Biden stepping out of race

[River Dog]

Not so sure about that, Asea (& River). Have you heard or watched any Trump speeches lately? Trump is saying the most whacked stuff, especially after perhaps the all-time worst convention acceptance speech. I don’t have the time to share all the links of his recent nonsenses, but he’s been acting even worse since the assassination attempt. One would think that might have made him humbled him. Nope, he’s a complete ahole again. Biden steps out of race and he attacked him?! How is this showing leadership against a fellow American?

Trump was also very aloof when asked about P-25. Actually quite similar to his response about QAnon several years back. Obviously he knew a bunch about them! He knows about all of this because he wants to tilt the narrative to whatever wins. His cult will eat up all that nonsense.

Trump is the biggest phony of my lifetime, and it’s not close.

Also, Kamala might be left on some issues, but she was a hard a** AG. Tough on crime was taboo during the 2020 election, so she ran away from that. This experience is needed now. While she’s left on important social and environmental issues, she has expert-level crime prosecution acumen and sits on the executive branch. This is a cool combo. I’m rolling with Kamala and not looking back.

I've noticed Trump's behavior, too, and I agree that he's gotten worse since the assassination attempt. His trashing Joe Biden a day after he dropped out was the most classless act of any politician in my memory. And I agree, Trump is by far the biggest phony in my lifetime, too. That's one of the reasons why I never have and never will vote for him.

But I disagree with you about Harris being tough on crime. Here's a couple of examples:

Harris pushed back against California’s “three strikes” law, which triggered mandatory prison time after a third felony, by instructing her office not to prosecute unless the third offense was a serious or violent crime, according to Vox.

One of her biggest crossroads occurred over the death penalty, which she firmly opposed.

After a gang member fatally shot a police officer, she resisted massive calls to seek the death penalty in the case in an effort to stay steadfast in her principles.

The move angered not only the police union but several Democratic legislators, including then Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who called for the death penalty, according to the Times.

I don't trust her. She was consistently rated as one of the most liberal Senators during her time in the upper chamber, and my fear is that if elected, she's going to get pushed further left by the progressive wing of the Democratic party. But I still want to hear her out before I decide whether or not to vote for her or some independent/Libertarian.

[Aseahawkfan]

Not so sure about that, Asea (& River). Have you heard or watched any Trump speeches lately? Trump is saying the most whacked stuff, especially after perhaps the all-time worst convention acceptance speech. I don’t have the time to share all the links of his recent nonsenses, but he’s been acting even worse since the assassination attempt. One would think that might have made him humbled him. Nope, he’s a complete ahole again. Biden steps out of race and he attacked him?! How is this showing leadership against a fellow American?

Trump was also very aloof when asked about P-25. Actually quite similar to his response about QAnon several years back. Obviously he knew a bunch about them! He knows about all of this because he wants to tilt the narrative to whatever wins. His cult will eat up all that nonsense.

Trump is the biggest phony of my lifetime, and it’s not close.

Also, Kamala might be left on some issues, but she was a hard a** AG. Tough on crime was taboo during the 2020 election, so she ran away from that. This experience is needed now. While she’s left on important social and environmental issues, she has expert-level crime prosecution acumen and sits on the executive branch. This is a cool combo. I’m rolling with Kamala and not looking back.

Yes. I am sure.

Trump has been an asshat since his first election. I've watched this guy from way back when I read his book The Art of the Deal. I did not support Trump in 2016 because I know this guy so well. He's always been a narcissist. It's amusingly entertaining on TV, but annoying when president. I knew the guy didn't care about half the stuff coming out of his mouth. Even in his book The Art of the Deal he explains how he sells. He is very good at selling a vision to a person or crowd, which is why he stayed on TV for 20 plus years and just as a public person for 40 plus years because he knows how to sell and be engaging even if you don't like him.

But he's not for the working man. He's not for anyone but himself. All this stuff he's doing is literally like a bad movie about a rich asshole that for some reason grew bored and decided to become president. I knew this from the beginning which is why I didn't want him in the White House.

But Mr. Master Salesman is using his sales skill and carefully cultivated salesmanship to take the White House. Doesn't matter that the main people he helped were rich corporations and billionaires with almost nothing for the working man, he's got that magical salesmanship that let's him convince Joe the Conservative Plumber that he's fighting for him while he's geting corporate tax cuts to the 1% of the 1%. Sitting on a gold throne in interviews and surrounding himself with people who pump him full of hot air.

Trump's tweets annoyed the living hell out of me. He's already been saying looney crap for ages. Looney crap people like my mother and some of my friends buy into that I roll my eyes at and explain how wrong it is. But they don't care because they don't check much beyond what Fox News or Sky news or whatever tells them.

Really, they just hate the Democrats, so they'll vote for any Republican. Right now the Republicans could run Mickey Mouse and a lot of the Republican base would vote for Mickey based on pure hatred of Democrats. And vice versa.

The fact is the political media has divided this country. That is where the vast majority of Americans receive their political information. Most people are not capable of analytical thought, don't know how to read government bills filled with legal jargon and numbers they don't understand, and don't know what America is into on a national or global scale unless some media organization informs them. Take the CHIPS Act by the Biden Administration, this Bill mostly benefits big tech by providing massive monies and tax incentives for reshoring chip manufacturing and other important manufacturing operations, though it does provide more jobs its primary beneficiaries are companies with billion dollar balance sheets who have little interest in reshoring manufacturing unless there is a cost incentive to do so. Given both the Republicans and Democrats have been pro business parties pushing a global agenda for decades, the working person is mostly screwed with either party as the people at the top benefit whether a Republican or Democrat is in office with working people getting scraps they argue over whether they deserve them or not. Pretty amazing that wealthy people smile and pat each other on the back when they get tax cuts paid for by taxpayer dollars, but try to give a working person some kind of benefit and they'll argue with each other whether they deserve it or not with Democrats not thinking tax cuts for them are great and Republicans not wanting welfare when we give corporate welfare all the time like farm subsidies to corn producers or subsidies for cheap oil on Federal lands.

Most Americans have no idea how to follow the money. But Wall Street does. When the CHIPS Act passed, this is what Wall Street saw: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/chips-act-semiconductor-stocks-likely-to-benefit/

The wealth win no matter which party is in office, though they prefer Republicans because the lower taxes allow them to keep more of their profits whereas Democrat spending drives companies up and creates wealth, but why not have your cake and eat it too with Republicans.

It's just ridiculous how badly educated Americans are on how their country runs and what they should be seeking from government. Since the political media keeps them divided and hating each other, it's unlikely to change any time soon so working Americans could have life improvements that would meaningfully improve their lives in America.

[River Dog]

I read a good article that reinforces my opinion that PA Gov Josh Shapiro is the man who Kamala Harris should select as her running mate. It's pretty long, so I edited out some parts:

Republicans increasingly see one of the Democrats under consideration to be Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate as the most likely to offer her a boost and make their efforts trickier: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

These Republicans say that Shapiro, a first-term governor of a critical swing state, is someone who could help broaden Harris’ appeal with independent voters and traditional Democrats who are drifting away from the party, and help win over his home state — the most pivotal battleground on the presidential map, in their view.

In Shapiro, they see a governor who not only won in a 2022 landslide over state Sen. Doug Mastriano but is well regarded as an effective campaigner and messenger who has not totally alienated Pennsylvania Republicans in the process.
“I just think Shapiro is super strong,” one ally of former President Donald Trump said. “And Republicans should be concerned about it. If I were her, that would be the pick.”

This person added that Shapiro has avoided blistering attacks from Republican counterparts “because he’s actually pretty moderate,” adding that the governor, an observant Jew, could speak to disaffected voters of faith who years ago voted for Democrats but now feel detached from the party — and might even be a stronger candidate than Harris.

“Shapiro creates a super interesting dynamic,” this person added.

A second Trump ally said that while they did not view Shapiro as a moderate, they saw his “really nonthreatening” persona as having boosted his credibility with independents and Republicans. This person added that Shapiro is “the one that does the most to help her.”

“He’s the obvious one,” this person added. “So if it’s not him, there’s a reason that’s not him in my mind. Whether that is in the vetting or a personality clash. He’s the one that jumps out off the page as, ‘Why wouldn’t you pick that person?’”

Meanwhile, a veteran of GOP campaigns in Pennsylvania envisioned a scenario in which the battleground state becomes ground zero for the running mates.

“Gov. Shapiro would drive Democrat turnout in the collar counties of Philadelphia,” this person said, referring to the suburbs and exurbs surrounding the city. “If he’s the nominee I would expect JD Vance to live in Western PA while Shapiro lives in Bucks and Chester counties as we come down the home stretch.”

Shapiro’s bipartisan brand in Pennsylvania dates back years. He ran ahead of Biden and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton when he was on the ballot with them and was elected the state's attorney general. In 2022, NBC News exit polls showed he won 16% of Republicans in the governor's race. And a Philadelphia Inquirer/New York Times/Siena College survey from May, which showed his statewide approval rating at 57%, found that 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans approved of his handling of the job.

He’s broken with Democrats by backing school vouchers, speaking in support of school choice on Fox News. He has sharply condemned the rise of antisemitism, including at some pro-Palestinian protests, while also condemning Islamophobia. He won plaudits from Pennsylvania Republicans at all levels of government for his handling of the aftermath of the attempted assassination on Trump this month, which took place in his state.

“He handled the Trump shooting really well. Like a statesman,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a Republican strategist who was a top adviser on Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2024 presidential campaign. “I’m not sure though that him beating Mastriano in a landslide is really the electoral coup Democrats are purporting it to be. Mastriano wasn’t a good candidate and 2022 was roundly a bad year for Rs.”

Republicans have plenty of things to slam Shapiro for — and that pushback is getting louder now that he’s in the running to be Harris’ running mate. The same day Biden announced he was stepping down, the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank in Pennsylvania, ran an ad in The Washington Post criticizing Shapiro over how many bills he’s been able to get through a divided Legislature. (Last month, the think tank conducted a survey that found his approval rating in-state at 58%.)

Republicans who spoke with NBC News criticized Shapiro for failing to get Democrats to go along with his school voucher plan during his first budget negotiations after cutting deals with GOP members, appealing a ruling that struck down Pennsylvania’s participation in an interstate greenhouse gas reduction program, and for his handling of sexual harassment claims against a legislative aide.

“He hasn’t been tested on a national level,” Allegheny County GOP Chairman Sam DeMarco said. “And he has never been really tested here, even in Pennsylvania.” “So a lot of folks, they don’t think about these things,” he added. “But you can bet people would get to know them with a fully funded opposition research [effort] by the Trump campaign.”

Former Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Pa., slammed Shapiro for his energy policies, his efforts to legalize recreational marijuana and his position on abortion. “I know there are a lot of Republicans who will mistake Shapiro’s smile, his temperament and his nice wardrobe for him to be some kind of moderate,” he said.

Some of the reasons Republicans have praised Shapiro in the past or now view him as a potentially strong vice presidential candidate — whether it be because of his appeal to moderate voters, his position on school choice, his getting the backing of police unions or his stance on the Israel-Hamas war — have led some on the Democratic Party’s left flank to come out against adding him to the ticket.

Traditionally, a running mate rarely makes a difference in presidential elections, as a number of Republicans said in discussions with NBC News. They said that the election will end up being an up or down on Trump and Harris — and they relished the chance to go against the vice president, particularly in Pennsylvania. One Republican working on Senate races said Harris “is about as horrible of a replacement for ‘Scranton Joe’ as they could conceivably have.”

“For a state like Pennsylvania, man, I’d rather go up against Harris 10 times out of 10 than go up against Biden,” state Rep. Josh Kail, chair of the state House Republican campaign committee, said. “Biden had roots in Pennsylvania, Biden was perceived as a blue-collar kind of guy.”

One block of voters for whom Shapiro could make a difference, though, is made up of backers of former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley in her bid for the GOP nomination — voters who may have been more inclined to vote for Biden than Harris.

“[W]e’re sort of in uncharted waters here,” said Brittany Martinez, a Republican strategist who backed Haley. “A more moderate VP with her would perhaps be able to sway some of those voters who are on the fence.”

Martinez isn’t among them. Though she pointed to Shapiro and Kelly as the best choices, she said: “I’ll be writing in.”

What’s more, some Republicans have taken to spreading the idea that Shapiro would actually decline an offer from Harris, saying that it could harm his future presidential prospects. Pennsylvania state Rep. Russ Diamond, a Republican, tweeted that Shapiro would be risking “his 20-year undefeated streak and a chance at being a relatively unscathed Dem running for prez in post-Trump 2028.”

“It’s no secret that he would really love to be president someday,” Diamond said in an interview. “And joining that ticket now, there’s two paths: Either she loses and he shares the blame for that. Or she wins, and then he’s stuck for potentially eight years … so it’s kind of a dead end either way for him.”

But such calls only serve to indirectly highlight the strength the governor could bring to the ticket.

“If I’m a Republican, Shapiro is the one that concerns me the most,” Tres Watson, a GOP political strategist and founder of Capitol Reins PR, said. “He can be moderate, he can also be liberal, but he’s got the school choice stuff — he kind of dabbles in some things that could kill Republican votes off.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... f399&ei=41

[Aseahawkfan]

If I get to see the first black female president and Jewish Vice President, wouldn't that be something. I like seeing historical firsts. At least that would make the Democratic ticket interesting versus crazy old man and standard white man J.D. Vance. It might pull together a lot of interesting voting blocs to defeat the MAGA crowd.

[River Dog]

If I get to see the first black female president and Jewish Vice President, wouldn't that be something. I like seeing historical firsts. At least that would make the Democratic ticket interesting versus crazy old man and standard white man J.D. Vance. It might pull together a lot of interesting voting blocs to defeat the MAGA crowd.

Yeah, I'd take either Shapiro or Mark Kelly of AZ. I tend to lean towards Shapiro because he comes from a bigger plum of a state than does Kelly. Harris has to win PA if she has any hope of beating Trump.

But, as the article points out, Shapiro may not be interested in being a VP. If the ticket wins, then Harris is likely the Dem nominee in 2028, so it would be 8 years before he'd be able to run for POTUS. If the ticket loses, he might have to take the blame, especially given the fact he's Jewish. Shapiro has come out strongly for Israel's right to defend itself, so pundits could easily pin the loss on him. It's a lose-lose proposition for his career.

JFK had a similar dilemma in 1956. Adli Stevenson was the Dem nominee, and Stevenson let the delegates at the convention select his running mate for him. JFK's old man didn't want his son on the ticket as he knew that Eisenhower was going to win re-election anyway and that if JFK were on the ticket, he'd get blamed for the loss as he was a Catholic. So the old man used his 'influence' to make sure that his son wasn't selected by the convention so they could set their sights on 1960.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, I'd take either Shapiro or Mark Kelly of AZ. I tend to lean towards Shapiro because he comes from a bigger plum of a state than does Kelly. Harris has to win PA if she has any hope of beating Trump.

But, as the article points out, Shapiro may not be interested in being a VP. If the ticket wins, then Harris is likely the Dem nominee in 2028, so it would be 8 years before he'd be able to run for POTUS. If the ticket loses, he might have to take the blame, especially given the fact he's Jewish. Shapiro has come out strongly for Israel's right to defend itself, so pundits could easily pin the loss on him. It's a lose-lose proposition for his career.

JFK had a similar dilemma in 1956. Adli Stevenson was the Dem nominee, and Stevenson let the delegates at the convention select his running mate for him. JFK's old man didn't want his son on the ticket as he knew that Eisenhower was going to win re-election anyway and that if JFK were on the ticket, he'd get blamed for the loss as he was a Catholic. So the old man used his 'influence' to make sure that his son wasn't selected by the convention so they could set their sights on 1960.

Maybe smarter given the Democrats have embraced a growing Muslim voting bloc that is anti-Semitic. I work with a bunch of Muslims from various countries. They are for the most part good people. But a big part of their propaganda in the Muslim World is the Jews run America and the Jews have it out for the Muslims. The number of tales I hear about Jews as the source of the world's problems whether starting the war in Ukraine or doing everything they can to support Israel and push Zionism is lockstep with every Muslim I ever talk to, while they at the same time tell me, "They have no problem with the Jewish." Their propaganda is real bad, almost like Neo-Nazis. Most Americans don't realize it because most of this propaganda is spread on channels using the Arabic tongue from Muslim nation news channels or propaganda sites from places like Youtube. It's bad, much worse than mainstream American Democrats are being told who aren't even paying much attention.

[Stream Hawk]

Here’s an example of Trump going bat s*** crazy. Admitted he has a plan to rig elections so there will be no more voting (for presidency, I assume?) once he wins.
https://x.com/acyn/status/1817007890496 ... pMkhpLC7ng

[Aseahawkfan]

Here’s an example of him going bat s*** crazy. 1) he is a fake Christian. While pandering to the voters, he actually said “he’s not a Christian” 2) admitting he will be a king/not step aside once he assumes office.
https://x.com/acyn/status/1817007890496 ... pMkhpLC7ng

You took that clip, listened to it, and took that away from it? And you consider yourself doing a sane analysis? Ok.

[Stream Hawk]

Yeah, I think he’s a lunatic. Did you not hear him say people never need to vote again if he wins? I will edit my post a little because I was fuming.

[c_hawkbob]

Here’s an example of him going bat s*** crazy. 1) he is a fake Christian. While pandering to the voters, he actually said “he’s not a Christian” 2) admitting he will be a king/not step aside once he assumes office.
https://x.com/acyn/status/1817007890496 ... pMkhpLC7ng

You took that clip, listened to it, and took that away from it? And you consider yourself doing a sane analysis? Ok.

OK Asea, give us the MAGA spin on that clip. Tell us the "sane" analysis of "just this time, we'll have it fixed so good you'll never have to vote again".

[River Dog]

Trump's talking out of his arse, something he's done ever since he first ran for office in 2016, maybe longer. Is he a lunatic? Absolutely. That's one of the reasons why I never have and never will vote for him.

But I don't understand all the shock and surprise about these remarks. Trump has always talked that way, both in public and in private. The man is delusional, lives in a fantasy world.

It’s unclear what the former president is referring to with his remarks.

Trump has previously claimed he’d be a dictator only on “day one” of a second term, once called for the “termination” of articles of the Constitution, attempted a coup to remain in office and seemingly floated serving a third White House term at the National Rifle Association Convention back in May.

He's also said recently that he'd round up and deport 15-20 million illegal immigrants. Do any of you actually believe that's even remotely possible?

So what's so different about these remarks? Where have you guys been for the past 8 years?

[Stream Hawk]

I’ve been paying attention. I just thought this was a little too far; essentially admitting elections will go away is he’s elected. The end of democracy. I think it’s a big deal and Kamala (or the moderator) must hold him accountable if he ever debates. This clown needs to be stopped.

[c_hawkbob]

I'm not at all surprised by any of this, what surprises and disgusts me is y'all being so dismissive of project 2025, saying it's a 'scare tactic' from the left when it is 100% the same crap as Trump has been leaning onto all along. Project 2025 is the plan if he gets back in office and if successful could be the beginning of the end of this grand experiment.

[River Dog]

I'm not at all surprised by any of this, what surprises and disgusts me is y'all being so dismissive of project 2025, saying it's a 'scare tactic' from the left when it is 100% the same crap as Trump has been leaning onto all along. Project 2025 is the plan if he gets back in office and if successful could be the beginning of the end of this grand experiment.

I didn't say that it was a scare tactic from the left. I said that it wouldn't surprise me if it were. Big difference. The left has been using scare tactics for decades, like Republicans are going to take away your SS and Medicare, so it's not like my suspicion is completely baseless.

Here's an excerpt from an article published by MSNBC, not exactly a conservative rag:

For months, Democrats have tried to let the public know about Project 2025, a right-wing policy agenda being crafted by the Heritage Foundation with the assistance of several prominent Donald Trump associates. Earlier this month, however, Democrats received some unexpected help — from the former president himself.

A few weeks ago, the Republican nominee published an odd item to his social media platform claiming to “know nothing” about Project 2025. He went on to claim he has “no idea who is behind it,” he disagrees with some of its provisions, and he has “nothing to do with” the initiative.

Democrats were delighted: Trump’s denial helped bring attention to the Project 2025 plan, which is exactly what the party was hoping for. The former president nevertheless issued a similar statement a week later, which again helped to push the radical blueprint into the national spotlight.

At a rally in Michigan this past weekend, the GOP candidate not only tried to distance himself from Project 2025, he also described its authors as part of the “severe right,” adding that some of the agenda’s provisions are “seriously extreme.” Trump reiterated his position online again yesterday.

All of this has the effect of alerting the public to the right-wing agenda’s existence — which again is what Democrats are hoping for — while simultaneously reminding voters that the Project 2025 is so extreme that even Trump doesn’t want to be associated with it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maddow-blog- ... 02173.html

Democrats know that the more it gets talked about, the more people are likely to vote for them. That's why Trump keeps trying to distance himself from it. The Dems might not be behind it, but they sure as hell are advertising it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not at all surprised by any of this, what surprises and disgusts me is y'all being so dismissive of project 2025, saying it's a 'scare tactic' from the left when it is 100% the same crap as Trump has been leaning onto all along. Project 2025 is the plan if he gets back in office and if successful could be the beginning of the end of this grand experiment.

The conditions for a coup existed during the pandemic. Locked down public. Divided and scared country stuck at home watching the news. States fighting over how to handle the pandemic. Parties arguing over how to handle the pandemic. Democrats being sold as the one's forcing the lockdown using the power of government and possibly forcing them to take an experimental vaccine. Military members forced to take the this vaccine. Entire world shutdown.

Trump and the Republicans couldn't pull off this coup during what were probably the most ideal circumstances for a coup in modern American history. All they could manager was a riot at the Capitol.

So now we have a fully open economy. Lots of people back at work and having fun. No one stuck at home. People finally able to move around. No figure like a Fauci or someone like that to turn into the Republican boogeyman.

I'm sorry, the conditions do not exist for a coup any more. If Trump and his people could not manage it during the pandemic, it isn't going to happen now.

Mark Milley was hand chosen by Trump to be in charge of the military. He was appointed because Trump was apparently told he was one of those guys who would do what he said. Guess what, he wasn't. Neither was Mad Dog Mattis. I don't believe those guys exist in our military and even if a few do, the rest of the military will not obey or break the law because Trump said so. For a real coup, you need the military to splinter as well as the law enforcement agencies to back Trump in violation of the law. We just don't have that kind of buy in.

Even my conservative friends, all three of them impacted badly by COVID where one had no job, the other was going nuts stuck in his house, and the other one almost had his businesses destroyed requiring government loans were more onboard with some kind of fight back if the lockdown went on too much longer than now where they are all back to work with business back online and making money again. Now they have stuff to lose again and have zero interest in Project 2025 or any kind of revolution, violent or otherwise.

You can call me on it later if I'm wrong, but if Trump loses this election, he's done. If he wins, he will be done in 2028 with very little changed out how America runs. No Project 2025 take over or coup or anything of the kind. Just a 78 year old president who will be 82 in 2028 happy to brag about being a two term president and will leave office.

I no more worry about P-2025 with Republican's turning us fascist than I worry about Democrats turning us socialist. Both of these parties are pro-Democracy and pro-business with slightly different methodologies and issues they use to gain votes.

So in my view Trump is either done in November if he loses or done in 2028 if he wins. I'll be just fine either way.

[Aseahawkfan]

OK Asea, give us the MAGA spin on that clip. Tell us the "sane" analysis of "just this time, we'll have it fixed so good you'll never have to vote again".

Let me see. My Trump voting friends didn't even mention it or listen to it. When I opened it and listened, I heard 27 seconds of Trump doing his usual sales babble making stuff up as he goes.

It's a 27 second clip of Trump babbling. How exactly do you take more from it than that?

I forgot. You're fully bought into the "Trump launched a coup and is going to take over America" trash.

While at the same time making fun of him for being a bad businessman and an idiot.

Why? Because Trump is just whatever you feel like he is from moment to moment even when the various takes on Trump are not at all congruent. Trump goes from evil genius politician planning a coup to idiot businessman who can't even make casinos successful to rapist to child rapist to whatever narrative the Dems feel like from moment to moment.

I'm not MAGA no matter how hard you try to paint it that way. I simply am not some deranged Democrat scared of Trump buying whatever Democratic narrative that gets pushed by their news arm.

I'm really tired of the lot of you nutjobs in both parties pushing this ridiculous, divisive crap about each other's candidates.

I know I'll be fine if Trump wins and fine if Kamala wins. Either way I'll prosper in the four years until it's time to choose the next person and listen to the ridiculous political media around it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I’ve been paying attention. I just thought this was a little too far; essentially admitting elections will go away is he’s elected. The end of democracy. I think it’s a big deal and Kamala (or the moderator) must hold him accountable if he ever debates. This clown needs to be stopped.

Trump admitted nothing of the kind. He kicked out his ridiculous drivel that he's going to fix it permanently somehow when it's never been done. Just stop already. No one is supporting some Trump as permanent president crap.

I'm not scared of Trump at all. I watched him try to push Mark MIlley to do some stupid crap and Milley ignored him and got pissed off for Trump trying. I watched Mad Dog Mattis leave his cabinet and call him an idiot. The F.B.I. leader wouldn't listen to him. He had nothing but some crazy MAGA people show up and riot like idiots.

What? I'm going to be afraid of the Qanon Shaman? How many of those idiots ended up in jail?

Sorry, the pandemic is over. Trump is done in November of in 2028.

If he's not, then I'll be on the side to actually fight him as I won't tolerate it. So if you truly believe Trump is some kind of evil genius with a master plan to take over the United States indefinitely, act accordingly and prepare. Like all the looney right wing preppers who think the Democrats are going to turn us socialist or think China is going to attack us or what not that drives them to looney behavior as preppers. Go become a left wing prepper ready to fight The Trump Tyranny. There you go, bud, a book title for it in advance. Go get ready to fight against The Dark Emperor Trump.

Ridiculous.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump's greatest accomplishment: making everyone act like idiots worshipping him or fearing him.

I hope at some point ten years from now while looking in the mirror all these pro and anti-Trump people look in the mirror and go, "Why did I let this idiot make me act like an idiot."

I really need this election to get here, get over, and the next four years to be done. Living in a country where both political party's followers are living in echo chamber asylums shouting looney crap because of one man is tiresome political discourse. To the MAGA crowd, Trump is the savior. To the Democrats and anti-Trump crowd, he's some tyrant waiting to take over America. It's unbelievably ridiculous this guy should be looked at in this fashion having done so little to actually merit either claim.

[River Dog]

I’ve been paying attention. I just thought this was a little too far; essentially admitting elections will go away is he’s elected. The end of democracy. I think it’s a big deal and Kamala (or the moderator) must hold him accountable if he ever debates. This clown needs to be stopped.

I know that you guys have been paying attention. I was being facetious. I just think that the reaction is a little over the top. Trump talking that way is nothing new. The man lives in a fantasy world and doesn't have a clue about the checks and balances that exist in the federal government. When he was POTUS from 2017-20, he was constantly being told by members of his staff that "you can't do that, Mr. President."

To give you an example, Trump claims that he's going to use the military, nationalize the national guard to help round up 15-20 million illegal aliens. He can't do that. There are laws in place that says that the President can't use the military for domestic law enforcement except through an act of Congress. He can use them for logistical support and that's it. He's not going to be able to create some type of Gestapo and have them going door-to-door looking for illegals as he makes it sound, at least not in the numbers it would take to conduct an operation a tenth of the size that Trump is talking about. He's talking out of his arse, playing to his base who for the most part believe what he says.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... nnel%20are

I'm reminded of an observer's comment about Dwight Eisenhower's assentation to the presidency back in 1952. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: "Poor Ike. As a general in the army, when he said something, s*** happened. Now he's President of the United States and when he says something, nothing happens."

[River Dog]

I just thought this was a little too far; essentially admitting elections will go away is he’s elected. The end of democracy.

I hate being in the position of having to defend Donald Trump, but let's get the facts straight. Trump didn't say that elections will go away if he's elected. Here's exactly what he said:

"You’ve got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

One could read that statement in a number of ways, including the way you've interpreted it. But it also could mean that his 'fixes' will be long lasting, that you won't have to go to the ballot box to repair what's wrong with the country. You won't "have" to vote, that your participation in the democratic process will no longer be needed to achieve the goal of fixing what's wrong with the country, that you could go back to voting for a candidate based on physical appearance or how they talk. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to do away with elections/democracy.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is the correct one and/or that yours is incorrect. What I'm saying is that this is just one more in a long line of completely irrational, fact less claims that Trump has been making for at least the past 8 years. He talks from between his lower set of cheeks all the time. It doesn't move my needle in the slightest. Besides, my needle on him has been pegged for quite some time.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's more Trump babble. He's babbled so much and made so many claims that never came true, not sure why I should see that one as any different.

[River Dog]

It's more Trump babble. He's babbled so much and made so many claims that never came true, not sure why I should see that one as any different.

Yeah, I remember back in 2020 when the pandemic first started and Trump said that Covid would just disappear, that it would be over with by April even though every epidemiologist on the planet, including his own advisors, were telling him that we were going to be in for a very rough time. He literally makes s*** up on the fly, says whatever he thinks people want to hear, never does any kind of research. I'd be embarrassed to post even in a little forum like ours if I were as uninformed and out to lunch as he is.

Pete Buttigieg had a great interview on Fox News this morning, calling out some of Trump's blatant lies about crime and immigration, so much so that there's serious discussion that his stock may be rising in the informal VP sweepstakes:

During an interview appearance on Fox News Sunday, Buttigieg, who has emerged as a top choice to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in this year's presidential election after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race last Sunday, discussed immigration and crime.

When speaking with anchor Shannon Bream about how the Republican National Convention (RNC) talked about the intersectionality of immigration and crime, Buttigieg criticized the lack of attention to crime rates under former President Donald Trump, the GOP's 2024 presidential nominee.

"The false message of the RNC was that this [immigration] was leading to an increase in crime," Buttigieg said.

Bream then interjected, "If people had not been in this country illegally, people would still be alive."

However, Buttigieg quickly added: "Of course there are individual cases, but this is my point right, trying to make people think that crime is up when crime is down under Joe Biden and crime was up under Donald Trump. Now I don't know how often that gets reported on this network. So if you're watching this at home, do yourself a favor and look up the data."

Bream responded, "We invite that."

There have been 2,222,770 encounters with migrants nationwide so far in the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

However, research has indicated that immigrants commit less crimes than U.S.-born people.

NPR previously reported research from economist Ran Abramitzky from Stanford University found that since the 1960s, immigrants are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people. In addition, investigations by The New York Times and The Marshall Project found that between 2007 and 2016, there was no link between undocumented immigrants and a rise in violent or property crime in those communities.

According to the latest quarterly statistics released in June by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report, the rate of violent and property crimes dropped in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year.

The murder rate fell by 26.4 percent, reported rapes decreased by 25.7 percent, robberies fell by 17.8 percent, aggravated assault fell by 12.5 percent, and the overall violent crime rate went down by 15.2 percent.

Meanwhile, in 2020, violent crime was up 5.6 percent from 2019. In 2020, there were an estimated 1,277,696 violent crimes. When compared with the estimates from 2019, the estimated number of robbery offenses fell 9.3 percent and the estimated volume of rape (revised definition) offenses decreased 12 percent. The estimated number of aggravated assault offenses rose 12.1 percent, and the volume of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 29.4 percent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

To be fair, 2020, Trump's last year in office, was the pandemic year and that high rate of crime can't be hung on him, at least not exclusively. And it's important to point out that most of that crime in 2020 was in Democratic-run cities and states. But the point is that Trump is making it sound like crime was lower during his watch than it has been on Biden's, and the facts say the opposite.

[Stream Hawk]

I hate being in the position of having to defend Donald Trump, but let's get the facts straight. Trump didn't say that elections will go away if he's elected. Here's exactly what he said:

"You’ve got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

One could read that statement in a number of ways, including the way you've interpreted it. But it also could mean that his 'fixes' will be long lasting, that you won't have to go to the ballot box to repair what's wrong with the country. You won't "have" to vote, that your participation in the democratic process will no longer be needed to achieve the goal of fixing what's wrong with the country, that you could go back to voting for a candidate based on physical appearance or how they talk. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to do away with elections/democracy.

I'm not saying that my interpretation is the correct one and/or that yours is incorrect. What I'm saying is that this is just one more in a long line of completely irrational, fact less claims that Trump has been making for at least the past 8 years. He talks from between his lower set of cheeks all the time. It doesn't move my needle in the slightest. Besides, my needle on him has been pegged for quite some time.

Give me a break, what Trump said was what he meant. He wants to get rid of presidential elections by 2028. I don’t care if he’s insane and it won’t work. He said what he said. You might want to stop spinning it.

[Stream Hawk]

Yeah, I remember back in 2020 when the pandemic first started and Trump said that Covid would just disappear, that it would be over with by April even though every epidemiologist on the planet, including his own advisors, were telling him that we were going to be in for a very rough time. He literally makes s*** up on the fly, says whatever he thinks people want to hear, never does any kind of research. I'd be embarrassed to post even in a little forum like ours if I were as uninformed and out to lunch as he is.

Pete Buttigieg had a great interview on Fox News this morning, calling out some of Trump's blatant lies about crime and immigration, so much so that there's serious discussion that his stock may be rising in the informal VP sweepstakes:

During an interview appearance on Fox News Sunday, Buttigieg, who has emerged as a top choice to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in this year's presidential election after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race last Sunday, discussed immigration and crime.

When speaking with anchor Shannon Bream about how the Republican National Convention (RNC) talked about the intersectionality of immigration and crime, Buttigieg criticized the lack of attention to crime rates under former President Donald Trump, the GOP's 2024 presidential nominee.

"The false message of the RNC was that this [immigration] was leading to an increase in crime," Buttigieg said.

Bream then interjected, "If people had not been in this country illegally, people would still be alive."

However, Buttigieg quickly added: "Of course there are individual cases, but this is my point right, trying to make people think that crime is up when crime is down under Joe Biden and crime was up under Donald Trump. Now I don't know how often that gets reported on this network. So if you're watching this at home, do yourself a favor and look up the data."

Bream responded, "We invite that."

There have been 2,222,770 encounters with migrants nationwide so far in the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

However, research has indicated that immigrants commit less crimes than U.S.-born people.

NPR previously reported research from economist Ran Abramitzky from Stanford University found that since the 1960s, immigrants are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people. In addition, investigations by The New York Times and The Marshall Project found that between 2007 and 2016, there was no link between undocumented immigrants and a rise in violent or property crime in those communities.

According to the latest quarterly statistics released in June by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report, the rate of violent and property crimes dropped in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year.

The murder rate fell by 26.4 percent, reported rapes decreased by 25.7 percent, robberies fell by 17.8 percent, aggravated assault fell by 12.5 percent, and the overall violent crime rate went down by 15.2 percent.

Meanwhile, in 2020, violent crime was up 5.6 percent from 2019. In 2020, there were an estimated 1,277,696 violent crimes. When compared with the estimates from 2019, the estimated number of robbery offenses fell 9.3 percent and the estimated volume of rape (revised definition) offenses decreased 12 percent. The estimated number of aggravated assault offenses rose 12.1 percent, and the volume of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 29.4 percent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

To be fair, 2020, Trump's last year in office, was the pandemic year and that high rate of crime can't be hung on him, at least not exclusively. And it's important to point out that most of that crime in 2020 was in Democratic-run cities and states. But the point is that Trump is making it sound like crime was lower during his watch than it has been on Biden's, and the facts say the opposite.

I haven’t seen most of the interview, but I heard he knocked it out of the park. I still don’t think Buttigieg would be the best running mate because of being gay. It’s sad, but I do think that’s the only thing that would keep him from earning the nod as he does seem to have all other credentials.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, I remember back in 2020 when the pandemic first started and Trump said that Covid would just disappear, that it would be over with by April even though every epidemiologist on the planet, including his own advisors, were telling him that we were going to be in for a very rough time. He literally makes s*** up on the fly, says whatever he thinks people want to hear, never does any kind of research. I'd be embarrassed to post even in a little forum like ours if I were as uninformed and out to lunch as he is.

Pete Buttigieg had a great interview on Fox News this morning, calling out some of Trump's blatant lies about crime and immigration, so much so that there's serious discussion that his stock may be rising in the informal VP sweepstakes:

During an interview appearance on Fox News Sunday, Buttigieg, who has emerged as a top choice to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in this year's presidential election after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race last Sunday, discussed immigration and crime.

When speaking with anchor Shannon Bream about how the Republican National Convention (RNC) talked about the intersectionality of immigration and crime, Buttigieg criticized the lack of attention to crime rates under former President Donald Trump, the GOP's 2024 presidential nominee.

"The false message of the RNC was that this [immigration] was leading to an increase in crime," Buttigieg said.

Bream then interjected, "If people had not been in this country illegally, people would still be alive."

However, Buttigieg quickly added: "Of course there are individual cases, but this is my point right, trying to make people think that crime is up when crime is down under Joe Biden and crime was up under Donald Trump. Now I don't know how often that gets reported on this network. So if you're watching this at home, do yourself a favor and look up the data."

Bream responded, "We invite that."

There have been 2,222,770 encounters with migrants nationwide so far in the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S the 2024 fiscal year, which began in October, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

However, research has indicated that immigrants commit less crimes than U.S.-born people.

NPR previously reported research from economist Ran Abramitzky from Stanford University found that since the 1960s, immigrants are 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people. In addition, investigations by The New York Times and The Marshall Project found that between 2007 and 2016, there was no link between undocumented immigrants and a rise in violent or property crime in those communities.

According to the latest quarterly statistics released in June by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report, the rate of violent and property crimes dropped in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year.

The murder rate fell by 26.4 percent, reported rapes decreased by 25.7 percent, robberies fell by 17.8 percent, aggravated assault fell by 12.5 percent, and the overall violent crime rate went down by 15.2 percent.

Meanwhile, in 2020, violent crime was up 5.6 percent from 2019. In 2020, there were an estimated 1,277,696 violent crimes. When compared with the estimates from 2019, the estimated number of robbery offenses fell 9.3 percent and the estimated volume of rape (revised definition) offenses decreased 12 percent. The estimated number of aggravated assault offenses rose 12.1 percent, and the volume of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 29.4 percent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

To be fair, 2020, Trump's last year in office, was the pandemic year and that high rate of crime can't be hung on him, at least not exclusively. And it's important to point out that most of that crime in 2020 was in Democratic-run cities and states. But the point is that Trump is making it sound like crime was lower during his watch than it has been on Biden's, and the facts say the opposite.

One thing I will say, when you're using percentages, you're usually doing so to make something seem better than it is.

I know in Washington State as an example, crime is up. Violent crime and especially property crime.

This is what happens when you defund and disempower the police as well as change felony theft from 200 or something dollars to a 1000 dollars. There are a lot of ways Democrats manipulate crime statistics to make them sound favorably after they've recategorized crime by shifting a law or changing how it is recorded.

Republicans do the same thing, make no mistake. It's more a product of governments trying to make themselves smell like roses when they create a lot of manure. Manipulate statistics and massage numbers using percentages to make things seem worse or better. That's why you have to look closer at the numbers.

The numbers definitely show crime is worse in Washington State. The data is clear. I don't know about many other states, I know crime is far more common in urban areas and it comes down more to how well your city government runs than your local government or even state government. Crime is a very big thing in cities, though some property crime does leak out in the suburbs. So poor city management more heavily affects crime statistics. Suburbs and especially rural areas don't have enough people and generally have low crime rates so don't factor into the crime statistics as heavily.

That is why Presidential administrations claiming they can reduce crime is pretty ridiculous. Federal government doesn't have much power over state and local crime which is where the majority of crime statistics are. You are better off voting for local politicians who know better how to manage crime. Democrats in Washington State are not doing a great job. The statistics clearly show it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I like Buttgieg myself. I think he is a pretty reasonable politician. He's former military. He's a true moderate. His homosexuality would be a tough selling point at the moment, but VP I don't think would matter as much. VP is not as important as the main candidate. Isn't he from Indiana? I wouldn't mind Buttgieg as VP. He's a high performer with a good education and a reasonable viewpoint. He's also younger. I want younger on both tickets.

Buttgieg or Shapiro interest me more. Kelly I imagine might be better to keep the older white male Democrats happy and people who want a more old school Democratic moderate who can be tough. He has a great resume too.

Just no more crazy please. I know some think JD Vance is crazy, but I've listened to him and read on him and he's more of a moderate, younger, tech savvy and strong connections in Silicon Valley. good education. Trump as a lame duck president with a younger, more tech savvy VP would balance out as well as much as possible.

A younger VP candidate for Democrats would balance the hippy liberal California crazy of a Kamala Harris.

[River Dog]

I like Buttgieg myself. I think he is a pretty reasonable politician. He's former military. He's a true moderate. His homosexuality would be a tough selling point at the moment, but VP I don't think would matter as much. VP is not as important as the main candidate. Isn't he from Indiana? I wouldn't mind Buttgieg as VP. He's a high performer with a good education and a reasonable viewpoint. He's also younger. I want younger on both tickets.

Buttgieg or Shapiro interest me more. Kelly I imagine might be better to keep the older white male Democrats happy and people who want a more old school Democratic moderate who can be tough. He has a great resume too.

Just no more crazy please. I know some think JD Vance is crazy, but I've listened to him and read on him and he's more of a moderate, younger, tech savvy and strong connections in Silicon Valley. good education. Trump as a lame duck president with a younger, more tech savvy VP would balance out as well as much as possible.

A younger VP candidate for Democrats would balance the hippy liberal California crazy of a Kamala Harris.

I don't think the country is ready for a homosexual as the #2 person on a ballot that already has a woman of color at the top of it. There are a lot of people, including a lot of moderates, that don't like this DEI crapola that the government has embraced in filling critical positions and that ticket would be like poking those folks in the eye.

Otherwise, I really like Buttigieg. He demonstrated yesterday by going into enemy territory on Fox News that he's a bulldog and would make for a good guy/bad guy setup, letting him go after Trump and expose his lies while allowing Harris to look more presidential and stay out of the fray.

I'm hoping that she'll take either Shapiro or Kelly. Kelly comes from a border state and has some really good credentials on immigration and would show moderate voters that Harris is serious about controlling the border, widely perceived as the Dems biggest weakness. Shapiro has some good crime fighting credentials on his resume, was supported by the police unions, and he comes from a state that could very easily decide the election.

[c_hawkbob]

It's only "DEI crapola" to you because you're a conservative white male. To the rest of the world it's finally catching up. Women, minorities and lgtbq folk have always been entitled to the same rights and political influence as you, they are just now finally starting to get it.

[River Dog]

It's only "DEI crapola" to you because you're a conservative white male. To the rest of the world it's finally catching up. Women, minorities and lgtbq folk have always been entitled to the same rights and political influence as you, they are just now finally starting to get it.

You know, it's that kind of unprovoked trash talking that has caused such a political divide in this country and has resulted in the assentation of a professional wrestler personality like Donald Trump. I don't know how in the hell you could read into my off the cuff characterization of DEI being 'crapola' that I didn't think LGBT, women, and minority folks are entitled to the same rights as I am.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

It's only "DEI crapola" to you because you're a conservative white male. To the rest of the world it's finally catching up. Women, minorities and lgtbq folk have always been entitled to the same rights and political influence as you, they are just now finally starting to get it.

In its current form, it is "crapola". If it wasn't, you wouldn't have companies laying off DEI positions and rolling back some of their DEI based policies because it hurts productivity. Nobody is entitled to a job; you prove your worth and earn your keep based on merit. I work with several women and PoC engineers. They are incredibly capable, and, therefore, profitable for my company to employ them. That's what's it about. DEI is rooted in good intentions, but devoting substantial resources and capital to positions and/or divisions that aren't productive or profitable is bad business. That affects everyone at the company. Protecting rights does not mean hiring unqualified, unnecessary, and/or unprofitable people.

[River Dog]

It's only "DEI crapola" to you because you're a conservative white male. To the rest of the world it's finally catching up. Women, minorities and lgtbq folk have always been entitled to the same rights and political influence as you, they are just now finally starting to get it.

In its current form, it is "crapola". If it wasn't, you wouldn't have companies laying off DEI positions and rolling back some of their DEI based policies because it hurts productivity. Nobody is entitled to a job; you prove your worth and earn your keep based on merit. I work with several women and PoC engineers. They are incredibly capable, and, therefore, profitable for my company to employ them. That's what's it about. DEI is rooted in good intentions, but devoting substantial resources and capital to positions and/or divisions that aren't productive or profitable is bad business. That affects everyone at the company. Protecting rights does not mean hiring unqualified, unnecessary, and/or unprofitable people.

Careful, my friend. You're starting to sound like a racist, sexist, homophobic conservative white male.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Don't I know it. Middle ground is hard to find these days.

[River Dog]

Don't I know it. Middle ground is hard to find these days.

Which is my point. Unprovoked personal attacks are a contributor to the divide, encourages retaliation and widens the gulf. Hillary Clinton helped give us Donald Trump with her "basket of deplorables" characterization to describe anyone who supported him. If I object to a policy initiative, I'm labeled a racist, sexist, and homophobe.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

You're 100% correct. Dealing in absolutes doesn't work so well when it's a choice of what's the better of two undesirable options. Reasonable people can make the argument both ways.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think the country is ready for a homosexual as the #2 person on a ballot that already has a woman of color at the top of it. There are a lot of people, including a lot of moderates, that don't like this DEI crapola that the government has embraced in filling critical positions and that ticket would be like poking those folks in the eye.

Otherwise, I really like Buttigieg. He demonstrated yesterday by going into enemy territory on Fox News that he's a bulldog and would make for a good guy/bad guy setup, letting him go after Trump and expose his lies while allowing Harris to look more presidential and stay out of the fray.

I'm hoping that she'll take either Shapiro or Kelly. Kelly comes from a border state and has some really good credentials on immigration and would show moderate voters that Harris is serious about controlling the border, widely perceived as the Dems biggest weakness. Shapiro has some good crime fighting credentials on his resume, was supported by the police unions, and he comes from a state that could very easily decide the election.

What exactly can The Federal government do for crime occurring on a local and state level? Federal administrations have a near zero effect on crime statistics. They just like to use them to make themselves look better. In fact, the Federal governments drug laws and enforcement likely lead to much higher crime statistics since the method they used to interdict crime acting like tough guys led to the same type of crime as we saw during prohibition with organized criminal organizations taking over the drug business once it was criminalized.

The feds rarely have a positive effect on crime.

[Aseahawkfan]

DEI existed before DEI. The vast majority of DEI was fake marketing. It has been especially damaging to the movie industry at a time when they are already having problems. Disney tanked their stock and profits by promoting DEI over quality filmmaking. They are the poster child for how to not do DEI.

I think the idea behind DEI or Affirmative Action or the many names it has come under is fine. America is not a meritocracy, at least not a pure one. Job acquisition is accomplished a variety of ways, one of the biggest ways being a who you know. Being recommended by friends or having a network of business associates helping you find jobs in an industry is the most common way to acquire a quality job. It is very difficult for a minority person to build these kind of networks that help them find and maintain jobs if they aren't allowed in the door. So it was necessary to force the door open so they can get in because you had a chicken and egg scenario often employed by racists to limit integration where they go "you don't have enough experience" and the minority must ask "How do I get experience if I don't have enough experience to get in the door." It was a not great situation. The government had to open that door so minority groups could build networks in the workplace to help them find and maintain jobs.

The meritocracy idea is often an illusion in a lot of jobs, but highly specialized jobs are often a meritocracy due to the requirement for certain skills. Athletics is one of the most meritocratic jobs there are which is dominated by folk of African descent showing they are the best of the best in places like the NBA and NFL that is a true meritocracy that only cares if you can help the team win.

As far as including the homosexual crowd, that is pure horsecrap that I imagine Democrats don't even bother to check because they don't follow business. DINKs have had money for a long time. Dual income no kids which is where many homosexuals are lumped into when they marry or couple as well as homosexual males often being high earners is a highly valuable consumer sought after by businesses. Homosexuals like Ian McKellan, Harvey Fierstein, and Stephen Fry have had plenty of work. Minorities suffer far more discrimination than a homosexual white male and lumping them in is ridiculous.

Homosexuality is a behavior. You're never going to force people to want to watch a behavior in film they don't want any part of. I don't enjoy watching two males engage in sexual relations. I'm never going to enjoy it. I won't watch it on film. I shouldn't be expected to or forced to watch it any more than I should be able to stop a homosexual couple from engaging in it. So Democrats can stop trying to force me to watch things I don't want to watch then acting like it's my problem I don't want to spend money on that product. That's not DEI, that's some kind of crazy.

If c-bob and his Democratic brethren want to go to watch films of that kind, that's up to them. There is no way it is in anyway ok for them to try to force that on people who don't want to watch it.

[River Dog]

I don't think the country is ready for a homosexual as the #2 person on a ballot that already has a woman of color at the top of it. There are a lot of people, including a lot of moderates, that don't like this DEI crapola that the government has embraced in filling critical positions and that ticket would be like poking those folks in the eye.

Otherwise, I really like Buttigieg. He demonstrated yesterday by going into enemy territory on Fox News that he's a bulldog and would make for a good guy/bad guy setup, letting him go after Trump and expose his lies while allowing Harris to look more presidential and stay out of the fray.

I'm hoping that she'll take either Shapiro or Kelly. Kelly comes from a border state and has some really good credentials on immigration and would show moderate voters that Harris is serious about controlling the border, widely perceived as the Dems biggest weakness. Shapiro has some good crime fighting credentials on his resume, was supported by the police unions, and he comes from a state that could very easily decide the election.

What exactly can The Federal government do for crime occurring on a local and state level? Federal administrations have a near zero effect on crime statistics. They just like to use them to make themselves look better. In fact, the Federal governments drug laws and enforcement likely lead to much higher crime statistics since the method they used to interdict crime acting like tough guys led to the same type of crime as we saw during prohibition with organized criminal organizations taking over the drug business once it was criminalized.

The feds rarely have a positive effect on crime.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we're not talking about reality as much as we are perception. Democrats have been widely perceived as being weak on crime as they have been the leaders in de-criminalizing drugs, embraced the defund the police movement, advocated the abolishment of ICE and de-criminalize illegal entry, etc. That's what Trump is trying to pin on Biden or his surrogate, and he's using false or misleading information to do it.

Having as a VP candidate a person who was supported by the police unions and as state AG prosecuted sexual abuse crimes in the Catholic church that initiated worldwide reform would be a huge plus to the ticket and help counter that perceived weakness.

[c_hawkbob]

If c-bob and his Democratic brethren want to go to watch films of that kind, that's up to them. There is no way it is in anyway ok for them to try to force that on people who don't want to watch it.

What in the hell are you even talking about? More teeth gnashing about crap that's never even suggested by anyone but your own trying rev up more hate for libs. I guarantee you not a single Democrat I know or have ever known have any interest whatsoever in forcing you to go watch a gay movie. That's just stupid.

[Stream Hawk]

DEI existed before DEI. The vast majority of DEI was fake marketing. It has been especially damaging to the movie industry at a time when they are already having problems. Disney tanked their stock and profits by promoting DEI over quality filmmaking. They are the poster child for how to not do DEI.

I think the idea behind DEI or Affirmative Action or the many names it has come under is fine. America is not a meritocracy, at least not a pure one. Job acquisition is accomplished a variety of ways, one of the biggest ways being a who you know. Being recommended by friends or having a network of business associates helping you find jobs in an industry is the most common way to acquire a quality job. It is very difficult for a minority person to build these kind of networks that help them find and maintain jobs if they aren't allowed in the door. So it was necessary to force the door open so they can get in because you had a chicken and egg scenario often employed by racists to limit integration where they go "you don't have enough experience" and the minority must ask "How do I get experience if I don't have enough experience to get in the door." It was a not great situation. The government had to open that door so minority groups could build networks in the workplace to help them find and maintain jobs.

The meritocracy idea is often an illusion in a lot of jobs, but highly specialized jobs are often a meritocracy due to the requirement for certain skills. Athletics is one of the most meritocratic jobs there are which is dominated by folk of African descent showing they are the best of the best in places like the NBA and NFL that is a true meritocracy that only cares if you can help the team win.

As far as including the homosexual crowd, that is pure horsecrap that I imagine Democrats don't even bother to check because they don't follow business. DINKs have had money for a long time. Dual income no kids which is where many homosexuals are lumped into when they marry or couple as well as homosexual males often being high earners is a highly valuable consumer sought after by businesses. Homosexuals like Ian McKellan, Harvey Fierstein, and Stephen Fry have had plenty of work. Minorities suffer far more discrimination than a homosexual white male and lumping them in is ridiculous.

Homosexuality is a behavior. You're never going to force people to want to watch a behavior in film they don't want any part of. I don't enjoy watching two males engage in sexual relations. I'm never going to enjoy it. I won't watch it on film. I shouldn't be expected to or forced to watch it any more than I should be able to stop a homosexual couple from engaging in it. So Democrats can stop trying to force me to watch things I don't want to watch then acting like it's my problem I don't want to spend money on that product. That's not DEI, that's some kind of crazy.

If c-bob and his Democratic brethren want to go to watch films of that kind, that's up to them. There is no way it is in anyway ok for them to try to force that on people who don't want to watch it.

Don’t be “weird” This election could become divisive, so let’s be better than that.

[Aseahawkfan]

What in the hell are you even talking about? More teeth gnashing about crap that's never even suggested by anyone but your own trying rev up more hate for libs. I guarantee you not a single Democrat I know or have ever known have any interest whatsoever in forcing you to go watch a gay movie. That's just stupid.

Well, then you're a more sensible Democrat like some of my uncles who are working class Democrats who I respect.

My Republicans buddies send me every damn article with a Democratic liberal blaming racists and homophobes for not supporting the DEI agenda in film with some person being clipped saying how they're tired of "Cis white men films" because someone isn't supporting some bad movie just because it has a minority or some homosexuals' relationship in it when it's just a bad movie or bad TV show.

If I have to hear the word "Woke" too much more I'm going to lose my mind. I am so tired of that word.