US Politics



  • @Tim
    Interesting.
    Reddit just banned the user group The_Donald
    It had 800,000 users.



  • @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.

    Yes it's not about clicks

    However this is not anything new. The media in the US has always had a very narrow agenda. The reporters are of the same class, went to the same schools and have the same core beliefs. This criticism is specific to the US and does not apply well to other countries (..although that may be changing)

    The only thing that has changed is the control of the narrative has been broken by the internet.

    Stories are getting corrected and revised within the same news cycle, not months/years later.
    People can easily publish and follow their own narrative (yes that means more 'false' stories but it also makes it harder for the culture to follow a single 'false' story)
    Attempts at censorship/blacklisting are increasing but they are completely ineffective compared to a generation ago.
    Pay of journalists has dropped so it's even more likely to attract people who want to wield power.

    The main mistake people make is they consider Trump to be central to this. Supporters and opponents do this. He is a symptom not a cause. These trends were obvious in the decade before his election

    The media was always bad in the US. There is no going back to 'normal'. The informal control of the narrative is dying and some institutions are getting exposed.



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Tim
    Interesting.
    Reddit just banned the user group The_Donald
    It had 800,000 users.

    Been a big purge in the last week. Trump's even been banned from Twitch. Preparations for a certain election coming up. One might even call it election interference.



  • Parler is really taking off as an alternative to twitter. Big buy-in from Republican representatives which will make it difficult to be branded as a hate platform by msm like Gab and Bitchute were.
    https://share.par.pw/post/d3e4a30fe5964549b9f51314099bc02b



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial
    So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?

    Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
    That part appears to be fake right?

    From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)

    The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .

    What the offending article said:

    The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.

    That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.

    Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.

    It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.

    Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?

    While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.

    That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?

    The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.

    Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?

    Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
    I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.

    I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.

    Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.

    Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
    I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.

    I haven't done a PDB, but in my limited experience the presenter isn't the senior person in the room and doesn't have that authority. The packs are normally developed under the supervision of the most senior staff. Again, how they run it for Donald is anyone's guess.

    There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
    Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
    Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.

    If you don't have a level of confidence that makes you believe it, or that it has any real prospect of being implemented, why bother the President? There's heaps of chatter that gets removed with each increasing command level briefing.



  • @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Crucial
    So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?

    Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
    That part appears to be fake right?

    From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)

    The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .

    What the offending article said:

    The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.

    That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.

    Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.

    It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.

    Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?

    While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.

    That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?

    The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.

    Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?

    Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
    I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.

    I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.

    Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.

    Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
    I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.

    I haven't done a PDB, but in my limited experience the presenter isn't the senior person in the room and doesn't have that authority. The packs are normally developed under the supervision of the most senior staff. Again, how they run it for Donald is anyone's guess.

    There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
    Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
    Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.

    If you don't have a level of confidence that makes you believe it, or that it has any real prospect of being implemented, why bother the President? There's heaps of chatter that gets removed with each increasing command level briefing.

    This could come out in the wash but I wouldn’t class this as “chatter” if even one agency believes it is correct. It would have long passed “chatter” stage.
    “Be informed” is the catch cry.



  • @Rembrandt said in US Politics:

    Parler is really taking off as an alternative to twitter. Big buy-in from Republican representatives which will make it difficult to be branded as a hate platform by msm like Gab and Bitchute were.
    https://share.par.pw/post/d3e4a30fe5964549b9f51314099bc02b

    Gab made some poor decisions. Parler seems to be run by more intelligent people

    A partial exodus from platforms is much more preferable to the government intervention that Trump supporters have been asking for



  • @Duluth What did Gab do? I missed that entirely so was surprised to see Parler outdoing them. I remember they got a lot of bad press since a mass shooter was on the platform but those same articles didn't mention the shooters facebook/twitter and other mass shooter social media accounts.



  • @Rembrandt

    Marketing issues not technical ones

    They picked a frog logo as the media was discovering pepe. The also got involved in a few 4chan jokes. It was poor tactics that made demonising them easier



  • @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Rembrandt

    Marketing issues not technical ones

    They picked a frog logo as the media was discovering pepe. The also got involved in a few 4chan jokes. It was poor tactics that made demonising them easier

    I doubt even 4chan thought their hoaxes would have been taken so seriously. The moron brigade still bang on about the ok symbol and a green cartoon frog as being the new swastika. Was milk being white supremacist another joke of theirs? Had this sent to me today:



  • @Rembrandt said in US Politics:

    @Duluth What did Gab do? I missed that entirely so was surprised to see Parler outdoing them. I remember they got a lot of bad press since a mass shooter was on the platform but those same articles didn't mention the shooters facebook/twitter and other mass shooter social media accounts.

    I followed them on Twitter and they were very political with their posts, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral platform for "free speech". To me, it seemed like they were exactly what they criticised Twitter for but a far right wing version. That may not be true but that's true impression I got I.E poor marketing.



  • @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @canefan said in US Politics:

    @Crucial I'd never heard of the term fake news until Donald Trump. Fake news is just news that he doesn't like

    TBF it does exist.

    To start with there were social media type posts masquerading as journalism that influenced people despite having no fact checking or credibility. Then, as position entrenchment has happened more and more there are blogs pretending to be fact and MSM using 'Opinion' type articles (like rugby and Ratpoo) to push views. These are often easily spotted by the use of hyperbole and logic jumps.

    Yes, 'they' made a bed and have to lie in it but one sure way to kill of real journalism (which we need as a fourth estate) is to pounce on every error and shout 'Fake!' or worse still to call everything that you don't agree with 'Fake'.

    All Trump has done with the "Fake News" quip is summarise the malaise.

    Really? He calls almost everything he doesn’t like fake and praises those that promote him with half truths.

    I understand what you are saying about the malaise though.



  • @Duluth said in US Politics:

    A partial exodus from platforms is much more preferable to the government intervention that Trump supporters have been asking for

    I think government intervention and regulation of Social Media and the MSM of some sort is inevitable.

    The dangers to effective government of social media censoring debate and newspapers and TV effectively pushing conspiracy theories is just too great for legislators to ignore.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    Really? He calls almost everything he doesn’t like fake and praises those that promote him with half truths.

    Because his opponents and the media have spent 4+ years playing his game and proving him right. They really are that dumb.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:

    I think government intervention and regulation of Social Media and the MSM of some sort is inevitable.

    The dangers to effective government of social media censoring debate and newspapers and TV effectively pushing conspiracy theories is just too great for legislators to ignore.

    Govt intervention would not stop censorship or promoting of falsehoods. It will just formalise it and centralise power.

    Ultimately this will benefit the left because the bulk of bureaucrats lean that way and they will make the subjective decisions. The others who will benefit will be the current shareholders as competition will become more difficult (regulatory capture and the increased barrier to entry of having a team of lawyers navigate through regulation)

    People leaving platforms is the solution. If there winds up being a left wing twitter, right wing twitter, who gives a shit about politics twitter... that fracturing is not a bad outcome.

    I suspect it’s moot anyway because the politicians won’t be able to keep up with the technology changes that are coming.



  • @Duluth

    I take your points but wasn't really talking about government control or policing of the media - more about putting basic journalistic standards in place and regulating those standards with some sort of independent regulator. Aim wouldn't be to ensure impartiality, but basic stuff like fact checking and not deliberately deceiving reader/viewers. As ever, putting this in place would be a tricky balancing act.

    While people leaving SM platforms is fine, I do wonder if the current ones are so big that entry costs for say, a new Twitter would be too high.



  • @Rembrandt said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Rembrandt

    Marketing issues not technical ones

    They picked a frog logo as the media was discovering pepe. The also got involved in a few 4chan jokes. It was poor tactics that made demonising them easier

    I doubt even 4chan thought their hoaxes would have been taken so seriously. The moron brigade still bang on about the ok symbol and a green cartoon frog as being the new swastika. Was milk being white supremacist another joke of theirs? Had this sent to me today:

    Jesus Fucking Christ

    They'll be banning skiing next



  • @Victor-Meldrew

    Yes, noble intentions but the execution is what matters. The history of the US govt interventions in various media is enough for me to think it's a terrible idea.

    Also it's worth noting the only proposal that seems to be under serious consideration is repealing section 230. That would have a massive negative impact on the right (I mean that in the broadest sense, not just Trumpers). I hope all the noise around that is just bluster, otherwise politicians are stupider than I thought.


    @Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:

    While people leaving SM platforms is fine, I do wonder if the current ones are so big that entry costs for say, a new Twitter would be too high.

    Twitter is the most under threat. The technology doesn't seem like too much of a barrier (gab was fine and Parler seems to be an improvement, I have accounts on both)

    What Parler needs for success is a critical mass of users. Currently it is still fringe

    The cost of leaving twitter is minimal because it's about current conversations. Compare that to facebook where the content is more about creating an archive as well as having conversations. It's harder to leave.

    Is twitter well run? Are a large number of users unhappy? Is there a capable alternative? I think the potential for a significant exodus is there

    The next most vulnerable is reddit

    I've been pleasantly surprised by the way the conversation has changed on various platforms in the last few months.
    It's been less about asking the govt for help and much more "how do we fix this ourselves"



  • Other governments will take advantage of America's self destruction:

    Please check the "XXXX University teacher's moral misconduct case warning education PPT", for learning, thank you.



  • @Duluth a bitter irony is that if trump dumped twitter for parler, they'd be well on the way to achieving critical mass.



  • What's the Fern's view on the contention Biden is in a state of cognitive decline that would seriously affect his ability to be President?

    I have noticed him slurring his words a lot.
    Phasing out and forgetting what he was going to say.
    Forgetting simple things.
    Something seems up with him.

    I also notice he seems to be hiding away. Not putting himself out there except in highly controlled settings with friendly press. Even then, he does not make a convincing impression.
    What's the plan here when Trump really starts to target him?



  • @Frank Biden will be well rested before any debate and well prepared for speaking points.

    Either way it rolls, it will be an advertisement for further Constitutional amendment.



  • @antipodean
    The Presidential cycle is far more than 3 debates.
    It's a daily onslaught.



  • @antipodean

    Time to re-establish mandatory retirement and extend it to the presidency?



  • @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact



  • @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?



  • @antipodean said in US Politics:

    @Frank Biden will be well rested before any debate and well prepared for speaking points.

    Either way it rolls, it will be an advertisement for further Constitutional amendment.

    There's also the fact that the debates and other appearances on commercial TV in the US really only require three word slogans and indirect, generalised, scripted responses.



  • @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters



  • @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.



  • @junior

    A competent Governor.. no idea if they have one after the way the last few months have gone. Cuomo isn’t the media darling anymore

    Yes, that is the flaw in my prediction. There doesn’t seem to be a good replacement





  • I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.

    AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.

    If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose whether to use their product.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.

    AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.

    If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose whether to use their product.

    I'd argue Facebook is more of an issue with their targeted ads, although Twitter's supression of conservative/non-groupthink voices is an issue as well.

    When you shadow ban or just outright ban, that's largely invisible to most consumers so how can they make that choice? Not everybody watches the inside baseball aspect of all this.

    As with most things with technology improvements, it's the scale and pace of information that can be an issue. Look at the closeness of the last election, the use of Facebook by the Republicans clearly moved support in close races.

    Now change that from Republicans to "Twitter" or "Facebook" moved support and the problem should be clear.



  • @junior said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.

    I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @junior said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.

    I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.

    2016 called and wants it's Hillary can't lose slogan back.



  • @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @junior said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.

    I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.

    2016 called and wants it's Hillary can't lose slogan back.

    But in 2016 it was an option to see what Trump could do. This time people are aware of what he can (or can’t) do.
    Working hard to remove medical cover from voters without a replacement idea while in the middle of a pandemic is a pretty dumb move.
    Even when lined up with a soft question of “what will be your focus next term” he was unable to point out anything. He is expecting votes for a concept and/or to keep ‘the other side’ out.
    He IS Hillary this time.



  • @Crucial
    I always look at the betting markets as a good indicator - at least better than agenda driven media.

    Biden certainly seems the strong favorite at this stage.
    Can Trump pull something out of the fire?
    Maybe?

    Joe Biden 61.9%
    Donald Trump 36.4%

    https://www.oddschecker.com/us/insight/specials/politics/20200630-2020-us-presidential-election-odds-and-betting-trump-vs-biden



  • @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @junior said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.

    I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.

    2016 called and wants it's Hillary can't lose slogan back.

    Working hard to remove medical cover from voters without a replacement idea while in the middle of a pandemic is a pretty dumb move.
    Even when lined up with a soft question of “what will be your focus next term” he was unable to point out anything. He is expecting votes for a concept and/or to keep ‘the other side’ out.

    What's your source for these?



  • @Rembrandt said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @Kirwan said in US Politics:

    @Crucial said in US Politics:

    @junior said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank said in US Politics:

    @Duluth said in US Politics:

    @Frank

    Dem convention is 20th of August

    I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact

    Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
    Or another reason?

    Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments

    Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad

    Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters

    Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.

    I don’t think it matters who the Dems put up against Trump this time. Barring skullduggery at the ballot Trump is gone.

    2016 called and wants it's Hillary can't lose slogan back.

    Working hard to remove medical cover from voters without a replacement idea while in the middle of a pandemic is a pretty dumb move.
    Even when lined up with a soft question of “what will be your focus next term” he was unable to point out anything. He is expecting votes for a concept and/or to keep ‘the other side’ out.

    What's your source for these?

    Source?
    Supreme Court challenge on ACA a week ago. Fact not source.
    Couldn't give policy when asked? Fox.

    Here's the question and answer. First googled copy I found

    Hannity asked Trump: “If you hear in 131 days from now, at some point in the night or early morning: ‘We can now project Donald J. Trump has been re-elected the 45th president of the United States’—let’s talk. What’s at stake in this election as you compare and contrast, and what is one of your top priority items for a second term?”

    “Well, one of the things that will be really great, you know, the word experience is still good,” Trump said while turning to the audience. “I always say talent is more important than experience. I’ve always said that. But the word experience is a very important word. It’s an, a very important meaning.”

    “I never did this before. I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times. All of a sudden, I’m president of the United States. You know the story. I’m riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our first lady and I say, ‘This is great,'” Trump said. “But I didn’t know very many people in Washington, it wasn’t my thing. I was from Manhattan, from New York. Now, I know everybody, and I have great people in the administration.”

    “You make some mistakes. Like, you know, an idiot like Bolton. The only thing he wanted to do was drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to kill people,” Trump said.

    Then yesterday it was same question but the answer was something like " I'm going to make manufacturing great. I've already made it great but I'm going to make it great again"

    ....and people are worried about Biden being coherent? Trump can't even string words together to make a meaning out of them.

    That aside the point is more that he has no policies our manifest apart from 'Vote for Me' .

    Biden might be mainly 'Don't vote for him', but he is talking policies, even unpopular ones.



  • @Crucial Cheers just found it too. I loved CNN's actual accurate summary of his response to the question

    "Not healthcare, not revive the economy, not continue the coronavirus fight, I have more experience and Bolton's an idiot". Classic Trump right there.

    Seems odd timing regarding the ACA alright. I know there is a big argument from conservatives against it but valid or not you'd think you'd want to delay the challenge a couple months until this health scare is less 'front and centre'. I guess it was a campaign promise so maybe hoping to sneak in a win there prior to the election.


Log in to reply