[kenberg]

 shyams, on 2024-October-16, 23:33, said:

I find two of the preceding three posts above quite incredible.

1. What is evil about JD Vance except that he was picked to be the GOP VP candidate? He comes from a tough background (unless you disbelieve his story) & seems to have a non-extreme voting record. For what it's worth, he has been a big supporter of the FTC and Lina Khan. Sure, he comes from the Venture Capital / Pvt Equity sector which makes one wonder if he's a puppet of the multi-billionaires. Barring that one concern, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill politician.

If you already believe he is a vile human in the same mould as Trump, it is quite likely that you are being programmed by your media to gear up for him being GOP nominee in 2028 (I don't think he will be the one). And even if he's top of the ticket in '28, none of you are going to vote for Vance under any circumstances...

2. One can see Kamala Harris evolve & modify her policies in response to feedback etc. One can see her exploring new topic, appearing for more interviews, pushing back on criticisms, and trying hard to demonstrate that she will be a good President. In my personal opinion, she is coming across as more confident and more presidential.

She is working hard on her main job (trying to convince voters). Sure, some will remain dissuaded. So what?? Why blame voters weeks before the election and label them deplorables?

3. BTW, Steve Bannon is in jail. It may be a factor why the MAGA campaign is losing steam.

I am not prepared to write a lengthy evaluation of Vance When Trump chose him it was a while before I realized that he was the author of Hillbilly Elegy, a book I thought I would read but never got around to doing so. Probably I have a lot of company in this. WaPo gives a recent quote:


But let;s try this.

Quote

"Did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use," he said in his most direct answer to the question yet. "But look, I really couldn't care less if you agree with me or disagree with me on this issue."

Yeah, it's WaPo but it does have quotation marks and I have seen the same quote elsewhere.


Try the second sentance. He could not care less. Four years after the last election Trump is still claiming that he won, Vance agrees, Vance couldn't care less as to what others think of this. Me, I think it's important. I think Trump might very well win but I have not abandoned all hope. But one thing I am sure of. If Trump loses, he will announce that the election was rigged and actually he won. That's certain. And it matters. It matters a lot. I care a great deal about whether Trump/Vance will or will not accept a loss. They won't. That's bad.


I realize that any Republican who says Biden actually won the election four years ago will be deemed a traitor. Too bad about that. This country has a serious problem. Vance is clear. he doesn't care.


Harris is a commie. Etc. Yeah, sure.

[hrothgar]

 shyams, on 2024-October-16, 23:33, said:

I find two of the preceding three posts above quite incredible.

1. What is evil about JD Vance except that he was picked to be the GOP VP candidate?

Well, to start with, he created a fraudulent non profit to fight opioid addiction.

That's normally considered pretty damn evil...

And then of course, there's all the race baiting lies that he tells.
That's also generally considered evil (or at least it used to be)

And all the lies during the Vice Presidential debate
And they fact that he'd be willing to overthrown a constitutional republic

I can go if you'd like

[shyams]

 hrothgar, on 2024-October-17, 11:04, said:

I can go if you'd like

Please do

[johnu]

 shyams, on 2024-October-16, 23:33, said:

1. What is evil about JD Vance except that he was picked to be the GOP VP candidate? He comes from a tough background (unless you disbelieve his story) & seems to have a non-extreme voting record. For what it's worth, he has been a big supporter of the FTC and Lina Khan. Sure, he comes from the Venture Capital / Pvt Equity sector which makes one wonder if he's a puppet of the multi-billionaires. Barring that one concern, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill politician.

Well, JD Vance was the first QOP MAGAt of national prominence to amplify the totally fake rumor that Haitian immigrants were killing and eating pets in Springfield Ohio. The original claim was spread by ultra right fringe QOP and neo-Nazis. Convicted Felon Trump is continuing to spread that rumor to his low education base of supporters. As far as catering to MAGAt racists and white supremacists, Vance is unwilling to denounce those who are attacking his wife with racial slurs. Vance's wife's parents immigrated from India. Not defending his own wife against racist attacks for political expediency? Well, that sounds like a man of integrity, right???

Just like Trump, Vance has never met a racist, white supremacist, or Nazi that he didn't like.

As far as wondering whether Vance is a puppet of the multi-billionaires, Vance is the puppet of only a single multi billionaire, and that would be Peter Thiel. Vance's rise to wealth came after Thiel hired him at his venture capital firm, and Thiel donated $15 million to Vance's senate campaign in Ohio, and an unknown amount of dark money. Thiel also donated double digit millions to ultra right fringe candidate Blake Masters' senate run in Arizona. So, yes, there is legitimate concern when a political candidate gets $15 million from a single contributor who also gave him a job that was the source of much of his wealth.

 shyams, on 2024-October-16, 23:33, said:

2. One can see Kamala Harris evolve & modify her policies in response to feedback etc. One can see her exploring new topic, appearing for more interviews, pushing back on criticisms, and trying hard to demonstrate that she will be a good President. In my personal opinion, she is coming across as more confident and more presidential.

She is working hard on her main job (trying to convince voters). Sure, some will remain dissuaded. So what?? Why blame voters weeks before the election and label them deplorables?

You don't seem to get that this is Kamala's first run as face of a national campaign. When she was elected San Francisco DA, and later California Attorney General and later California US Senator, she was running in one of the bluest states in the US. Maybe it should be obvious, but apparently not, you run on mostly local issues when running for city and state offices. When Kamala was running as Biden's VP, her job was to support the policies of Joe Biden, not her own.

When you are running for president, you need support from around the country, and different areas of the country have different priorities. You can't just write off vast stretches of the country so you modify your positions, or at least emphasize different aspects to appeal to a wider base. And like anybody running for president except the incumbent, you have to convince people that you can do the job as president.

As far as labeling the ultra right fringe QOP MAGAts as deplorables, are you sure you're not confusing Kamala with Hillary's comment about the QOP being "a basket of deplorables"??? Or Biden calling Convicted Felon Trump and his QOP MAGAts "semi-fascists"??? Of course, both statement are just mild criticisms of Trump and his cult members and 100% accurate.

 shyams, on 2024-October-16, 23:33, said:

3. BTW, Steve Bannon is in jail. It may be a factor why the MAGA campaign is losing steam.

Steve Bannon??? 🤣😂🤣 The QOP has a very deep bench even after so many of them are either in prison or under indictment. Convicted Felon Trump runs his own campaign and sets his own campaign message. Trump is also busy skimming off as many millions from his campaign for personal use and doesn't need another crook like Bannon trying to steal from the same pool that Trump is stealing from.

[kenberg]

Election day is around the corner. I have been thinking about the view, expressed on this thread and elsewhere, that goes "Well, yes, Trump is a bad person, but he will provide help fo me and others".

Our best hope is that some with this view will rethink it. A line from the Eagle's song Lying Eyes comes to mind. "You wonder how things ever got so crazy". The song speaks of how marrying some guy for money isn't a good idea, but maybe it applies more broadly. In the short term, the very short term, a Trump presidency might make some people happy. Not many, and not for long. The guy is a total louse, and giving a total louse massive power does not work well in the long run.

Harris? First, a few things she isn't She isn't a commie, she isn't stupid, she isn't a louse. So what is she? She is a liberal, meaning she thinks the government can do things to make our lives better. She is tolerant of people disagreeing with her. Not tolerand of trying to overthrow an election, but tolerant of disagreement. She is capable of working with others. She has a high regard for the country, while acknowledging shortcomings. She is someone I actually like.

Liking someone might seem like too fuzzy a quality to base a vote on, and of course it should not be the whole thing. But it is not nothing. If neither Trump nor Harris were in politics and I met them socially, I can easily imagine having an enjoyable conversation with Kamala Harris. With Donald Trump, it would take less than five minutes and I would be looking for an excuse to escape.

I am asking that voters, those who realize the sort of person Trump is, spend some time thinking about whether they really want such a person to have great power over the future of the country. I don't think it will work out well. I am not an immirant, I am not poor, I don't have gender identity issues, but I don't think a Trump presidency will go well for me and I don't think a Trump presidency will go well for most of us. Not for long.

[mycroft]

I've gone down the weird rabbithole trying to answer shyams on "normal politician" Ohio senator. I may still post that, but right now, too much work.

I am concerned about the democratic pick for President. Friendly, "liberal" (by which we mean slightly lefter than the seniors in the Democratic Party, neither the crazy bugbear "librul" or, you know, even Canadian Liberals), tolerant, sure. But a long-time California DA and AG (so I am unsure about any liberalization of "tough on crime" or oversight over police overreach). I do see (at least on Wikipaedia) an interest in decriminalizing some crimes popular in society (which will help with both) and with the *other* major killer of Americans, so maybe okay?

But there are two things that I am ecstatic about, at least as a *first step* (besides not being a convicted felon and 6-time business bankruptee who intends to run the government as his business again, of course). One is that she does seem to listen, and to more than the Party Seniors; and the other is that in the memory of people her, Presidents have come from two clades:

• John F. Kennedy - Bush I: childhood post WWI and pre-Depression (mostly born mid-1910s, LBJ 1908, Carter and Bush 1924);
  
• Clinton - Biden: top of the Baby Boom (1946 +/- a couple). The only exception here being Obama, and the fact that he was 15 years younger than everybody else wasn't something people remembered that much as opposed to his - other differences, shall we say?(*)

And yes, Harris is only 3 years younger than Obama, but it's a break from the clade of power that has run the US and shaped the world for a majority of my working life. Frankly, it's something the Republicans are doing better than the Democrats, raising and putting forward the next generation of politicians (but the power of McConnell and the Old Guard is still there). Now if the younger generation had learned to put themselves forward in productive ways rather than grandstanding, political points and control tactics against, well, everyone else. (Hey guys! Disprove Wilhoit, would you? Just, you know, have it on your wall and read it every once in a while and wonder why it gets quoted all the time. Unless, of course, that *is* what you're working for).

And it's something that shows in the messaging and the campaign. She's clearly taken her social media away from the "leave it to Beaver" chronic worriers, and aimed it at, if not young people, at least her/my generation; she's still polite, but is willing to play at least some of the game her party's opponents have been playing successfully for 30 years; she's mentioning stuff that us "pull the ladder up behind us, and then complain when the younger generation can't do what we did" really don't want to hear (but the working generations live with every day). Witness *all the college loan stuff, even here*. She's making clear that all of the progess made in her lifetime is under threat, and *she knows* this, and doesn't take it for granted like we did for 30 years and like the working generations after us definitely don't;...

I have hope that she will get in; that enough of the other houses are set that she can do something, despite the structural blocks put in place by McConnell et al; and that I can celebrate more than just the Democratic Ratchet holding back the hurtle to hell that happens when the other side gets control that I have been having to accept as "best possible result" for decades.

I also hope - not because I want it needed, but because if we put the brakes on *here*, it will become harder to go after the rest of Thomas' list - that every single state that has an abortion referendum on the ballot gets it passed in a landslide.

And I should talk. It is incredibly likely that Son-of-Harper-but-stupider, who has clearly decided that the Calgary Cancún Cruz policy plan is the path to success, is our next PM. Even if he refuses to get access to classified information so that he can continue to effectively Oppose (that is, spread rumours that might be unfounded, in which case it's just BS, or might have some accuracy, but if so he would have to avoid spreading them or be in breach of confidence laws). It doesn't hurt that it means he can't be told of intelligence as to those of his own party who are or may be compromised by foreign governments. And I am very concerned about the Men Behind the Curtain of that party (one in particular, sure. But Hey Presto can't be far behind). Who also might be on that list (but he isn't allowed to know. Convenient that?)

(*) Just saw a clip of Bill Clinton (yeah, I know, but still). He said he was only a couple months younger than Harris' opponent. Which really caught me yet again, with "that generation has really been in power for a long time, hasn't it?"

[johnu]

 mycroft, on 2024-October-18, 11:55, said:

But there are two things that I am ecstatic about, at least as a *first step* (besides not being a convicted felon and 6-time business bankruptee who intends to run the government as his business again, of course). One is that she does seem to listen, and to more than the Party Seniors; and the other is that in the memory of people her, Presidents have come from two clades:

• John F. Kennedy - Bush I: childhood post WWI and pre-Depression (mostly born mid-1910s, LBJ 1908, Carter and Bush 1924);
  
• Clinton - Biden: top of the Baby Boom (1946 +/- a couple). The only exception here being Obama, and the fact that he was 15 years younger than everybody else wasn't something people remembered that much as opposed to his - other differences, shall we say?(*)

Clinton is actually the 3rd youngest ever president (youngest was Teddy Roosevelt, 2nd youngest was JFK). Obama was a year older than Clinton when elected.

 mycroft, on 2024-October-18, 11:55, said:

(*) Just saw a clip of Bill Clinton (yeah, I know, but still). He said he was only a couple months younger than Harris' opponent. Which really caught me yet again, with "that generation has really been in power for a long time, hasn't it?"

I saw that clip of Clinton. He looked and sounded very frail. I hope there's no major health problems.

I've also seen a bunch of clips of Convicted Felon Trump doing various rallies and interviews, including the rally where they were going to play a couple of songs and then resume questions from the audience. The music lasted 30 minutes with Trump swaying on stage and completely lost in space, QOP started streaming out of the arena, and then the event ended without further questions. He's had a number of mental glitches where he just freezes ala Mitch McConnell, he's still repeating the debunked rumor that Haitians are killing dogs and cats and eating them, which was started by neo-Nazis and spread by JD Vance, and despite being corrected countless times, still talking about Hannibal Lecter, still can't figure out that tariffs on China (and other countries) are paid by companies doing business in the US and those tariffs are passed on to American consumers.

[johnu]

There have been several posts that tried to give credence to the "ability" of betting sites to correctly predict the results of the 2024 presidential election.

Polymarket Prediction Platform Possibly Manipulated to Favor Trump: Report

Quote

Polymarket gave Trump a 60 percent chance of winning on Friday, while Harris was given a 40 percent chance. Although polls continue to show Harris slightly ahead or the race neck-and-neck, the contest was last tied on Polymarket October 4.

Quote

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that "the surge might be a mirage" created by just four mysterious accounts that have recently spent around $30 million betting on Trump. Polymarket odds are dictated by so-called "collective wisdom" rather than outside factors like polling data.

Quote

The accounts—Fredi9999, Theo4, PrincessCaro and Michie—reportedly created between June and earlier this month, were all funded using the same cryptocurrency exchange and all have similar betting patterns.

BTW, the Polymarket betting platform was partly funded by mega Trump donor Peter Thiel, who also funded JD Vance's senate campaign, as well as other ultra right fringe QOP candidates around the country. 4 mysterious accounts on this site that were recently created and bet $30 million on a popularity poll? Sounds perfectly legitimate to me.

[thepossum]

johnu, on 2024-October-19, 15:12, said:

There have been several posts that tried to give credence to the "ability" of betting sites to correctly predict the results of the 2024 presidential election.

I hope that doesn't refer to any of my posts. It's a totoal misrepresntation of what I said and meant

I will assume you are talking about someone else's posts

Please be more careful about serious misrepresentation

Out there in careless b**sh*t land where nobody cares about awhat they say maybe it doesn't matter

But for a few of us who care professionally we expect not to be so badly misrepresented for some political end

I actually bailed out of the stupid argument last time. You desperate to drag me back in. I don't want to be in any such fight

I stand by what I said and what I intended without anyone else attempting to misrepresent

Petty point scoring for one reason or another is never anything I care about here or any other forum

I made a reasonable statement and don't see the need to make a thing of it - theya re just another form of opinion poll and probably as accurate as many - and one-off events too

I believe the odds have now changed substantially anyway

On a more interesting related topic
Are the Greens likely to sabotage Harris in the same way they did with Al Gore

Now $1.67 for Trump and $2.25 or Harris I say no more

While I am browsing Sportsbet anyone got any good tips for any of the States - any lame candidates being covered up, dirty tricks, doping even

[hrothgar]

 thepossum, on 2024-October-19, 17:23, said:

On a more interesting related topic
Are the Greens likely to sabotage Harris in the same way they did with Al Gore

Jill Stein and Cornell West are absolutely trying

Whether either of these can really be said to represent the Green Party (at least in its traditions from, say, 30 years back) is a completely different question

[johnu]

 thepossum, on 2024-October-19, 17:23, said:

I will assume you are talking about someone else's posts

Correct. While I don't have you on my Ignore List, I don't usually bother reading your posts unless you directly address me.

 thepossum, on 2024-October-19, 17:23, said:

I actually bailed out of the stupid argument last time. You desperate to drag me back in. I don't want to be in any such fight

I'm not interested in what you have to say so feel free to ignore all of my posts.

[barmar]

Quote

If you already believe he is a vile human in the same mould as Trump

That's quite a high bar. There aren't many who are as vile as Trump.

I'd never heard of him before he joined the Trump ticket (I'd heard of Hillbilly Elegy, but didn't recall who wrote it). All I know of him is what he's said on the campaign trail and in the debates, and it's pretty bad IMHO.

[pilowsky]

Axios said:

An E. coli outbreak linked to McDonald's Quarter Pounders has left one person dead and caused 10 hospitalizations, the CDC said Tuesday.

Where was Trump dishing out the fries?

[andrei]

 shyams, on 2024-October-17, 11:56, said:

hrothgar said:

I can go if you'd like

Please do

Hahaha , this made my day ...

[Winstonm]

My name Charlie Russia-bot. So funny. Ha ha ha. Goodybye again.

[thepossum]

Harris Walz are looking like a better bet right now. Or not?? $1.45 to $2.47

I should have arbitraged back when I frst mentioned it. Win win

How do dodgy rallies and media bites play with markets a few days later?

Some of us do not have enough spare capital to arbitrage effectively

[kenberg]

It is hardly news to say that this is a very unusual election but still I will comment.

It appears that a fair sized proportion of the folks who plan to vote for Trump agree that he is an awful person, they just feel that he will have good policies. "Yes, he is a rat but he is my rat". Usually, voters claim that the person they support is not a rat. It took a while, but eventually after the Watergate hearings Nixon supporters actually stopped supporting him.

It is a bad idea to elect a rat to be our president. Rats are rats, and they do not help anyone. Al Capone did more harm than good, even if he did provide whiskey to his supporters. In the long run, a rat hurts just about everyone.

I am hoping that enough people rethink rat support before they cast their ballot. We shall see.

[barmar]

I so wish that the "but he's our rat" people were outliers. But there are so many disaffected "old white men", who don't feel that the progressive agenda helps them, that they're willing to vote for someone who speaks to their fears.

I still hold out hope that enough people on the right will come to their senses, and that the danger of Trump will prompt lots people on the left to vote.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I am feeling cautiously optimistic regarding the election itself (I'll note in passing that the phrase nauseously optimistic seems to be growing in popularity in various forms of social media)

Harris continues to run a very strong campaign.
Nothing is "perfect", but - practically speaking - her campaign has come very close...

In comparison, Trump's campaign is the usual shitshow with the Madison Square Garden own goal being a perfect example.
Trump is cancelling appearances across PA and retreating into claims that the election is being stolen from him.

This is still way closer than it should be, but I'm hopeful that Harris will win on Tuesday night.

For me, at least, the bigger concern is what kind of idiocy the House of Representatives comes up with to try and steal the election.

For example, suppose that Texas and a couple other Republican dominated states claim that the election results in PA and MI and WI are illegitimate because all sorts of illegals are voting and consequently they refuse to certify their own results. Johnson uses this as an excuse to try and thrown the election to the House where votes get cast on a state by state basis. And, even if the new congress has more Democrats in the House, a plurality of the States are held by Republicans and it sees likely that they would choose Trump.

This has the makings of 1860 all over again...

FWIW, I'm not sure how the government should respond to this type of Bullshit.

I'm saying now that - if this came to pass - I wouldn't have a real issue with Biden seizing upon the "Seal Team Six" precedent and simply shooting a significant portion of the House Republican leadership... (Because as horrific as this might be for "the rule of law" I actually consider this a whole lot better than the alternative)

[kenberg]

It is frightening to hear, and agree, that the optimistic view is that Harris might squeak by to win and somehow we might be able to cope with the virtually guaranteed Republican refusal to accept that result. I had not heard of "nauseous optimism" but yeah, a good phrase.

I hope we survive this. And I truly hate the fact that "hope we survive" is the best that I can come up with.