I don't care about Dan Gilbert's politics.
The point is that he clearly doesn't "hate the city".
Only you and Trump believe that everyone does.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I don't care about Dan Gilbert's politics.
The point is that he clearly doesn't "hate the city".
Only you and Trump believe that everyone does.
I wasn't going after anyone,, if you don't want to vote for Harris because your view is that by doing so you would be complicit in genocide,.
The flip side is that voting for Trump makes you complicit in voting against the right of women to choose in the US and putting a convicted criminal in to power.
Votes have consequences either way you're complicit in something most people view as bad things, and it looks like Eboue is not choosing either of those options so in his case it's kinda moot
If you think you've made some great point about how rich suburbanites actually love Detroit and are constantly going to Eastern market and drinking in Corktown i don't know what to tell you.
I'm with Eboue on this one and TBH you could apply this to many American inner cities.
I have no idea who Gilbert is but he's in this because he's sees it as a good way to make money, that's how billioniares work
I hate everything about this.
https://open.substack.com/pub/aaronrupar/p/kamala-harris-mainstream-media-interviews
Collins (like Politico) insists that while Harris may be doing interviews, she’s not doing the right interviews — that is, “serious interviews with national reporters.” The implication is that local reporters, Spanish-language outlets, and podcasters lack the secret sauce of knowledge and professionalism which Gail Collins and Bret Stephens have as the lucky holders of Times sinecures. Only the NYT and Politico can really vet presidential candidates, according to the NYT and Politico.
This self-serving narrative is obviously ridiculous. As Jen Psaki pointed out, NYT and Politico are cranky not because they reach more people than Call Her Daddy (they don’t) and not because they will ask harder hitting questions than 60 Minutes. Rather, they are cranky because “their relevance relies on being the sole arbiters of asking the questions.” But in the current media ecosystem, people have lots of options that are not the NYT and Politico. And that makes the NYT and Politico sad.
Collins (like Politico) insists that while Harris may be doing interviews, she’s not doing the right interviews — that is, “serious interviews with national reporters.” The implication is that local reporters, Spanish-language outlets, and podcasters lack the secret sauce of knowledge and professionalism which Gail Collins and Bret Stephens have as the lucky holders of Times sinecures. Only the NYT and Politico can really vet presidential candidates, according to the NYT and Politico.
This self-serving narrative is obviously ridiculous. As Jen Psaki pointed out, NYT and Politico are cranky not because they reach more people than Call Her Daddy (they don’t) and not because they will ask harder hitting questions than 60 Minutes. Rather, they are cranky because “their relevance relies on being the sole arbiters of asking the questions.” But in the current media ecosystem, people have lots of options that are not the NYT and Politico. And that makes the NYT and Politico sad.
It's interesting that with the logic of if you vote Harris you're endorsing genocide, you could easily shift the argument back around with "If you vote for Jill Stein, you're voting for ethnic cleansing".
Not that I believe either to be true, but the same logic is being used here.
In fact, the only option if you don't want to endorse either genocide or ethnic cleansing seems to be.... not voting at all.
Not that I believe either to be true, but the same logic is being used here.
In fact, the only option if you don't want to endorse either genocide or ethnic cleansing seems to be.... not voting at all.
WI
https://x.com/TobyMGData
MI
https://x.com/PatrickSchuh
https://x.com/umichvoter
Note that these are all partisan Dem accounts, so there will always be at least an element of that in their write up, but so is Joshua.
Also keep this in mind
So indulge in these numbers if you must, but really none of it is an exact science. Trying to read the tea leaves in these states where a lot of EDay votes are up in the air is a fraught endeavor.
I agree, I think there's no logic at all to that argument. This election is not just Harris or Trump, it's what shape the US gov't will assume once either is in power, covering everything from Supreme Court justices to environmental regulations, women's body autonomy, minority rights, voting rights, the functioning of the professional and formerly nonpartisan gov't work force, immigration, the promised largest ethnic cleansing in this nation's history (i.e., rounding up 20 million legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, their families and then forcibly deporting them to countries some of them have never set foot in), energy policy, tax policy, educational policy, campaign finance reforms, gay rights, trans rights, and so on and so forth.
It's beyond selfish to the point of actively welcoming the disenfranchisement of tens of millions of people. The Israel-Hamas war is an important issue but it is not the only issue, and it's probably not an issue that is going to be solved by either party. Trump relocated the US embassy to Jerusalem, as an example of his devotion. Harris might not deviate from Biden on this, but it can be made infinitely worse if Trump is elected. It’s the whole “you can’t be neutral on a moving train” analogy. If we’re talking utilitarian values, you vote for whichever candidate will do the most good/least harm — even if it doesn’t benefit you directly. If Harris and Trump are a wash on the Israel-Hamas war, then you can judge based on other policies and predictions. There was some similar virtue signaling voting when it was Gore vs. Bush, people saying there’s no difference between the parties. One Iraq war later, that no-vote choice looked pretty awful.
Last edited:
Anyone else see Trump farting on stage yesterday?
I have reason to believe this is true as I saw him back in April 2016 at a Gastroenterologist clinic on Park Ave, NYC...
I was next to him in the office and nearly caught the pic of him leaving, along with his secret service entourage.
Luckly, my IBS was temporary, but it seems like his is chronic.
It was the same doctor, gastroenterology specialist Harold Bornstein, who's Trump's guys busted into and stole his medical records...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...dyguard-lawyer-raided-his-office-took-n870351
We can't have a President who has a very real potential of soiling himself.
I have reason to believe this is true as I saw him back in April 2016 at a Gastroenterologist clinic on Park Ave, NYC...
I was next to him in the office and nearly caught the pic of him leaving, along with his secret service entourage.
Luckly, my IBS was temporary, but it seems like his is chronic.
It was the same doctor, gastroenterology specialist Harold Bornstein, who's Trump's guys busted into and stole his medical records...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...dyguard-lawyer-raided-his-office-took-n870351
We can't have a President who has a very real potential of soiling himself.
Anyone else see Trump farting on stage yesterday?
I have reason to believe this is true as I saw him back in April 2016 at a Gastroenterologist clinic on Park Ave, NYC...
I was next to him in the office and nearly caught the pic of him leaving, along with his secret service entourage.
Luckly, my IBS was temporary, but it seems like his is chronic.
It was the same doctor, gastroenterology specialist Harold Bornstein, who's Trump's guys busted into and stole his medical records...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...dyguard-lawyer-raided-his-office-took-n870351
We can't have a President who has a very real potential of soiling himself.
Come on man, there’s many reasons why the guy is not a good option for president but potentially having chronic IBS ain’t it…
Anyone else see Trump farting on stage yesterday?
I have reason to believe this is true as I saw him back in April 2016 at a Gastroenterologist clinic on Park Ave, NYC...
I was next to him in the office and nearly caught the pic of him leaving, along with his secret service entourage.
Luckly, my IBS was temporary, but it seems like his is chronic.
It was the same doctor, gastroenterology specialist Harold Bornstein, who's Trump's guys busted into and stole his medical records...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...dyguard-lawyer-raided-his-office-took-n870351
We can't have a President who has a very real potential of soiling himself.
I disagree, there are some decisions I'd be concerned about if a President wasn't shitting him/her self
One of the funniest things about Jill Stein discourse is that ... third-party voting almost saved Hillary from defeat. In each swing state, the libertarian (primarily taking votes from the GOP) got about 3X the votes that Jill Stein (primarily taking votes from Dems) got.
If those people had voted "with their head not heart" or whatever you want Greens to do, Trump would have virtually tied the popular vote, and won NH on top of comfortably cruising to a win in all three midwestern states.
Libertarians won Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona for Biden last time. If those votes had gone to Trump, and Green votes in those states to Biden, Trump would have been re-elected.
If those people had voted "with their head not heart" or whatever you want Greens to do, Trump would have virtually tied the popular vote, and won NH on top of comfortably cruising to a win in all three midwestern states.
Libertarians won Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona for Biden last time. If those votes had gone to Trump, and Green votes in those states to Biden, Trump would have been re-elected.
Permanently or right now?
Right now I’m hopping between DC and Surrey Uk but my permanent home is in UK
Why is this relevant?
Right, but using the logic that voting for dems is voting for genocide, I’m just pointing out that voting for stein is voting for ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
Everything is projection with them, democrats controlling political information on social media platforms, and yet they are doing it probably a lot more themselves.
As a non-American, was the political rhetoric during the Trump years and this election the same as let's say the 80s/90s or early 2000s? Were people arguing that a Bush or Gore win would have meant that it was the last election for the US? Were people saying Reagan was going to end democracy? Were all of those elections framed as existential for US democracy?
I'm under no illusion that polarization is a new thing. I know that being against the Iraq invasion would have made you branded as a traitor with the likes of Fox News leading the line. Just trying to understand if each election was deemed existential.
I'm under no illusion that polarization is a new thing. I know that being against the Iraq invasion would have made you branded as a traitor with the likes of Fox News leading the line. Just trying to understand if each election was deemed existential.
Politics pre-2000 were fairly normal. The 2000 FL recount and subsequent supreme court case was the first real shot across the bow that things were going to go south. Then once the information age and social media took over, everything quickly became binary. Ironically, the 2000 election steered the US in a direction far more perverse than anything Trump did in his four years .
During the 2000 campaign the Republican nominee, W Bush, appeared on CBS' The Late Show. There is absolutely no way that would happen today.
Alas, I can't find the full interview anymore, but here's the Top 10 from that episode for any interested parties
If +400k is the required firewall, Democrats are almost halfway through with 3.5 weeks to go. Looking good.
I don’t think that MI reports by party affiliation.
Back to October 2022… who would’ve thought?!! The Republicans are gonna Repub.
Thanks, and it aligns with what I've read that the 2000 FL recount was a major moment.
Because you are pontificating on what is realistic for Joe in Michigan to think.
Yes, for the most part. I would probably say it started a bit before 2000: 1996 with the creation of Fox News and 1998 with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
9/11 and the war in Iraq reinforced that trend, particularly the latter. Barack Obama winning in 2008 was another break point. Obama winning in 2012 was an absolute shock for the GOP: they lost their minds that night, and that gave us Trump. And Trump accelerated the process of division significantly.
The rest is history.
It's not a hard and fast number, Joshua himself said he will revise it once more data came in and he has more of an idea about how the NPA returns looks like (typically NPA VBM rate is 70-30 D)
390k here is just a number where you feel like you are in decent shape going into E-Day, it's vastly different from having a 80-90k lead out of Clark in Nevada and you are 80% sure you have it sown up. So far, the only reasonable conclusion you can draw from these returns is theres no lack of enthusiasm on the D size, as they lead in return rates in the top 10 counties, and Philly already at 11% of its total vote in 2020 so urban margin looks to be holding up.
Yes. That's not to say there weren't dirty tricks pre-2000. JFK probably stole the 60 election, there was the October surprise in 80, and of course the Roger Ailes / Lee Atwater inspired Willie Horton, Boston Harbor, and Tank Riding ads, which were considered pretty toxic at the time, but would be considered tame by today's standards. 2000 was however the first time in the modern era that the country turned into the Hatfields and the McCoys.
The gloves were off by 2000. In the Republican primary push polls were asking South Carolina voters “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Not to mention the “traitor” and “drug addict wife” rumours. The bush campaign denied being behind it but who would but believe a word from those war criminals.
Trump +5 district.
It's a full circle back to 2022, Red Wave in the polling average and solid district level polling for Dems everywhere. Even if you account for the house effect of internals (3 pts better for the candidate), Harris and Kim are both outrunning Biden/Booker margin here.
400k is definitely not set in stone, but based on the current trend, the Democrats may exceed that number. It’s already 170k. Can they make it 500k by Election Day? Possible.
The second point is the crucial one: no lack of enthusiasm, it seems, at least for now. It feels that each time people see the name of Trump, they want to vote… either for him or against him.
Ok it's time to fecking panic, she's taking foreign policy advice from John Bolton and the ghost of Kissinger and McCain, isn't she?
This is the stuff every candidate says, but, i don't have any illusions that her foreign policy is going to be any better than Biden's in the middle east.
When both dems and reps sucks on foreign policy in the middle east, i will go with the one that at least supports Ukraine, lesser evil choice here.
Its a stupid strategy on republicans part, if you think about it.
If they want to be complacent going into election day, fine by me, I'm happy dems aren't into this business.