[johnu]

 Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-06, 18:35, said:

But my question remains. If only 25% of the country thinks the country is headed in the right direction, why do the polls show that Kamala is leading in the polls?

There are polls and there are polls.

Poll Results

A Morning Consult poll showed that only 48% of responders thought that Convicted Felon Trump was mentally fit, compared to 64% who thought Harris was mentally fit, and half the responders thought that Trump was too old to be president. 36% of voters and 45% of independents don't think Trump is capable of serving a full 4 year term in office if elected. About 40% think Trump has "Diminished ability to react to a developing crisis” and a “Limited ability to consume important information”

Maybe voters are realizing that not only does Trump not know which direction to take the country but that he isn't mentally competent to even form a coherent plan to make changes that won't destroy the country.

[mycroft]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-07, 18:46, said:

mycroft, on 2024-August-07, 10:03, said:

you don't even have to put your declarer skills on display. What's your opinion on weak 2s with a side 4-card major?

Frankly, I fail to see any correlation between my declarer skills and my political philosophy. But since you asked........
[...]
This discussion probably belongs in another thread. I'm sure Barmar will move it (or delete it entirely). But since you brought it up I felt compelled to answer your question.

That's the absolute best instance of "very careful quoting" I've seen in years, maybe even since the Variety "Battlefield Earth" poster. Which, of course, did it deliberately to make a point.

Especially that "I don't understand why you'd want it here, it probably belongs in another thread" bit. I'm sure this game works amazingly in your "post-reality-based community", but here, people actually read - and tend not to forget what is literally 3 posts up (probably even on the same screen!). Let's go look - what's the *immediately previous* bit - the other half of the sentence you quoted, in fact?

Quote

Still waiting to see an on-topic comment. Any one. Any thread but this one. There's a nice easy one to go to right now, you don't even have to put your declarer skills on display...

Because this is a bridge forum site, with exactly one room that is for "off-topic" things like politics. And it's filled with a large number of posters who are happy to talk about bridge, *and politics*. And when someone comes in who has no interest in bridge, but lots of interest in posting "Republican talking point of the day", even when invited to actually join in with the actual purpose of the forums, it looks strange, doesn't it?

And when they deliberately "carefully quote" someone explicitly to *not do* what was being asked, hoping it will make their responder look foolish - yeah, that's the mark of a serious debater. I used to do polling for Rasmussen (among MANY other surveys, we were an overflow company). I know exactly why their surveys are R of average by several percent. Among other things, they taught me how this game is played, and how to spot it from the other side.

If you had just spurned the "cheap win, make your opponent look stupid" pass and posted exactly what you did here into the thread, as I suggested, it would have made me look foolish, and definitely undercut my conclusion that

Quote

Or, you know, it's a talking point spewing astroturfer

. It would have made you look like a bridge player who is intense about their political position, but hey look, I can talk about bridge too, because that's why I'm here, I just got sucked into my favourite hobby.

But instead, "hurr, durr, don't know why you think I should make an off-topic post, but here it is anyway. Clearly you aren't smart enough to play here."


As for your talking point of the day: "But my question remains. If only 25% of the country thinks the country is headed in the right direction, why do the polls show that Kamala is leading in the polls?":

Well, as far as I am concerned (and you can check my history in this thread. Back to 2016, in fact, IIRC), I have been frustrated with the Democratic Party ratchet (where the Rs crank things as far as they can to "authoritarian theocracy" when they're in power, and the Ds stop that trend, but seem mechanically unable to turn things back, when they are) for my entire voting life. I have been frustrated with the way the Republicans have been incredibly successful in their Overton Window manipulation, so much so that they've coopted the "liberal media" into their "if Harris was interesting in swinging back to the centre,..." games.

I do not think the USA is headed in the right direction, and hasn't been for decades. I have been incredibly frustrated that I have had to hope for the most milquetoast of "liberals"(*) to get in just to *slow* the march in the wrong direction, and have longed for someone who would see the right direction is to more to the Centre - which is quite a way *left* of the Democratic platform. And the Americans who are centrists - or even left-wing, or even (non-neo, non-classical, the common meaning) liberal - they probably think the same as me. And they're part of that "not 25%".

And all those who think the McConnell-captured "Protect the Roberts Court reputation" (for that one opportunity when they need to go all out, before it gets taken away?) Roberts Court went a little Cocoa Puffs this session, and expect them to "originalize" going forward until they are leashed somehow? Yeah, they probably think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Doesn't mean that voting for PNAC2, Civil Service Boogaloo is the answer, better apply the ratchet and hope for better.

And all the people who have to worry about taking their bridge partners to District 9 (because they're a 30-year-old woman, and Things Happen) or District 16 (because they're a 30-year-old woman, and could get locked up in a men's prison for existing) tournaments, or even visit their relatives there - they probably think the country is headed in the wrong direction because that crap is spreading thanks to ALEC et al. But voting Red won't help that, either.

I don't know if Republicans believe their implication that "if things aren't getting better, it's because the direction the Democrats are taking is the wrong one, so clearly ours is the right one". I don't know if their paid astroturfers (and willing shills) believe it, either. Certainly they don't *say* it, they just "carefully quote" to imply it. And they never bring up polls that show that, if removed from party context, a majority of their *policies* are viewed (sometimes very) unfavourably, and most D policies are viewed favourably.

Oh, and finally, interesting that there was no comment about my main point - someone actually trying to claim, with no evidence of lack of sincerity, that the Democrats are the "Party over Country" party. Love to see that one carefully defended before moving to the next Talking Point of the Day (which, my morning reading claims, is "Dems are antiSemitic because they chose an Evangelical Christian for VP over a Jew").

And again, I think more people would take you at all seriously if you proved you were interested in Bridge as well as politics. You know, on a Bridge Forum site.

(*) And yes, I am shocked and impressed at how "not milquetoast" he ended up being on progressive values. But even that was, at best, a good start.

[kenberg]

So as of today, the Sep 10 debate is going to happen. It's an uncertan world.

[Winstonm]

Take a peek at the crowd that J.D. Vance has rounded up to speak to. You don't see this in the news.
https://www.emptywhe...2_07AUG2024.jpg

[thepossum]

My observation, in line with topic, is that the Democrat rallies do indeed appear to have been Trumpified

[Winstonm]

I suppose this was the fault of Trump/Pence as they were in office?

https://www.pollingr...t.com/right.htm

[johnu]

 Winstonm, on 2024-August-09, 09:43, said:

Take a peek at the crowd that J.D. Vance has rounded up to speak to. You don't see this in the news.
https://www.emptywhe...2_07AUG2024.jpg

Very sad for Vance to campaign at a non-union shop where there was more press and Secret Service than workers. Did the "crowd" even consist of actual employees at that factory? At previous Convicted Felon Trump rallies at factories, they bussed in people to impersonate workers. I guess the van carrying the for hire Trump minority supporters was delayed in traffic because they were a no show. Or maybe they just don't have any black jobs at this company.

In any case, by next week, the Trump/Vance campaign will be bragging about the 10,000 workers who showed up for that rally.

In the meantime, Trump is barely campaigning, leaving his Florida home maybe once or twice a week. I guess the long grueling White House 11AM to 5PM schedule and 2 hour lunches took a toll on Trump's stamina even after 3 1/2 years later.

[Al Phalpha]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-08, 13:56, said:

So as of today, the Sep 10 debate is going to happen. It's an uncertan world.

Agreed. And the debate, as Arte Johnson used to say on Rowan and Martin's laugh-in, should be "vedddy interestink".

[kenberg]

As we move toward the September debate and the November election, I want to distinguish between two types of political disagreements, one healthy, one not.

Healthy: I gather Walz as governor arranged for free meals for all elementary and high school students regardless of income. This has pluses and minuses. I grew up in St. Paul Minnesota in the 50s, and the high school cafeteria had a variety of options but one was a reasonably nutritious special that was, as I recall, 20 cents. I could have made a sandwich at home, but 20 cents I could afford and I usually went with it. My father was slowly recovering from a stroke and only working part time, but I did not have to prove anything about our finances, I only had to produce two dimes. Affordable but still not free, I like the idea. Ok, some kids live in really bad situations so maybe they need free, but for kids like me, two dimes was fine.

So there can be a reasonable discussion.

Unhealthy. Trump has a recent post that begins:

Quote

Has anyone noticed that Kamala CHEATED at the airport? There was nobody at the plane, and she "A.I.'d" it, and showed a massive "crowd" of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN'T EXIST!

It goes on in that tone.
What is there to discuss? There were many people of various walks of life there and many pictures by many people. Are we really to discuss whether or not there really was a crowd there? Are we to carefully examine it in detail to see if we can count the exact number?
This is not a useful, nothing to discuss.


I used the word "cult" in an earlier post and I think it is accurate. Today is Tuesday August 13. In a cult, if the cult leader were to say that today is Friday August16, then all cult members agree. Maybe they just assume that he is right, more likely they are afraid to contradict him, but anyway they all agree it is Friday. The above quote about the non-existent crowd is just one example. Three and a half years after the 2020 election many still maintain the election was stolen. Why? Because Trump says so.A few Republicans accept that Biden won, they are ostracised. Trump has turned the Republican party into the Trump cult.

This is unhealthy. It's embarrassing. And as Jan 6 showed, it is seriously dangerous. I hope that Republican office holders and Republican voters will recognize this for what it is and deal with it. I am more or less liberal but I can consider conservative views and I sometimes agree. I view liberal/conservative as a multidimensional distribution. But this cultism is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it's all about Trump. He says something, and no matter how absurd his followers must agree.

I hope we can get to where we look back on this as an unfortunate part of history.

[Winstonm]

It is silly to continue to use the word "conservatives" to describe the GOP. It's really odd, as I was watching Harris/Walz speaking and their arguemtns were the arguments of the Republican party 40 years ago. I think the only term that both fits and is not too outrageous for the media to use is authoritarian-right.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-August-13, 07:11, said:

As we move toward the September debate and the November election, I want to distinguish between two types of political disagreements, one healthy, one not.

Healthy: I gather Walz as governor arranged for free meals for all elementary and high school students regardless of income. This has pluses and minuses. I grew up in St. Paul Minnesota in the 50s, and the high school cafeteria had a variety of options but one was a reasonably nutritious special that was, as I recall, 20 cents. I could have made a sandwich at home, but 20 cents I could afford and I usually went with it. My father was slowly recovering from a stroke and only working part time, but I did not have to prove anything about our finances, I only had to produce two dimes. Affordable but still not free, I like the idea. Ok, some kids live in really bad situations so maybe they need free, but for kids like me, two dimes was fine.

So there can be a reasonable discussion.

Unhealthy. Trump has a recent post that begins:
[/font][/color]
It goes on in that tone.
What is there to discuss? There were many people of various walks of life there and many pictures by many people. Are we really to discuss whether or not there really was a crowd there? Are we to carefully examine it in detail to see if we can count the exact number?
This is not a useful, nothing to discuss.


I used the word "cult" in an earlier post and I think it is accurate. Today is Tuesday August 13. In a cult, if the cult leader were to say that today is Friday August16, then all cult members agree. Maybe they just assume that he is right, more likely they are afraid to contradict him, but anyway they all agree it is Friday. The above quote about the non-existent crowd is just one example. Three and a half years after the 2020 election many still maintain the election was stolen. Why? Because Trump says so.A few Republicans accept that Biden won, they are ostracised. Trump has turned the Republican party into the Trump cult.

This is unhealthy. It's embarrassing. And as Jan 6 showed, it is seriously dangerous. I hope that Republican office holders and Republican voters will recognize this for what it is and deal with it. I am more or less liberal but I can consider conservative views and I sometimes agree. I view liberal/conservative as a multidimensional distribution. But this cultism is not a matter of liberal or conservative, it's all about Trump. He says something, and no matter how absurd his followers must agree.

I hope we can get to where we look back on this as an unfortunate part of history.

You bring up good points. The history of the US is a series of lurches both forward and back, with forward being the overall incremental winner. Most of the bad times occured during times of national distress. Covid-19 is to blame for the current crisis along with a worldwide refugee problem.

That we are no longer in the throes of a life-threatening pandimic eases the pressure in the melting pot and removes a lot of steam from Trump's engine. I wouldn't be surprised if he derails soon.


It's really hard to stay that angry that long.

[Al Phalpha]

I have a question. Are you guys more motivated by policy? Or by party loyalty? I have friends who would vote Democrat if "the party" was headed by O. J. Simpson and Charles Manson. It seems to me that Presidential elections have devolved into nothing more (for many voters) than popularity contests. I find it a sad state of affairs. 80% of the voters polled say that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet the same polls say that it's a dead heat between Harris and Trump. Harris had/has a major role in the "wrong" direction. How can that be? 80% say she has had a major part in leading the country in the wrong direction, yet 50% want it to go in the same direction? I don't get it. I think we are all agreed that Trump is a loud-mouthed jerk. Yet his policies make much more sense to me than anything the Democrats throw out there. I seriously doubt that anything posted here will have a significant impact on the outcome of the next Presidential election. But, just for the sake of rational discussion, I am interested to hear your arguments for a Harris victory, given her record as VP and coronation to succeed Joe Biden.

[kenberg]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-14, 19:15, said:

I have a question. Are you guys more motivated by policy? Or by party loyalty? I have friends who would vote Democrat if "the party" was headed by O. J. Simpson and Charles Manson. It seems to me that Presidential elections have devolved into nothing more (for many voters) than popularity contests. I find it a sad state of affairs. 80% of the voters polled say that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet the same polls say that it's a dead heat between Harris and Trump. Harris had/has a major role in the "wrong" direction. How can that be? 80% say she has had a major part in leading the country in the wrong direction, yet 50% want it to go in the same direction? I don't get it. I think we are all agreed that Trump is a loud-mouthed jerk. Yet his policies make much more sense to me than anything the Democrats throw out there. I seriously doubt that anything posted here will have a significant impact on the outcome of the next Presidential election. But, just for the sake of rational discussion, I am interested to hear your arguments for a Harris victory, given her record as VP and coronation to succeed Joe Biden.

As to party loyalty, Larry Hogan, a Republican was twice elected as governor of Maryland. I voted for him both times. I have voted for other Republicans in the past. Not often, but some. My parents Liked Ike, at least in 52, I am not sure about 56.



Policy is a more difficult issue. I am not prepared to analyze every policy. Few people are, even if many do. You and I both voted in 1960, you may recall that there was much discussion about the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. I did not know then what shore they were off of (China? I supppose) and I still don't. I voted for JFK, but not because I agreed with his policies on these islands. My vote was more guided by who I thought was best suited for making decisiions about policies that I did not understand and had no intention of learning anything about.

Of course I have some thoughts about some policies. But often I preface my opinion with "I would hate to stake my life on being right". I am not claiming total ignorance, but I am saying that there are quite a few topics that I have not looked into deeply.


Now about heading in the wrong direction. Many, of various political leanings, think so. I think Trump is a very wrong direction. Back in the 60s I had a friend who ran for governor of Minnesota on the Socialist Workers Party (rebranded as the Industrial Government Party at the time) ticket.He also would have been a very wrong direction. There are people who I hope are never in charge of anything important. Trump and my friend from the 60s fall into that category.

[mycroft]

Were I able to vote in the US, I would vote for a Democratic ticket of Ren and Stimpy. The Republican candidate is *so bad*, and the people lining up to try to pull his strings (or who survived their last attempt; looking at you, McConnell) are bad *and dangerous*. IMNSHO, of course (but I'm not voting for Harper-without-the-brains either, nor did I vote for "you can't choose what name you are called" "okay, Marlaina" either).

I dealt with your "pay no attention to the man behind the Overton Window" question last time - so that's the second time you didn't read what I wrote, or at least chose to continue to post as if you didn't. Just because things are going in the wrong direction, doesn't mean that the *only possible alternative* is the right direction. When you're trying to get to San Diego from Denver because it's too cold, straight west is not the right direction - but it's much better than *north*.

There's a lot of things I'd like to see out of a Harris presidency. Many of them are impossible to even attempt until at least 2026 given the Senate. Many of them are not going to happen until the current generation of Democratic leaders die off, but it is a hope that a younger President will surround herself with younger as well as the "forever established" advisers. Many of them won't happen as long as there's a USA.

But I'll settle for "anything in Project 2025 doesn't happen". I'll be happier with "ensure as much as possible that anything in Project 2025 can't happen in 2029 no matter who wins." Because "wrong direction" or not, it's better to amble into hell than upshift and hit the gas. As such, it's not "party loyalty" so much as "party abhorrence".

[johnu]

 Al Phalpha, on 2024-August-14, 19:15, said:

I have a question. Are you guys more motivated by policy? Or by party loyalty? I have friends who would vote Democrat if "the party" was headed by O. J. Simpson and Charles Manson.

Well, since both Simpson and Manson are dead, it's a no brainer to vote for them instead of traitor and insurrectionist Convicted Felon Trump. Trump has publicly promised to end American democracy as we've known it since the day the Constitution was signed so it's difficult to imagine who could be a worse president.

On the other hand, the QOP cult is ecstatic to vote for a convicted felon who also has 3 other felony cases upcoming, who BTW staged an insurrection to overthrow the results of a certified election. Professional psychiatrists and psychologists around the country agree that Trump is showing increasing signs of dementia, as well as older diagnoses that identify him as a psychopath. Maybe that's why he identifies with Hannibal Lecter. This is not a theoretical or alternative fact, this is reality. So who wants to talk about party loyalty???

[johnu]

 mycroft, on 2024-August-14, 20:55, said:

There's a lot of things I'd like to see out of a Harris presidency. Many of them are impossible to even attempt until at least 2026 given the Senate. Many of them are not going to happen until the current generation of Democratic leaders die off, but it is a hope that a younger President will surround herself with younger as well as the "forever established" advisers. Many of them won't happen as long as there's a USA.

Just curious what things you'd like to see with a Harris presidency. I assume that your 2026 reference is related to the senate filibuster rules.

If so, I can't foresee a time anywhere in the near future where the Democrats win a filibuster proof majority. Another thing that needs to change is individual senator's hold's on various senate business, including nominations which are effectively filibusters by one senator. There is hope on the filibuster since the last time eliminating/changing the filibuster came up, the Democrats had 48 votes, and Manchin and Sinema who voted against aren't running. The big question now is whether the Democrats can maintain control of the Senate.

[kenberg]

I think Kamal Harris is off to a good start and I look forward to seeing how the Democratic Convention goes next week. One bit of advice: Strategists need to have a few words with Walz. I have fond memories of growong up in Minnesota but I am becoming not so fond of Walz. He is loud, he is not very effective. He needs to either improve or shut up.

[kenberg]

I think Kamal Harris is off to a good start and I look forward to seeing how the Democratic Convention goes next week. One bit of advice: Strategists need to have a few words with Walz. I have fond memories of growong up in Minnesota but I am becoming not so fond of Walz. He is loud, he is not very effective. He needs to either improve or shut up.

[shyams]

 kenberg, on 2024-August-15, 07:03, said:

I think Kamal Harris is off to a good start and I look forward to seeing how the Democratic Convention goes next week. One bit of advice: Strategists need to have a few words with Walz. I have fond memories of growong up in Minnesota but I am becoming not so fond of Walz. He is loud, he is not very effective. He needs to either improve or shut up.

Walz, as the VP nominee, doesn't really count in terms of most voters' decision making on the Presidency.

Unlike Trump, the age of Kamala Harris is quite robust and those actuarial people will tell you that she has a very probability of surviving two full terms in office.

[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2024-August-15, 08:49, said:

Walz, as the VP nominee, doesn't really count in terms of most voters' decision making on the Presidency.

Unlike Trump, the age of Kamala Harris is quite robust and those actuarial people will tell you that she has a very probability of surviving two full terms in office.

Right, and this is reassuring. But it does not change my view. Walz needs to work on his presentation. His effect might be minor, but it is not zero. I mentioned my concerns to my wife and she said she had the same concerns. I think of myself as an average guy, so I can imagine that the concern goes beyond myself and Becky. Anyway, I would hope that he would want to do better.