Doc Brown Posted August 5 Posted August 5 2 hours ago, Doc said: Another anecdote (not personal of course) is that the Seahawks players had a problem with Russell Wilson because he wasn't fully black. I think that's what Trump's motive was when he talked about her calling herself Indian and then changed to calling herself black. That's exactly what he was trying to do and he's not wrong either. It's a horrible strategy though. Attack the Biden/Harris record again and again and again. Then specifically say who you'll fix the damage they did.
Doc Posted August 5 Posted August 5 26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: That's exactly what he was trying to do and he's not wrong either. It's a horrible strategy though. Attack the Biden/Harris record again and again and again. Then specifically say who you'll fix the damage they did. That's what he did in the first debate. If Harris agrees to a debate on Fox, he'll do it again.
The Frankish Reich Posted August 10 Posted August 10 Just now, BillsFanNC said: So that's it. Election fraud. I thought the idea was that the Dems watch the early returns and then manufacture fake votes to catch up. Do they do that with polls too? The denial is pathological.
Tiberius Posted August 11 Author Posted August 11 If, big if, this is true then it means that Texas is in play also, because Ohio went for Trump by about the same margin as Texas did 1
Tommy Callahan Posted August 11 Posted August 11 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If, big if, this is true then it means that Texas is in play also, because Ohio went for Trump by about the same margin as Texas did Lmao. Where is Beto.
Orlando Buffalo Posted August 11 Posted August 11 Tibs is hilarious, he starts a topic of how useless polls are and then gets excited when some of the polls turn the Dems way. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted August 11 Posted August 11 2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Tibs is hilarious, he starts a topic of how useless polls are and then gets excited when some of the polls turn the Dems way. You made me look to see who the OP is here. And yeah, you kind of have a point ...
Orlando Buffalo Posted August 11 Posted August 11 5 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: You made me look to see who the OP is here. And yeah, you kind of have a point ... I agree that the large national polls mean nothing since we know that Kamala will win CA by 9 million. The question is basically PA, GA, NV, and MI. 1
Tiberius Posted August 11 Author Posted August 11 24 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I agree that the large national polls mean nothing since we know that Kamala will win CA by 9 million. The question is basically PA, GA, NV, and MI. Ohio might be in play. Obama won it 12 years ago, and Trump's campaign is looking like a disaster now And Trump won Ohio with a bigger margin than in Texas. Just saying
Tiberius Posted August 17 Author Posted August 17 If this is really true, then this race should not even be close. But the polls show a relatively close race
ComradeKayAdams Posted August 19 Posted August 19 On 8/16/2024 at 9:51 PM, Tiberius said: If this is really true, then this race should not even be close. But the polls show a relatively close race It might be!! Anecdotally, I can say that I know this under-30 female demographic quite well. I probably have about 500 or so of them in my extended social network. We are part of the “childless cat lady” demographic whom J.D. Vance and his WEIRD acolytes despise so much. Based on my Instagram surfing alone, I get the strong sense that we are pretty much all committed now to voting for Harris-Walz. I could analyze the “why” in a million different ways, but let’s start with the most obvious: we can’t be allowing any state in the union to force a 10-year-old girl to give birth to her rapist’s child. Reactionaries have failed “Team Menstruation” horribly with their interpretations of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments (plus the First, Fourth, and Fifth…). DEEP THOUGHT ALERT: I often find myself contextualizing contemporary politics through the prism of history. I’m seeing potential parallels on the horizon with Republicans and the Whig Party. Abortion could ultimately divide and destroy the Republican Party in a similar way that slavery divided and destroyed the Whigs. Anyone else agree?? Disagree?? 2
nedboy7 Posted August 19 Posted August 19 (edited) By claiming the polls are rigged you set the stage for the election is rigged. You create the narrative that the only way for them to win is thru cheating. Which is what he did in the first place before even having any proof of it. It’s a way to manipulate the idiots. It’s the classic dictatorship playbook. It’s all over history but Americans don’t like to read. Unless it’s twitter. On 8/4/2024 at 1:56 PM, Pokebball said: What is the current abortion law in battleground states? They are voting on what would happen to those laws which is pretty well stated by many far right wingers. Edited August 19 by nedboy7
Tiberius Posted August 19 Author Posted August 19 9 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: DEEP THOUGHT ALERT: I often find myself contextualizing contemporary politics through the prism of history. I’m seeing potential parallels on the horizon with Republicans and the Whig Party. Abortion could ultimately divide and destroy the Republican Party in a similar way that slavery divided and destroyed the Whigs. Anyone else agree?? Disagree?? I disagree. Yes, the issue of abortion is divisive but no where near as much as slavery was. Abortion has an economic aspect to it, but not really for those pushing for bans. Slavery was an economic issues in more ways than just a slaveholder earning money off the back of someone else's labor. Buffalo, for instance, was held back economically by the south, as southern Democratic Presidents (Polk and Pierce) vetoed rivers and harbor improvements that Buffalo in the 1840's and 50's desperately wanted to improve our harbor--that break wall is now very important to the city and the south delayed it being built!. That pissed off people who were not really humanitarians, but were effected economically by slavery. The South was terrified of the growing northern states which were free states. Slavery was a total way of life for them and change was unthinkable. Also the racial issues, black people were literally being denied any right to self-improvement and then the racists were saying, "Look, they are just dumb, and should be slaves! It's what God made them for!" It was just a monstrous system that was also aggressive towards to the free states. Also, it was not just the Whig Party that fell apart, but also the Democratic Party. In 1848 when both the Whigs and Democrats nominated seemingly pro-slavery candidates--Zack Taylor and dough faced Louis Cass, though Taylor turned out to be a Free-Soiler!--the Free Soil movement was formed and held their first convention right in downtown Buffalo where our library is now. And this new Free-Soil Party nominated a former Democratic President, Former New York Governor Martin Van Buren for President. The "Barnburner" Democrats were named such because they were so intent on getting the slavery holder influence out of their party that they would rather burn down the party to accomplish that goal. In 1860 the Dems ran separate candidates in the North and south, but after the war the Democrats reunited. That seems more likely to me to what might happen. A split in the party, followed by them coming back together, or just holding their noses and staying together. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted August 19 Posted August 19 10 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said: DEEP THOUGHT ALERT: I often find myself contextualizing contemporary politics through the prism of history. I’m seeing potential parallels on the horizon with Republicans and the Whig Party. Abortion could ultimately divide and destroy the Republican Party in a similar way that slavery divided and destroyed the Whigs. Anyone else agree?? Disagree?? Agree. Much like the issue of slave states vs. free states in the 1850s, we have the issue of abortion access states vs. abortion ban states now. The "leave it up to the states" theory is on a collision course with freedom of movement. Do we really think that anti-abortion/pro-life (I'm not interested in arguing nomenclature) activists will be happy that abortion is banned in Texas but that the number of Texas women having abortions remains the same because they are traveling to New Mexico for the procedure? That they'll be happy with the new status quo? I can't imagine that. If they truly believe that abortion is murder of an innocent child, well, then the issue of interstate travel for abortion access can't be accepted as moral. We'll see some of these states attempting to prosecute their own women who travel out of state to get abortions, or (more likely at first) to prosecute or civilly sue groups that help facilitate such movement. And add to that the issue of federal control of Mifepristone vs state attempts to override that. Dred Scott, anyone? 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted August 19 Posted August 19 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Much like the issue of slave states vs. free states in the 1850s, we have the issue of abortion access states vs. abortion ban states now. The "leave it up to the states" theory is on a collision course with freedom of movement. Did slaves vote for those laws? doesn't seem like apples to apples. Tens of millions of people voted for those laws. Including millions of women. And at the state and local level where statistically one has way more representation than the federal level.
The Frankish Reich Posted August 19 Posted August 19 4 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Did slaves vote for those laws? doesn't seem like apples to apples. Tens of millions of people voted for those laws. Including millions of women. And at the state and local level where statistically one has way more representation than the federal level. So answer this: under the Texas anti-abortion law, any person can bring a cause of action against someone who facilitates a woman having an illegal (under Texas law) abortion. What happens when such a cause of action is brought? Abortion is legal in New Mexico. It's also legal in Old Mexico or Costa Rica. Should that lawsuit be allowed to proceed? Against a friend or relative who drives a pregnant woman to New Mexico? Against a travel agency that offers a package vacation/abortion trip to Costa Rica? Against a NM doctor who advertises in Texas that she will provide mifespristone abortions in Las Cruces, NM?
Tommy Callahan Posted August 19 Posted August 19 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So answer this: under the Texas anti-abortion law, any person can bring a cause of action against someone who facilitates a woman having an illegal (under Texas law) abortion. What happens when such a cause of action is brought? Abortion is legal in New Mexico. It's also legal in Old Mexico or Costa Rica. Should that lawsuit be allowed to proceed? Against a friend or relative who drives a pregnant woman to New Mexico? Against a travel agency that offers a package vacation/abortion trip to Costa Rica? Against a NM doctor who advertises in Texas that she will provide mifespristone abortions in Las Cruces, NM? Lots of questions. Maybe ask the people that voted for it. Any of that actually happen or is it more anti abortion strawman?
The Frankish Reich Posted August 19 Posted August 19 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Lots of questions. Maybe ask the people that voted for it. Any of that actually happen or is it more anti abortion strawman? As you put it: why would the people of Texas, through their elected representatives, pass a law this broad if they didn't want someone to enforce it? Your anti-abortion people passed it. You own it.
Recommended Posts