the Menards Jingle - emptywheel

The "influencers" that Kamala Harris has prioritized up to this point not only reach audiences that many mainstream audiences do not, but they provide other ways to communicate that will be critical to any attempt to beat Donald Trump.

www.emptywheel.net

Marcy Wheeler here quoting linked pieces from the Inquirer and Rolling Stone both coming to the conclusion that the media elite have made themselves irrelevant, “producing pieces largely for their colleagues and sources rather than the public”, and the Democrats have realized that social media, TikTok, influencers have more power amongst the people they actually want to reach.

 

[Eric]

Dana Bash gets the first interview since announcing, will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

And some journalists are beginning to notice:

As Maggie Haberman Unabashedly Joins the Kayfabe, Tim Walz Sings the Menards Jingle - emptywheel

The "influencers" that Kamala Harris has prioritized up to this point not only reach audiences that many mainstream audiences do not, but they provide other ways to communicate that will be critical to any attempt to beat Donald Trump.

www.emptywheel.net

Marcy Wheeler here quoting linked pieces from the Inquirer and Rolling Stone both coming to the conclusion that the media elite have made themselves irrelevant, “producing pieces largely for their colleagues and sources rather than the public”, and the Democrats have realized that social media, TikTok, influencers have more power amongst the people they actually want to reach.

Reminds me of a section in the book Shameless (mentioned in other posts) on the problem with Democrat messaging. Fox News is absolutely a Republican PR machine and there is a feedback loop between the 2. There’s no equivalent on the left. Democrats may give the mainstream news information or their agenda but then the mainstream news doesn’t really do much with it because they aren’t cheerleaders for the Democrat party. Yes, center to left leaning news media may attack Republicans but that’s not the exact same thing as heaping praise on Democrats the way Fox does on Republicans.

I don’t know if you should blame the news media or Democrats for that decades long dynamic, maybe both, but it’s clear at this point that deregulation coupled with capitalism and an abundance of noncorporate independent journalism has made mainstream media near irrelevant.

 

[Roller]

News is also business, and business tends to do better under Republicans, so the media propping up the ShitGibbon is really no surprise, since he would enhance their bottom line.

That's part of it, but I also think the media companies benefit when the race is characterized as neck-and-neck and when they show Trump being outrageous. It generates more page views and attracts more eyeballs for their platforms.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I always thought a wall was stupid, especially as a standalone policy position. Still do.