2024

[cradleandshoot]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Well, obviously it's complicated, because there are plenty of folks who are one or two issue extremists who are moderate everywhere else. And plenty of registered D's and R's who are moderates.

But generally speaking, a moderate doesn't hold any extreme positions. So to use an example....isn't against all gun reform, yet at the same time, doesn't want to ban guns.

Or if you look at yourself in the mirror, and realize you don't agree with either party. So for me? I don't like the heavy hand of law enforcement in some States, while at the same time, I also don't like the loosey-goosey approach taken in San Francisco.

I want the middle ground......where police don't shoot first, and ask questions later...while at the same time, we don't unnecessarily endanger the police when doing absurdly dangerous things like serving warrants. A rational, reasonable, middle of the road approach.

I consider myself pretty moderate on most issues. I'm personally against abortion but that decision should be up to the mother. My most extreme position is probably as a fiscal conservative. I've always lived within my means. I never carry over debt on my credit card. I read today the national debt just exceeded 35 trillion and is increasing 1 trillion every 100 days. I'm infuriated that no one in Washington DC appears to care and are unwilling to do anything about it. The only 2 unpopular remedies are less spending and increasing taxes. I don't see either remedy gaining any traction anytime soon.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting editorial and position in a swing state:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion ... 583703007/

The time has come for my fellow Arizona Republicans to return to the core foundations of the Grand Old Party.

Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the freedom, opportunity and security to live out their American Dream.

But since Donald Trump refused to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, Republicans have yet to course correct. The Republican Party with Trump at its helm continues down the path of political extremism, away from focusing on our fundamental freedoms.

Now more than ever, we need leaders who will put country over party.

I believe my party has a moral and ethical responsibility to restore faith in our democratic institutions. In the spirit of the late Sen. John McCain’s motto, “Country First,” I call on other Arizona Republicans to join me in choosing country over party this election and to vote against Donald Trump.

Trump did not support Arizona cities

In Arizona, we have faced the brunt of misinformation, election denialism and an erosion of trust in our justice system.

The Grand Canyon State is ground zero in the fight against repeated false claims to disrupt our electoral process — from fake presidential electors attempting to undermine Arizona’s election, to a sham “audit” by Arizona Senate Republicans that was spurred by conspiracy theories.

Significant reforms to immigration and border policies that would have addressed the crisis at our southern border were blocked by Trump because he didn’t want the problem solved. He wanted to exploit it for personal political gain.

Since 2014, I have had the honor of being mayor of Mesa, the nation’s 36th-largest city and one of the most conservative. Under Trump, American cities didn’t get the support they deserved. Infrastructure week was made into a joke.

But under the Biden-Harris administration, Mesa has seen historic federal funding for the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, along with investments to make sure our streets and public transit systems benefit from modern technology.

With the CHIPS Act, Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden are delivering thousands of new jobs to Arizonans and helping us grow critical industries.

Harris is the competent leader we need

Trump poses a serious threat to our nation. We can’t have a felon representing us on the national stage, let alone one who would threaten to abandon NATO and ruin our standing abroad.

We are in a moment that only happens once every few generations, when we have to defend democracy, and stand up for the right to vote and our civil rights. It is essential that we proceed in a manner that strengthens, rather than diminishes, public confidence in our democratic institutions.

What kind of country do we want to live in?

Vice President Harris is fighting to make sure Americans can get ahead and be safe from gun violence and to restore and protect the rights of women. Donald Trump, on the other hand, could enact the extreme and dangerous Project 2025 agenda if elected, which would roll back our rights and freedoms.

We can choose a future for our children and grandchildren based on decency, respect and morality — or succumb to the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump and J.D. Vance and the far-right agenda they would champion.

Arizona leaders like McCain and Sen. Mark Kelly have embodied the commitment to country over party. And it’s that same high caliber of character and leadership I see in Vice President Harris.

That’s why I’m standing with her. Kamala Harris is the competent, just and fair leader our country deserves. This year too much is at stake to vote Republican at the top of the ticket.

It will take Arizona Republicans, independents and Democrats standing together against a far-right agenda. Let us put country over party by voting to stop Trump and protect our democracy."

Republican John Giles is mayor of Mesa. On X, formerly Twitter: @mayorgiles.

[Typical Lax Dad]

They are trying to do DEI to the Presidency!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.threads.net/@mediumboi/post ... teI64-w7Ag

[youthathletics]

The entire comment....

Vice presidential hopeful Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) acknowledged the white supremacist attacks against his wife, Usha Vance, who is a child of Indian immigrants. “Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is,” he told host Megyn Kelly on her show Friday. “Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.” Usha Vance has faced a slew of far-right attacks targeting her Indian heritage following her husband’s nomination to the Republican ticket.

[Farfromgeneva]

The entire comment....

Vice presidential hopeful Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) acknowledged the white supremacist attacks against his wife, Usha Vance, who is a child of Indian immigrants. “Look, I love my wife so much. I love her because she’s who she is,” he told host Megyn Kelly on her show Friday. “Obviously, she’s not a white person, and we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists over that. But I just, I love Usha.” Usha Vance has faced a slew of far-right attacks targeting her Indian heritage following her husband’s nomination to the Republican ticket.

Me too

https://youtu.be/GxBSyx85Kp8?si=iaGqS7N-jL5l3uSA

[PizzaSnake]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Well, obviously it's complicated, because there are plenty of folks who are one or two issue extremists who are moderate everywhere else. And plenty of registered D's and R's who are moderates.

But generally speaking, a moderate doesn't hold any extreme positions. So to use an example....isn't against all gun reform, yet at the same time, doesn't want to ban guns.

Or if you look at yourself in the mirror, and realize you don't agree with either party. So for me? I don't like the heavy hand of law enforcement in some States, while at the same time, I also don't like the loosey-goosey approach taken in San Francisco.

I want the middle ground......where police don't shoot first, and ask questions later...while at the same time, we don't unnecessarily endanger the police when doing absurdly dangerous things like serving warrants. A rational, reasonable, middle of the road approach.

I consider myself pretty moderate on most issues. I'm personally against abortion but that decision should be up to the mother. My most extreme position is probably as a fiscal conservative. I've always lived within my means. I never carry over debt on my credit card. I read today the national debt just exceeded 35 trillion and is increasing 1 trillion every 100 days. I'm infuriated that no one in Washington DC appears to care and are unwilling to do anything about it. The only 2 unpopular remedies are less spending and increasing taxes. I don't see either remedy gaining any traction anytime soon.

The only two unpopular remedies? What other remedies are there? Any "popular" ones?

The bill is coming due, and the people who are going to have to pay it for longer (younger voters), are going to make those of us who preceded them, pay dearly for this bequest. Bank on that. Forget about any "golden years."

[Farfromgeneva]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Well, obviously it's complicated, because there are plenty of folks who are one or two issue extremists who are moderate everywhere else. And plenty of registered D's and R's who are moderates.

But generally speaking, a moderate doesn't hold any extreme positions. So to use an example....isn't against all gun reform, yet at the same time, doesn't want to ban guns.

Or if you look at yourself in the mirror, and realize you don't agree with either party. So for me? I don't like the heavy hand of law enforcement in some States, while at the same time, I also don't like the loosey-goosey approach taken in San Francisco.

I want the middle ground......where police don't shoot first, and ask questions later...while at the same time, we don't unnecessarily endanger the police when doing absurdly dangerous things like serving warrants. A rational, reasonable, middle of the road approach.

I consider myself pretty moderate on most issues. I'm personally against abortion but that decision should be up to the mother. My most extreme position is probably as a fiscal conservative. I've always lived within my means. I never carry over debt on my credit card. I read today the national debt just exceeded 35 trillion and is increasing 1 trillion every 100 days. I'm infuriated that no one in Washington DC appears to care and are unwilling to do anything about it. The only 2 unpopular remedies are less spending and increasing taxes. I don't see either remedy gaining any traction anytime soon.

The only two unpopular remedies? What other remedies are there? Any "popular" ones?

The bill is coming due, and the people who are going to have to pay it for longer (younger voters), are going to make those of us who preceded them, pay dearly for this bequest. Bank on that. Forget about any "golden years."

Mine are already gone. But yeah folks around here hate me for banging on the boomers pulled forward everything and still f**cked it up mantra.

[NattyBohChamps04]

All good and valid observations.

Alhough registered D, I'm with you on Independent-identifying, which in my mind somehow shields me from having to face the reality of the many things I deeply dislike with "D" or "R" next to it. It implies acceptance of impotence, though. The one thing the founding fathers didn't seem to address was an entrenched binary system that snuffs out any possibility of additional choice(s) having a chance to crash the party.

Lucky for us, we're going to have a tidal wave of folks to help us "see the light, and be right" in the coming months. "Gentle-parent" has entered the lexicon. Just what the doctor ordered!

https://x.com/wrong_speak/status/1817876498163912864

Not sure if I can take 100 more days of this

That was pretty darn impressive. 200,000+ on a zoom call and raised more than $11M in donations?


I imagine there are a lot of women who are really pi$$ed they have lost rights and that a serial sexual abuser may be president again. Happy to see more grassroots political engagement than less.

[Farfromgeneva]

All good and valid observations.

Alhough registered D, I'm with you on Independent-identifying, which in my mind somehow shields me from having to face the reality of the many things I deeply dislike with "D" or "R" next to it. It implies acceptance of impotence, though. The one thing the founding fathers didn't seem to address was an entrenched binary system that snuffs out any possibility of additional choice(s) having a chance to crash the party.

Lucky for us, we're going to have a tidal wave of folks to help us "see the light, and be right" in the coming months. "Gentle-parent" has entered the lexicon. Just what the doctor ordered!

https://x.com/wrong_speak/status/1817876498163912864

Not sure if I can take 100 more days of this

That was pretty darn impressive. 200,000+ on a zoom call and raised more than $11M in donations?


I imagine there are a lot of women who are really pi$$ed they have lost rights and that a serial sexual abuser may be president again. Happy to see more grassroots political engagement than less.

So you are saying it would be a bad idea for them to co-opt this song at any point of the campaign?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YdLT0rL6L4

[cradleandshoot]

All well and good except "While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic." (lifted from our federal government's website). Weren't the founders exceedingly wary of democracies? Would not our current state of affairs convince them their worst fears are being realized? Why are politicians today so relentless about using the D word (democracy) instead of the R word (republic)?

And what have we seen (more glaringly than ever in the last decade) that suggests once a punitive-minded democratic majority (initially principled but devolved into a semblance of what we see today - both sides) gains power that they won't weaponize against their opposition, and engage in activities with the sole purpose of consolidating and extending rule/power?

A constitutional federal republic is a type of democracy. Like a square is a rectangle. Our founders weren't wary of "democracies", they just wanted the "right" people to stay in power. Namely people like them.

Love to see a link to founding period source material that confirms or even implies what you state above. Plenty of material which confirms their very wary eye toward democratic principles run amok. Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights don't contain the word democracy, as we all know.

Are you happy with a punitive-minded minority gaining power and weaponizing it against the majority or other minorities?
No

Because that has happened in our country time and again throughout our history. Agree.

Just asking questions, trying to stay curious, remaining skeptical of both sides, and of course hoping to learn something along the way. Imho the negative human nature traits that we see in our opposition in America are traits we should realize are 99.99% likely to also be present to at least some degree on "our side" - so if we want to solve problems the mirror is just as important a tool as what we're pointing our finger at.

There aren't two sides.....there are two extremes that have convinced themselves that there isn't an American Moderate. That there is no middle who just wants Congress to work as intended: to find a middle ground. The moderate path.

And this fake partisanship is entirely fabricated by the .01%ers who run media and Congress and our Multinational corporations.....keep them looking at stupid, pointless issues, while more and more money is shoveled to the extremely rich. You can't eat anger or hate. Or house your family with stupid fake issues concocted by politicians.

Out of curiosity a Fan...how is a moderate suppose to be defined? IMHO both sides will point an accusing finger at you and say ... if you ain't fer us yer agin us...

Well, obviously it's complicated, because there are plenty of folks who are one or two issue extremists who are moderate everywhere else. And plenty of registered D's and R's who are moderates.

But generally speaking, a moderate doesn't hold any extreme positions. So to use an example....isn't against all gun reform, yet at the same time, doesn't want to ban guns.

Or if you look at yourself in the mirror, and realize you don't agree with either party. So for me? I don't like the heavy hand of law enforcement in some States, while at the same time, I also don't like the loosey-goosey approach taken in San Francisco.

I want the middle ground......where police don't shoot first, and ask questions later...while at the same time, we don't unnecessarily endanger the police when doing absurdly dangerous things like serving warrants. A rational, reasonable, middle of the road approach.

I consider myself pretty moderate on most issues. I'm personally against abortion but that decision should be up to the mother. My most extreme position is probably as a fiscal conservative. I've always lived within my means. I never carry over debt on my credit card. I read today the national debt just exceeded 35 trillion and is increasing 1 trillion every 100 days. I'm infuriated that no one in Washington DC appears to care and are unwilling to do anything about it. The only 2 unpopular remedies are less spending and increasing taxes. I don't see either remedy gaining any traction anytime soon.

The only two unpopular remedies? What other remedies are there? Any "popular" ones?

The bill is coming due, and the people who are going to have to pay it for longer (younger voters), are going to make those of us who preceded them, pay dearly for this bequest. Bank on that. Forget about any "golden years."

I'll clarify, the only 2 REALISTIC unpopular remedies if your trying to put a dent in 35 trillion dollars of debt. I suppose the government could have a bake sale. There is one camp that thinks tax is a popular method. There is another camp that thinks cutting spending is popular. If you add the 2 together you wind up with unpopular.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We are soon to find out the truth about people….all these people saying they wish they had someone to vote for other than Joe and Trump. Both too old and are slipping mentally….well Kamala Harris is running for office now. Put up or shut up time. The truth will be revealed. I have long said people vote for
Trump because he’s against the the same people that the folks that vote for him are against. All this we don’t have a decent candidate to vote for is all BS. Our wish has been granted. We have an alternative now.

[Farfromgeneva]

We are soon to find out the truth about people….all these people saying they wish they had someone to vote for other than Joe and Trump. Both too old and are slipping mentally….well Kamala Harris is running for office now. Put up or shut up time. The truth will be revealed. I have long said people vote for
Trump because he’s against the the same people that the folks that vote for him are against. All this we don’t have a decent candidate to vote for is all BS. Our wish has been granted. We have an alternative now.

Which is why I’m figuring on swinging that way, only second time ever in a presidential election, though holding my nose about how she’s the candidate and still objecting to a s**t ton of how the Dems have run this game since 2020, but compared with sitting it out which is was likely to do w Biden.

You get what you want but I’m not giving away my rights to demand a whole hell of a lot more.

[youthathletics]

Prediction by Lichtman: https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1818042 ... a82I2GssRg

[njbill]

Prediction by Lichtman: https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1818042 ... a82I2GssRg

Don’t tell ggait. Only machines are allowed to make predictions about the presidential election.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/politics ... index.html

Like I said, a phony.

[ggait]

Prediction by Lichtman: https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1818042 ... a82I2GssRg

Don’t tell ggait. Only machines are allowed to make predictions about the presidential election.

I think Livhtman’s “formula” is so subjective as to not really be much of a system. But it is one more view and data point that you can consider along with other forecasts. He does not focus on polls or actual candidates. He looks at generic fundamentals to gushed the chance of the incumbent party to retain the wh.

But based on his so-called formula, this dude says that Biden should have been retained. Because he would be stronger than Harris. Biden would have all the plus factors that Harris has. And also one more in addition — being an incumbent.

Not many people believe that. Do you still believe that Bill?

Will be interesting to see what the quants say when their models turn back on. I doubt they will be as optimistic for Harris.

[old salt]

Prediction by Lichtman: https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1818042 ... a82I2GssRg

Don’t tell ggait. Only machines are allowed to make predictions about the presidential election.

I think Livhtman’s “formula” is so subjective as to not really be much of a system.

But based on his so-called formula, this dude says that Biden should have been retained. Because he would be stronger than Harris. Biden would have all the plus factors that Harris has. And also one more in addition — being an incumbent.

Not many people believe that. Do you still believe that Bill?

Will be interesting to see what the quants say when their models turn back on. I doubt they will be as optimistic for Harris.

I saw a reporter on one of the Sunday shows saying that Biden still polls better than Harris in the Rust Belt swing states (PA,MI,WI).
If Harris can't win one of the sun belt swing states (NC, GA, AZ, NV), Biden still might have had a better chance to win the EC.

[ggait]

One note on Lichtman’s “system.” He currently claims to have called Trump’s 2016 win. Revisionist bs.

Lichtman predicted Trump would win the popular vote. Which Trump lost. The system at that time ignored the EC. Kind of a pretty big omission.

[cradleandshoot]

We are soon to find out the truth about people….all these people saying they wish they had someone to vote for other than Joe and Trump. Both too old and are slipping mentally….well Kamala Harris is running for office now. Put up or shut up time. The truth will be revealed. I have long said people vote for
Trump because he’s against the the same people that the folks that vote for him are against. All this we don’t have a decent candidate to vote for is all BS. Our wish has been granted. We have an alternative now.

To make a fair assessment of candidate Harris much more needs to be revealed. I have read some interesting things about her over the last few days. I'm guessing that team trump is doing a deep dive into her past and her record as DA of San Francisco and as AG of California. Her flip flopping on the death penalty is interesting at face value.