2024

[cradleandshoot]

Trump is crazy. He's back in GA, ripping the (R) Governor & Sec of State, re-litigating the 2020 election, praising the (R) LtGov & the GA (R)'s who supported him. Dividing the GA (R)'s. In 2020, he caused the (R)'s to lose 2 GA Senate seats & control of the Senate. He's doing it again. He's gonna lose GA & he's gonna lose the election. Kamala went to GA & put on a rock concert. Trump is toast.

I really like JD Vance, but with the abortion issue & now running against Kamala, Trump should have picked Nikki Haley as his VP, forget about the 2020 election & stop trying to settle personal scores. Had he done that, he'd win in a landslide. He's playing right into the Dems' hands.

Who are you and what have you done with Salty??

I really like JD Vance

Oh, wait...

..

,,,

The obvious conclusion is that trump enjoys running for president more than he is concerned about winning. Besides, isn't his ass suppose to be heading to jail in September?

The above has always been accurate, it's just even more so now that senility is really impacting him so heavily.

He's always been a psychopathic narcissist, dishonest and mean spirited to his core, but senility amplifies his lack of impulse control.

And NBC just loved those qualities about him when The Apprentice was making both of them extraordinary sums of money. It took me about 1 episode of that show to understand who and what trump was all about.
The word Charlatan was my first impression of him.

[Typical Lax Dad]

a fan wrote

We VOTED for Kamala, YA. You're intentionally ignoring that. She was on the ticket, and she won the election.

I don't believe this is the whole story. What we actually did was vote for anyone other than Trump and Kamala was one of the beneficiaries of that. Pretty much the same old story in recent history, we vote for who we see as the lesser of two evils (Trump was that guy v Hillary) not for who we think is the right and good person for the job.

Who would that be this time around and why?

I don't follow any of it closely enough to give you any kind of thought out and qualified answer.
I find pretty much the entire system to be a cesspool of corruption. He who lies, cheats, twists,
and manipulates wins...see Trump as a fine example. Foreign campaign investors (nfw that should
be allowed), big biz investors, lobbyists, etc. I feel as if the EC dilutes the power of your vote too
(see Trump again). Two party system? C'mon.

The implication in your post was that there is a good or right candidate. Could just say there are no good candidates.

[ggait]

Last update: 12:15 p.m, Thursday, August 1:

With Kamala Harris having another day of reasonably strong polling, we’re now officially in the zone where we can call the race a toss-up. She has a 54 percent chance of winning Michigan, a 50 percent chance of winning Wisconsin, a 47 percent chance of winning Pennsylvania, and a 45 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.

Last update: 1:30 p.m, Friday, August 2:

Despite a bad day of economic news — which worsens the model’s economic index and therefore harms the incumbent party’s chances — Kamala Harris continues to inch ahead in the forecast on the strength of fairly strong polling. She now leads Donald Trump by 1.1 points in our national polling average, and has a 47 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, putting the race well into toss-up territory.

Harris is now ahead in Silver's poll average for each of PA, WI and MI.

Harris up to 50.5% win probability today.

[DMac]

a fan wrote

We VOTED for Kamala, YA. You're intentionally ignoring that. She was on the ticket, and she won the election.

I don't believe this is the whole story. What we actually did was vote for anyone other than Trump and Kamala was one of the beneficiaries of that. Pretty much the same old story in recent history, we vote for who we see as the lesser of two evils (Trump was that guy v Hillary) not for who we think is the right and good person for the job.

Who would that be this time around and why?

I don't follow any of it closely enough to give you any kind of thought out and qualified answer.
I find pretty much the entire system to be a cesspool of corruption. He who lies, cheats, twists,
and manipulates wins...see Trump as a fine example. Foreign campaign investors (nfw that should
be allowed), big biz investors, lobbyists, etc. I feel as if the EC dilutes the power of your vote too
(see Trump again). Two party system? C'mon.

The implication in your post was that there is a good or right candidate. Could just say there are no good candidates.

Implication as you read it, but there is no such implication.

[Typical Lax Dad]

a fan wrote

We VOTED for Kamala, YA. You're intentionally ignoring that. She was on the ticket, and she won the election.

I don't believe this is the whole story. What we actually did was vote for anyone other than Trump and Kamala was one of the beneficiaries of that. Pretty much the same old story in recent history, we vote for who we see as the lesser of two evils (Trump was that guy v Hillary) not for who we think is the right and good person for the job.

Who would that be this time around and why?

I don't follow any of it closely enough to give you any kind of thought out and qualified answer.
I find pretty much the entire system to be a cesspool of corruption. He who lies, cheats, twists,
and manipulates wins...see Trump as a fine example. Foreign campaign investors (nfw that should
be allowed), big biz investors, lobbyists, etc. I feel as if the EC dilutes the power of your vote too
(see Trump again). Two party system? C'mon.

The implication in your post was that there is a good or right candidate. Could just say there are no good candidates.

Implication as you read it, but there is no such implication.

It’s not what you meant but reading basic English says otherwise. You can say it’s not what I meant. Jesus. We all misspeak at times.

[youthathletics]

[DMac]

Right back at you, TLD, you could also say I guess I misread it because there is no implication of who I think would be the right/best person in basic English, French, or Chinese.

[old salt]

I'd like to hear someone on the right or middle explain what exactly they don't like about Kamala.
Sure, there might be someone else we'd prefer, but what is it that you don't actually like?
Is it actually disqualifying?

She's further to the left than Bernie, Liz Warren & AOC.
If you haven't liked Biden's decisions & policies, you'll like Kamala's even less.
She's never been in a job where she had to make a decision under pressure.
You may not like Trump, but he's made live or death national security decisions which have turned out well.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Right back at you, TLD, you could also say I guess I misread it because there is no implication of who I think would be the right/best person in basic English, French, or Chinese.

You said “we”. You meant to include yourself with the plurality of people that believe “we” don’t have good or the right person for the job? You meant to include yourself in the we?

We: 1. : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you. used as pronoun of the first person plural. We live here. We would like to order now.

All you had to say was that you didn’t intend to include yourself in “we”.

[old salt]

a fan wrote

We VOTED for Kamala, YA. You're intentionally ignoring that. She was on the ticket, and she won the election.

I don't believe this is the whole story. What we actually did was vote for anyone other than Trump and Kamala was one of the beneficiaries of that. Pretty much the same old story in recent history, we vote for who we see as the lesser of two evils (Trump was that guy v Hillary) not for who we think is the right and good person for the job.

Who would that be this time around and why?

I don't follow any of it closely enough to give you any kind of thought out and qualified answer.
I find pretty much the entire system to be a cesspool of corruption. He who lies, cheats, twists,
and manipulates wins...see Trump as a fine example. Foreign campaign investors (nfw that should
be allowed), big biz investors, lobbyists, etc. I feel as if the EC dilutes the power of your vote too
(see Trump again). Two party system? C'mon.

The implication in your post was that there is a good or right candidate. Could just say there are no good candidates.

The Dems just had a chance to nominate the best candidate -- Mark Kelly, but they wiffed. He hasn't been corrupted yet.

[Typical Lax Dad]

a fan wrote

We VOTED for Kamala, YA. You're intentionally ignoring that. She was on the ticket, and she won the election.

I don't believe this is the whole story. What we actually did was vote for anyone other than Trump and Kamala was one of the beneficiaries of that. Pretty much the same old story in recent history, we vote for who we see as the lesser of two evils (Trump was that guy v Hillary) not for who we think is the right and good person for the job.

Who would that be this time around and why?

I don't follow any of it closely enough to give you any kind of thought out and qualified answer.
I find pretty much the entire system to be a cesspool of corruption. He who lies, cheats, twists,
and manipulates wins...see Trump as a fine example. Foreign campaign investors (nfw that should
be allowed), big biz investors, lobbyists, etc. I feel as if the EC dilutes the power of your vote too
(see Trump again). Two party system? C'mon.

The implication in your post was that there is a good or right candidate. Could just say there are no good candidates.

The Dems just had a chance to nominate the best candidate -- Mark Kelly, but they wiffed. He hasn't been corrupted yet.

Wanda might pick him.

[a fan]

I'd like to hear someone on the right or middle explain what exactly they don't like about Kamala.
Sure, there might be someone else we'd prefer, but what is it that you don't actually like?
Is it actually disqualifying?

She's further to the left than Bernie, Liz Warren & AOC.
If you haven't liked Biden's decisions & policies, you'll like Kamala's even less.
She's never been in a job where she had to make a decision under pressure.
You may not like Trump, but he's made live or death national security decisions which have turned out well.

Oh. we'll have some FUN wagers if Trump somehow implodes, and she wins.

She's to the left of Bernie? Right. Sure she is.

Bidens decisions and policies are AT BEST center right. How many times have we discussed Ukraine and the boilerplate Neo-Con thinking? And he's moving US troops to the ME, just on ships so far...more Neo-Con.

He's center right. Not even a close call. His Biggest bills are Infrastructure and Chips Act.

And you can't point to the border or free school. Reagan reigned over free University in California, had open borders AND gave amnesty.

Unless you want to argue Reagan was a leftie.....please try that.

[old salt]

I'd like to hear someone on the right or middle explain what exactly they don't like about Kamala.
Sure, there might be someone else we'd prefer, but what is it that you don't actually like?
Is it actually disqualifying?

She's further to the left than Bernie, Liz Warren & AOC.
If you haven't liked Biden's decisions & policies, you'll like Kamala's even less.
She's never been in a job where she had to make a decision under pressure.
You may not like Trump, but he's made live or death national security decisions which have turned out well.

Oh. we'll have some FUN wagers if Trump somehow implodes, and she wins.

She's to the left of Bernie? Right. Sure she is.

Bidens decisions and policies are AT BEST center right. How many times have we discussed Ukraine and the boilerplate Neo-Con thinking? And he's moving US troops to the ME, just on ships so far...more Neo-Con.

He's center right. Not even a close call. His Biggest bills are Infrastructure and Chips Act.

And you can't point to the border or free school. Reagan reigned over free University in California, had open borders AND gave amnesty.

Unless you want to argue Reagan was a leftie.....please try that.

Based on Senate voting records.

Reagan didn't have open borders & the asylum scam. The numbers are nowhere close.

The TR carrier strike group was already in the Persian Gulf on a scheduled rotational deployment.
The Lincoln strike group was already scheduled to relieve them on station.
Ops normal. Not a big deal.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/02/carrie ... nst-israel

[a fan]

The TR carrier strike group was already in the Persian Gulf on a scheduled rotational deployment.
The Lincoln strike group was already scheduled to relieve them on station.
Ops normal. Not a big deal.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/02/carrie ... nst-israel

Yes. Ops Normal. What does "normal ops" mean for America since WWII: NeoCon.

Arming Ukraine is "ops normal". It's why both Trump and Biden did it: Ops Normal.

[a fan]

I'd like to hear someone on the right or middle explain what exactly they don't like about Kamala.
Sure, there might be someone else we'd prefer, but what is it that you don't actually like?
Is it actually disqualifying?

She's further to the left than Bernie, Liz Warren & AOC.
If you haven't liked Biden's decisions & policies, you'll like Kamala's even less.
She's never been in a job where she had to make a decision under pressure.
You may not like Trump, but he's made live or death national security decisions which have turned out well.

Oh. we'll have some FUN wagers if Trump somehow implodes, and she wins.

She's to the left of Bernie? Right. Sure she is.

Bidens decisions and policies are AT BEST center right. How many times have we discussed Ukraine and the boilerplate Neo-Con thinking? And he's moving US troops to the ME, just on ships so far...more Neo-Con.

He's center right. Not even a close call. His Biggest bills are Infrastructure and Chips Act.

And you can't point to the border or free school. Reagan reigned over free University in California, had open borders AND gave amnesty.

Unless you want to argue Reagan was a leftie.....please try that.

Based on Senate voting records.

AOC isn't in the Senate. Liz ain't far left, either. No one is in the Senate. But then you know that, which is why you ignored commenting on Reagan.

The entire country....including you.....has moved waaaaaay to the right since the 80's. Way to the right.

If Reagan was in Congress today? He'd be pegged as a leftwing Hollywood nutjob who was in (gasp!) a Union.

[old salt]

The TR carrier strike group was already in the Persian Gulf on a scheduled rotational deployment.
The Lincoln strike group was already scheduled to relieve them on station.
Ops normal. Not a big deal.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/02/carrie ... nst-israel

Yes. Ops Normal. What does "normal ops" mean for America since WWII: NeoCon.

Arming Ukraine is "ops normal". It's why both Trump and Biden did it: Ops Normal.

What Trump did was a pittance in comparison. Done for deterrence. Just enough to prevent a total collapse if invaded.

All or nothing logic. Devoid of a rational comparison. What do you think Trump will do if elected ?

[DMac]

Right back at you, TLD, you could also say I guess I misread it because there is no implication of who I think would be the right/best person in basic English, French, or Chinese.

You said “we”. You meant to include yourself with the plurality of people that believe “we” don’t have good or the right person for the job? You meant to include yourself in the we?

We: 1. : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you. used as pronoun of the first person plural. We live here. We would like to order now.

All you had to say was that you didn’t intend to include yourself in “we”.

How 'bout the implication is the two party system doesn't cut it?
I'm on record many times as saying we vote for the cream of the
crap and crap is what we end up with.
Spare me the English lesson and all the uppityness.
You misinterpreted what I wrote.

[Farfromgeneva]

Trump is crazy. He's back in GA, ripping the (R) Governor & Sec of State, re-litigating the 2020 election, praising the (R) LtGov & the GA (R)'s who supported him. Dividing the GA (R)'s. In 2020, he caused the (R)'s to lose 2 GA Senate seats & control of the Senate. He's doing it again. He's gonna lose GA & he's gonna lose the election. Kamala went to GA & put on a rock concert. Trump is toast.

I really like JD Vance, but with the abortion issue & now running against Kamala, Trump should have picked Nikki Haley as his VP, forget about the 2020 election & stop trying to settle personal scores. Had he done that, he'd win in a landslide. He's playing right into the Dems' hands.

Yo, the year is 2024..talk about latency.

It appears to be like this in terms of recognition ramp.

https://youtu.be/hQLLN44Y2MU?si=NSMhgq0vjLIaRnzo

[a fan]

The TR carrier strike group was already in the Persian Gulf on a scheduled rotational deployment.
The Lincoln strike group was already scheduled to relieve them on station.
Ops normal. Not a big deal.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/02/carrie ... nst-israel

Yes. Ops Normal. What does "normal ops" mean for America since WWII: NeoCon.

Arming Ukraine is "ops normal". It's why both Trump and Biden did it: Ops Normal.

What Trump did was a pittance in comparison. Done for deterrence. Just enough to prevent a total collapse if invaded.

All or nothing logic. Devoid of a rational comparison. What do you think Trump will do if elected ?

Recall you BRAGGED about Trump arming them, because that's what stopped the Russian army Cold.

Now, as you always do, you change your mind, and move the goalposts, and call it a pittance because you want to "win" a discussion.

All or nothing is your way of weaseling out something you said in the past. It's the equivalent of "I can't refute your point, so I'm going to fling poo, and hope you think that's a response".

Trump armed Ukraine. You don't like that fact here in 2024, so you're on here trying to diminish it and move the goalposts....when you lectured me about how that's what kept Kyiv from falling at the start of the war.

Keeping Kyiv from falling ain't "a pittance'...not even with your throwing in "in comparison" Get out of here with this stuff.

[old salt]

The TR carrier strike group was already in the Persian Gulf on a scheduled rotational deployment.
The Lincoln strike group was already scheduled to relieve them on station.
Ops normal. Not a big deal.
https://news.usni.org/2024/08/02/carrie ... nst-israel

Yes. Ops Normal. What does "normal ops" mean for America since WWII: NeoCon.

Arming Ukraine is "ops normal". It's why both Trump and Biden did it: Ops Normal.

What Trump did was a pittance in comparison. Done for deterrence. Just enough to prevent a total collapse if invaded.

All or nothing logic. Devoid of a rational comparison. What do you think Trump will do if elected ?

Recall you BRAGGED about Trump arming them, because that's what stopped the Russian army Cold.

Now, as you always do, you change your mind, and move the goalposts, and call it a pittance because you want to "win" a discussion.

All or nothing is your way of weaseling out something you said in the past. It's the equivalent of "I can't refute your point, so I'm going to fling poo, and hope you think that's a response".

Trump armed Ukraine. You don't like that fact here in 2024, so you're on here trying to diminish it and move the goalposts....when you lectured me about how that's what kept Kyiv from falling at the start of the war.

Keeping Kyiv from falling ain't "a pittance'...not even with your throwing in "in comparison" Get out of here with this stuff.

It was a difference maker in Ukraine's success in stopping the initial invasion & preventing the collapse of the govt.
It was nowhere near enough to win back territory, let alone mount a counteroffensive, which failed.
It was a pittance in the cost, amount & magnitude of what's been provided since the invasion. F-16's are arriving.
More all-or-nothing logic fail.