The Harris Trump Debate. Who do you think won.
I believe Kamala pushed everyone of Trump's buttons in the debate. She was in her former prosecutor mode. She was calm and looked at Trump many times. He never looked at her once. She acted as if she was in a court room and talking to the jury about Trump. She had him on the defensive during the whole debate, while she was on the offensive through the whole time.
Here is my personal take on this debate. Trump is a narcissistic master con-artist. I have learned that when a con-artist's con is uncovered, they will attack the person or people who have uncovered it and will play the victim to those who support the con. Trump does exactly that and that is what he did during the debate,
Kamala Harris uncovered Trump's con and he naturally attacked her with nothing substantive.. He couldn't even answer half of the questions that were asked of him. He was constantly going off on tangents to try to attack her. At times she looked at him in amazement as he was going into meltdown.
The most telling was the question about " Do you regret what you did on Jan.6?". He tried to remove himself from the whole scenario and say he was there because they just asked him to give a speech.
Now she wants to have another debate with him, but he is not so sure he wants to do that. So I think she has him right where she wants him, because she can say he is chicken. "The emperor has no clothes."
."Kamala Harris uncovered Trump's con..."
You mean like when she made the stupid statement that people get bored at his rallies she was uncovering "Trump's con"? And drew him off the question and onto a tangent (as she was herself)?
Truth of the matter is the neither of them actually answered more than one or two of the questions. Her answers were she would take other people's money and give it to who she thought should have it instead, and his were rambling nonsense about Harris or Biden's failures.
The only winners in that "debate" were the networks. Not Trump, not Harris and certainly not the people that sat through that nauseous pack of lies and manipulation.Wilderness: I've come to the conclusion, your focus is on three things about the liberal democrats.. One is they are coming for your money because they are socialist. Two is they are coming for your guns, and three is making excuses for Trump. .
No matter what the topic is, that is all it is about with you. And you always use this phrase, "You mean it was about..."
To answer your question, his rallies are his biggest con. They are political spectacles with entertainment, food, clothes, and music for his tail gating red-neck audience. So, yes she pushed his biggest con button.
He is a one trick pony with superlatives about everything he does and says is the greatest in the history of mankind. I think rational people are getting tired of hearing that BS from him.And was her comment about the rallies answering the question that was asked?
I will answer for you: no it wasn't. It had exactly zero to do with the question. It was designed, and used, solely to put Trump on the defensive and make him look foolish. A tactic perhaps useful in a race for office, but worthless in informing the public what you, and your opponent, stand for and wish to see.
Yeah, I hate Trump's superlatives, too. It may fit pretty well into his methodology, but I don't have to like it and don't.
As far as my focus is on government "spending"; keep in mind that that was the ONLY thing Harris had to offer as a plan to improve the country; take from one to give to another. She had no other actions she indicated she would like to do; nothing to fix the border, nothing to fix the economy, nothing to fix world problems, nothing, nothing, nothing. Except rob the rich and give charity to the poor.
(I didn't find that Harris made any realistic statement about guns except that she is a gun owner, but that she jumps into the liberal rhetoric about forever limiting gun ownership says it for her.)The moderators were biased in favor of Kamala. Kamala was purposely evasive regarding her plans while Trump wasn't-in fact, he was very specific regarding his plans for America. Kamala spent most of the time attacking Trump with her manufactured lies.
GM; Can you please tell me what manufactured lies Harris told and what specific plans Trump has for America? He has no plan for health care. He just said if and when he does have a plan, it will be better than what he have now. It's amazing how bias confirmation is used to change peoples perception of what really happened..
People power-- " Can you please tell me what manufactured lies Harris told"
“As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” K. Harris
1. “Donald Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.”
This is a misleading statement because it omits key context that renders Harris’s underlying point meaningless.
Unemployment sat at 6.3% when President Joe Biden and Harris took office in January 2021, less than a year after the onset of the pandemic. Government mandates had forced businesses around the country to close for extended periods of time, causing the economy to shed jobs temporarily. But once life started to return to normal, those jobs returned as well. That was already starting to happen by the time Biden was inaugurated. The unemployment rate hit double digits in the spring of 2020 and was falling significantly heading into 2021.
The unemployment rate at the end of Trump’s term, therefore, had little to do with Trump’s agenda. In fact, in the three years he was in office before the pandemic, Trump managed to bring the employment rate down to 3.5%, which was lower than the current rate under Biden and Harris.
2.“What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again.” -- Democrats have focused intensely on a policy document produced by the Heritage Foundation in 2023 that contains a blueprint for a future conservative administration.
Trump has repeatedly disavowed the project, and his allies have criticized the people who wrote it. While some former Trump administration officials were involved in crafting the policy blueprint, Trump’s campaign played no role in it.
3. “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion.”
When Harris and Trump sparred over abortion on the debate stage, the ABC News moderators jumped in to correct a statement Trump made about partial-birth abortion, but left unchallenged a statement from Harris about late-term abortion.
Women can seek an abortion at any point in their pregnancies, theoretically even late into their third trimester, in at least seven states and the District of Columbia, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Some other states allow such broad exceptions to their gestational limits on the procedure that anti-abortion advocates say women can effectively obtain an abortion at any stage.
Most abortions occur before 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Pew Research Center. However, Democrats have resisted placing limits on abortions occurring later than that, and a small percentage of abortions do occur later in pregnancy.
More than 900,000 abortions are performed each year in the United States, and 1% of those occur after 21 weeks, meaning thousands of abortions are performed later in pregnancy annually.
A baby is considered full-term at 37 weeks of pregnancy, and presumably, even fewer abortions are performed at that stage. However, it is not true that “nowhere in America” could a woman request an abortion late in her pregnancy. A woman in any of the states that place no gestational limits on the procedure, including Minnesota and Colorado, would legally be able to seek an abortion in the final month of her pregnancy.
The Roe v. Wade standard that Harris said she supports would allow restrictions on the procedure after roughly 24 weeks of pregnancy, or the point at which a baby has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. Even that position obscures what many Democrats support, however.
While abortion restrictions based on fetal viability were permitted under the Roe framework, those restrictions were not required. Some states allowed abortion after that point, even before the Supreme Court changed how abortion law is enacted, and many Democrats have declined to say whether they support limiting the procedure at any point in pregnancy.
4. “Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if … the outcome of this election is not to his liking.”
Harris repeated a talking point about comments Trump made in March that completely misrepresented what the former president actually said.
Trump never threatened a “bloodbath” in the literal sense if he loses the election in November.
Harris was referring to a quote from a Trump speech at a campaign rally in Ohio earlier this year in which the former president criticized the Biden administration’s manufacturing agenda.
“We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those guys if I get elected,” Trump said. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.”
Trump was clearly making an economic argument when he used the term “bloodbath” during that speech in March. However, Democrats and the media quickly spun the comment into a controversy at the time about Trump’s intentions in the event of a loss.
5. “And understand what has been happening under Donald Trump’s abortion bans. Couples who pray and dream of having a family are being denied IVF treatments.”
Setting aside the fact that Trump has not proposed an abortion ban and has not been in office since the Supreme Court cleared the way for red states to start banning abortion, Harris’s claim about IVF denials was also misleading.
There is no clear connection between the Republican-led push to restrict abortion in some states and access to fertility treatments such as IVF.
IVF is legal in all 50 states. Trump has not only advocated for protecting IVF access – he has also proposed forcing private insurance companies to cover IVF treatments.
The political debate over IVF began in February when an Alabama court ruled in favor of couples who sued a fertility clinic that accidentally destroyed their frozen embryos. The court ruled that the embryos could be considered “extrauterine children” for the purpose of filing lawsuits under wrongful death statutes.
The ruling itself did not ban IVF, but some experts acknowledged that it could make access to the treatments more difficult by increasing liability for IVF providers. Still, even the ultra-conservative Alabama legislature saw the political risks of the ruling and moved quickly to pass bills providing immunity to IVF clinics.
6. “Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side.”
Trump’s comments in 2017 after violence broke out at a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, have been a fixation of Democrats for years — despite fact-checkers finding that the former president did not praise white supremacists as “very fine people.”
The infamous line from Trump came in a press conference days after a protest in Charlottesville over the removal of Confederate statues from city property turned violent in August 2017. Some of the protesters chanted antisemitic sentiments and carried Nazi symbols, and the rally attracted counterprotesters from the Left who clashed with the protesters from the Right.
In the ensuing violence, a counterprotester named Heather Heyer was killed when a man rammed his car into the crowd in what the Trump administration described as an act of domestic terrorism.
During his press conference after the incident, Trump condemned the attack on the counterprotesters, saying, “I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country.”
Trump also went after the alt-right protesters he has been accused of praising as “very fine people.”
“And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said.
He sought to distinguish between the people carrying tiki torches and saying antisemitic things – the ones Harris mentioned during the debate on Tuesday — and the people who were on the scene solely to protest the removal of the Confederate statues.
Sparring with a reporter who said, “neo-Nazis started this,” Trump responded with the controversial line:
7. Harris on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling
Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday night’s debate that the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Trump would “essentially be immune from any misconduct” undertaken by him while in the White House.
“Let’s talk about extreme and understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again,” she said.
Facts First: This needs context. In their decision in July in the historic case, the six conservative justices granted Trump some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, but not blanket immunity, as the former president had sought in his federal election subversion case. The court said Trump could not be criminally pursued over “official acts,” but that he could face prosecution over alleged criminal actions involving “unofficial acts” taken while in office.
“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.
8. Harris on her stance on fracking
During Tuesday night’s debate, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “I made it that very clear in 2020 – I will not ban fracking,” though she had said, while running in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, that “there’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”
9. Harris overstates the effect of the $50,000 start-up deduction she proposed
Vice President Kamala Harris implied Tuesday that all prospective start-up business owners will be able to take advantage of the $50,000 tax deduction she’s proposing for new small businesses, saying that it will help them “pursue their ambitions.”
“I have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work,” Harris said.
Facts First: Harris’ point about new business owners being able to benefit from the deduction she’s proposed lacks context.
“Businesses that fail before they begin to turn a profit won’t be able to utilize the deduction, because to take a deduction you have to have taxable income to deduct against,” Erica York, a senior economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, told CNN.
In other words, the tax deduction may not ultimately help businesses owners get off the ground and running initially. However, it may help lower their tax burden over time, but only if they turn a profit.
10. Harris on manufacturing jobs
Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday’s debate: “Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs.”
Facts First: This needs context.
It’s true that the US lost 178,000 manufacturing jobs during Trump’s presidency – but the loss overwhelmingly occurred because of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. From the beginning of Trump’s presidency in January 2017 through February 2020, before the pandemic crash, there was a gain of 414,000 manufacturing jobs.
11. Harris on trade deficits
Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday’s debate: “Let’s be clear that the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America.”
Facts First: This needs context.
It’s true that there were high trade deficits during the Trump administration. The seasonally adjusted 2020 goods trade deficit, about $901.5 billion, was the highest on record at the time.
However, Harris did not acknowledge that trade deficits have been even higher during the Biden-Harris administration. The seasonally adjusted goods trade deficit exceeded $1 trillion in each of 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Harris told one mistruth after another, almost every time her mic was turned on.So you are going to pit Harris' 11 comments against over 30,00 documented lies and/or misinformation about Trump while in office and he is still doing it, even as we speak. Give me a friggin break.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 90285.html
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/l … nald-trumpLet’s highlight the folly here: instead of comparing numbers, we should consider the broader context of the discussion. How do we weigh lies—by their frequency, severity, or consequences? Have we really become a society that would share a statement like “he has more”?
I took time to post a comment that addressed the debate, the subject --- you ignore Harris's lies, and just reply -- he lied more...
Says a lot about your thought process, in my view. However, I have learned a bit about how you can overlook one's lies, due to your feeling she just lied less. Your context is sharing just that."we should consider the broader context of the discussion. How do we weigh lies—by their frequency, severity, or consequences? "
Great point. For me, The Harris statements are mostly " requires context" statements. Far too many of Trump's statements, fall in the category of ridiculous.
You know the type...
the 21 million pouring into the border from countries emptying out their prisons and insane asylums. The fact that crime is down all over the world because they're sending their criminals here.
Suggesting that Harris met with Putin in an attempt to stop the war?
Claiming Harris was the border "czar"
Saying that "Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote, and that’s what happened,”
Blaming Pelosi for poor security at the Capitol on January 6th. We all know that the speaker is not in charge of Capitol security.
He lied about Haitians eating pets, he lied about the Central Park 5. And just why? There was no reason to make either of those comments.
Crime in this country is through the roof....
Today...Crime, including serious violent incidents like murder and rape, dropped nationally from 2022 to 2023, according to new data released by the FBI on Monday.
The most serious crimes went down significantly: Murder and non-negligent manslaughter were down an estimated 11.6% — the largest single year decline in two decades — while rape decreased by an estimated 9.4%.
Do I find it ridiculous that I need to comb through candidates statements for contexts? Yes, yes I do. Continually trying to assess which statements have more of a foundation rooted in fact? That's where we are politically today. Generally, I find many of Trump's statements to be more egregious and consequential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases … statisticsThank you Willowarbor.
I couldn't have said it better. In a previous comment, I told her all politicians lie, but not to the depth and magnitude of Trump. I think that might have been a little too abstract for Trumpers.
They are just like Trump once you uncover what Trump is really about, they defend him and attack and insult. I find trying to point out what Trump is really about is becoming an exercise in futility.Crime has increased under biden. President Donald Trump was correct.
Violent crime has increased under Harris-Biden admin — after ABC’s David Muir disputed Trump’s claim that crime is ‘through the roof’: DOJ report
https://nypost.com/2024/09/13/us-news/v … -the-roof/
harris WAS the border Czar. President Donald Trump was telling the truth.
‘Border Czar’ Kamala Harris ‘unburdened’ herself of responsibility to secure the country
https://nypost.com/2024/08/08/opinion/b … e-country/
harris blatant lies
The claim about "good people on both sides" has been debunked several times including by the left-leaning Snopes.
The bloodbath comment, was concerning what would happen to the auto industry if he didn't put tariffs on the cars being made by Chinese companies in Mexico.
President Donald Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025
Nancy Pelosi took responsibility for not having the National Guard at January 6th. Watch the video.
Pelosi admits blame for ‘stupidity’ in Jan. 6 security failures in newly released video: ‘I take full responsibility’
https://nypost.com/2024/08/28/us-news/p … -6-videos/
Not disputing Trump's mistruths never did ---
"Great point. For me, The Harris statements are mostly " requires context" statements. Far too many of Trump's statements, fall in the category of ridiculous. "
You suggest that her statements should be seen as needing more context, but I believe she told a blatant mistruth from the debate stage. In that moment, her words, spoken to millions of viewers, created a false perception of Trump and, more importantly, his agenda. Such lies, in my opinion, are not harmless—they have real consequences. When misinformation is spread on a platform as significant as a debate, it can shape public opinion, mislead voters, and distort the truth about a candidate’s intentions."When misinformation is spread on a platform as significant as a debate, it can shape public opinion, mislead voters, and distort the truth about a candidate’s intentions."
"Kamala Harris has presided over a 43% increase in violent crime,"
That could certainly mislead a lot of folks, spreads a lot of fear at the same time. Personally, I know a lot of folks who live there lives in fear based on Trump's "Kamala crime wave" narrativeFacts are facts even if you deny them.
"The DOJ’s survey from the Bureau of Justice statistics is self-reported instances of violent crime over the last six months — meaning that it includes crimes that may not have been reported to police.
The annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) showed total instances of reported violent crime — including rape, robbery and aggravated assault — is up from 5.6 per 1,000 in 2020 to 8.7 per 1,000 in 2023.
The highest recent rate of violent crime was in 2022, when the survey tracked 9.8 instances per 1,000 people over the age of 12.
The rate of rape increased from 1.2 per 1,000 in 2020 to 1.7 in 2023, while robbery went from 1.6 per 1,000 in 2020 to 2.6 per 1,000 in 2023, and aggravated assault rose from 2.9 per 1,000 in 2020 to 4.5 per 1,000 in 2023."You want to talk about criminals, just look at your bad boy Trump. It is so easy to point out the Trumpers hypocrisy. Because Trump is so dirty. The fact that he is not in jail right now does not speak to his innocence. It speaks to his cadre of high paid lawyers he use his delay, distract, appeal, postpone and any other tactic he can come up with. But you see Trumpers don't care about that. It's the economy stupid and we are being run over by immigrants stealing the jobs from black people.
The truth is president's have very little control over the economy for a reason. However, Trump would like you to think he is the best economist in the history of this country. When in fact the economy is moved by supply and demand, natural business cycles, interest rates, and money supply. Right now, the Feds have lowered the interest rates, inflation is at an all time low, and the stock market is at an all time high, Corporations are keeping prices high because of greed. I believe sooner or later, supply and demand will normalize the prices.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indi … ople-case/
https://www.cbsnews.com/feature/donald- … 00-10aaa3a
I was referring to lies fomented from a Debate stage, with millions watching, and how one could walk away with misconceptions about a given candidate. I have shared throughout this thread that both lied... Just odd some can't come to the same conclusion, and admit it as openly, as I did. I see nothing but diversion when it comes to even touching on Harris's mistruths. I took time twice and listed the opinions of fact-checkers. Crickets... I did not share the statement you have quoted. I assume you are asking me if social media posts are as harmful as those that a candidate on a debate stage.
Chat posts as a rule are taken at times as an opinion. When a statement quotes a statement, it is preferable to offer a source. I don't find chat comments that may not hit on facts as harmful as a televised debate, just due to the number of people tuning in and a form of trust that candidates are expected to tell the truth. So, I think many walk away with many believing all they have shared. This was the point of my comment.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … ost4343609Shar, just walk away from Democratic Operatives.
"Kamala Harris has presided over a 43% increase in violent crime," Trump said Aug. 23 at a Glendale, Arizona, campaign stop.
That statement has a lot of people shaking. A lot of scared folks out here.
This is significant, no matter where it is said because it is spread to the masses through media. In terms of Harris, again, I have said that some of her statements needed context. Some of her statements needed more lengthy elaboration, something a debate doesn't allow for. Trump, whether on or off the debate stage, racks up more statements that fall into the outrageous category for me.
I agree with the opinion in the post today..
"In Donald Trump’s imaginary world, Americans can’t venture out to buy a loaf of bread without getting shot, mugged or raped. Immigrants in a small Ohio town eat their neighbors’ cats and dogs. World War III and economic collapse are just around the corner. And kids head off to school only to return at day’s end having undergone gender confirming surgery. ".
Trump often promotes outright lies with his use of fear.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ary-world/And there are more than one or two at this site who will believe whatever ridiculous lies Trump spews.
You are diverting --- I said, now several times, there were lies on both sides... It is more than obvious, you won't discuss hers. You in turn offer this ---
"Kamala Harris has presided over a 43% increase in violent crime," Trump said Aug. 23 at a Glendale, Arizona, campaign stop.
That statement has a lot of people shaking. A lot of scared folks out here."
Do you know how many times Harris has shared all of the below-mentioned?
"Trump is going to take away Social Security and Medicare"?
" He will be a dictator"
"In Trump’s Project 2025 there would be a national abortion, a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages."
"If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban".
Do any of the above statements Harris made have a lot of people shaking. A lot of scared folks out there?
I would think they would in many cases. Harris tells lies that affect young
adults, as well as seniors, not to mention women. Disturbing lies.
Again, does it bother you at all that Harris lies so easily, and so frequently?Well, he said he would be a dictator for one day. So, technically, that's not a lie, now is it?
And Donald Trump does have ties to Project 2025 - there is literally video of him supporting the Heritage Foundation's proposals.
And Trump is on record saying he is open to cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
So, all the things you claim as lies, there is evidence of Trump saying or supporting. Seems the one lying here might not be Harris."Trump is going to take away Social Security and Medicare"?"
He has certainly suggested he would do this in the past.
In an interview in March this year, on entitlement programs such as Social Security Trump said: "There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/03/11/f … an-do.htmlhttps://247wallst.com/politics/2024/09/ … ald-trump/
https://money.com/trump-end-taxes-on-so … -benefits/
Donald Trump’s current proposals for fixing Social Security primarily center on eliminating federal income taxes on Social Security benefits. He argues that this tax, which has existed since 1984, constitutes "double taxation" since individuals already pay payroll taxes to fund the program. His plan is to completely remove this tax, which he believes would alleviate financial strain on retirees, especially those facing inflation.
This proposal would benefit those who currently pay taxes on their Social Security benefits, but most beneficiaries (around 60%) are already exempt from this tax due to their income levels. The elimination of the tax would most likely benefit wealthier retirees, and there are concerns that this policy could accelerate the depletion of Social Security’s trust funds by reducing revenue.
Trump has also emphasized that his broader goal is to preserve Social Security’s sustainability without altering current benefits, focusing on fiscal responsibility to ensure the program's long-term viability
he was very specific regarding his plans for America.
Now, that is funny.
Yeah, I just had to laugh. The guy looked unprepared, didn't have much of a handle on the issues (which we all know he doesn't do much in preparation beyond watching tv t see what people are saying about him), and his only game plan seemed to be to link her with Biden - which people outside of the MAGA base just isn't buying.
She spent a lot of time laughing too. It's as though she wasn't taking anything seriously. So not good on her part.
We were all laughing at Trump's nonsense. 'Eating cats and dogs.' 'I have the concepts of a plan.'
People were on the floor laughing at his stupidity."People were on the floor laughing at his stupidity."
How would that be possible? There was no live audience at the debate.Oh, so only the four people in the room heard his remarks? There's these things called televisions that exist.
The television viewers were likely laughing at Kamala Harris. She kept laughing and smirking throughout most of the debate. Donald Trump looked serious when he spoke.
Wilderness: Can you please tell me what question was asked to both of them to prompt Harris to talk about his rallies. If you can't tell me, then it is nothing more than your opinion.
LOL If I don't remember the details on all the crap on TV that night it means it didn't happen? You know better than that, and I'm positive you have the computer skills to find it if you wish to.
The only thing I recall (about that specific instance) is that Harris was asked a question and she went off on Trump's rallies. Which he then replied to with an equally stupid comment.Yeah, and that's sort of the point. The way the right omits information that doesn't fit into their preordained mindsets is at record levels these days. Here is her response:
'So, I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings. And let me say that the United States Congress, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate, came up with a border security bill which I supported. And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking in guns, drugs and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill? Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And understand, this comes at a time where the people of our country actually need a leader who engages in solutions, who actually addresses the problems at hand. But what we have in the former president is someone who would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem. And I'll tell you something, he's going to talk about immigration a lot tonight even when it's not the subject that is being raised.'
'And I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your, your desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will.'
See what we mean. There is a denial that she addressed the topic, when she more than did just that. Then she made a tactical choice to trigger and manipulate Trump. And he took the bait and displayed how easy it is for a leader to lead Trump right where they want him to go:
'First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That's because people want to take their country back. Our country is being lost. We're a failing nation. And it happened three and a half years ago. And what, what's going on here, you're going to end up in World War 3, just to go into another subject. What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.'
She triggered Trump, and he sounded crazy.
It was good for me the debate was aired at 6pm on the west coast. I didn't miss any prime time TV shows.
So, I was in my office doing this and that while listened to it from the TV in the living room. Once in a while I poked my head into the living room and watched it. Overall it came off somewhat as civil due to forced etiquette with muted mics. I got some good chuckles with the BS Trump spouted while advocating conspiracy theories. Harris made some broad claims without any details of how she would cause them to become reality. I will keep an eye out for more in the media going forward on the topics I noted.
Overall . . .
Trump = really hates Harris, the Democrat party, and anyone who dislikes him, came off as unhinged at times and was really defensive, really loves himself
Harris = offers hope, uses a broad brush, seemed sharp and held her demeanor
I read one article that said to watch the debate as typical, take a few hours break, and then come back and watch the debate muted. Without giving spoilers with what the article shared I plan on doing that sometime in the future. Supposedly it is revealing.Hillary's Revenge.
This is why Harris was chosen back in 2019.
It all makes sense, damned these are some smart SOBs... the ability to project out and see this moment in time 5 years ago... that's some deep shit man.
Total props to them for picking the right woman for the job.
She might not know diddly about running a country or handling foreign relations... but she knew how to handle a 'criminal' up on a debate stage and prosecute him in front of a watching America.
The criminal cases, getting the convictions in NY (no matter what laws had to be bent or rewritten or arms needed twisting).
I mean, what can you say... now that you see the end result, or at least the beginning of the end result, impressive.
[EDIT]
I hadn't considered how bad his demeanor and refusal to look at her will play into how people perceive things until I read tsmog's post.
If you are a woman, or a person of color, watching a rich, arrogant, white man react like that to calm, rational, woman of color... how does that impact your perception?In the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, several notable issues emerged, particularly concerning mistruths, demeanor, and the realism of their plans and promises. Harris's responses were often characterized by a firm if at times evasive, approach to addressing the questions, but her answers occasionally lacked specific details, leaving some of her claims open to scrutiny.
Conversely, Trump exhibited a confrontational and dismissive demeanor, frequently diverging from the questions, and at times offering disjointed answers, and resorting to a few exaggerations and misleading statements. I felt both candidates struggled to present concrete, realistic plans; Harris's proposals sometimes felt aspirational rather than feasible, while Trump’s promises were frequently underpinned by rhetoric rather than clear, feasible strategies.
In my view, the debate showed a troubling difference between what the candidates said and the actual details of their plans. It made it clear to me that it would be hard for voters to tell which plans are realistic and or logically doable, versus those that sound yes impressive but are not practical or doable.
After examining various fact-checkers, I have to admit that I was both disheartened and deeply disappointed by the extent of dishonesty from both candidates. It's troubling to see the public view one as outperforming the other despite the clear presence of falsehoods and unrealistic promises.
To answer your question Who Do You Think Won? My honest opinion is neither won.
Political debates are always like that, simply mockeries.
Nobody wins. It is the supporters that vote and make one of them win.Vance is gold, the gift that just keeps giving...
Vance on Taylor Swift:
“I don't think many people are going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.”
Yes, JD, YES. Great point. We all decorate in 24 karat gold.To the cowardly right wing, reactionaries and conservative who would rather censor contrary ideas rather than consider them, I am back like a bad penny. I will be its greatest nightmare right up till Election Day.
As I have said, Donald Trump is the dumbest man ever on two feet. What would possess him to say such stupid s@it about people eating dogs and cats on national television? But, I admonish VP Harris to not become complacent but to annihilate Trump and MAGA, beating it to a pulp right up to Election Day. Take no prisoners and show no mercy, because Trump is not going to show you any.
Two groups go for Trump, the first being the people with a fundamental foundation of racism, xenophobia and misogyny as I have heard one of their advocates say that society needs to return to 1960. It is about fear and insecurity. Hell, no, as VP Harris has said, “we’re not going back”. Is that clear enough for reactionary America?
The other group are the oligarchs like Elon Musk who think that because they are rich they can short circuit the democratic process for the rest of us. Anyone that has sucked up to Trump as he has is no better than Trump.
The closing statements on the debate for each candidate tells it all, one with a hopeful message of how we fix things and begin to improve on the current model, the other comment is from a raving madman attacking our country at its core.
There is only one choice for me, HARRIS/WALZ in 2024.Welcome back and...
You are wrong... your inability to understand why 40% of the country would vote for Trump, despite a decade of nonsense, is the biggest problem the Democrats and our government has... the ones who really are sucking up to the oligarchs and are transforming our nation for those oligarchs.
You think and speak like a Social Justice student from Evergreen sometimes.
And don't forget, I called Harris' victory on here weeks ago, before anyone else did. So I don't want you directing your AHA!!! at me after it comes to pass.
Try to understand why RFK and Tulsi and so many others are shifting to Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waqykTDODuk
Because if the Bret Weinstein and Tulsi Gabbards of the world are screaming out warning and going from dedicated lifer Democrats to joining Trump's efforts.... there is a damned good, damned scary reason for it.Thanks for your welcome.
After this debate, Harris pulled back the curtain to allow us all to see Donald Trump raw. What is Trump solution to the dismay of so many? I did not hear anything except increasing tariffs and mass deportations that have been discredited by our more renown economists as stoking the fires of inflation rather than soothing them. So, what is his solution? Is the solution to be found in a clearly ignorant and out of touch Donald Trump? I read that working class whites prefer him. What does he promise to do for them? What makes them think that he has any affinity for them? Is this all some sort of macho psychology or grievance that the world does not spin as it did in 1960? The world is changing as it always has and new skills must be learned and acquired to remain viable, when has that not been true? These people cannot lament over a past that can never be again. Poorly educated people are going to always be in the margins and advancing technology will assure that. I do believe that opportunity can be found in the trades, but you have to get off of your bum and get the appropriate training.
I will remember that you said that Harris would win and you predicted it first. However, I am not as confident, the fact that a toxic candidate like Trump remains popular makes me unsure of the outcome.
I told you months ago that Tulsi was a Republican and expressed few if any Democrat party ideals that she did support. Anyone speaking at the right wing CPAC will always be seen with suspicion by yours truly. I dismissed her immediately, the same goes for RFK Jr.
How much money has Trump acquired from the Uber-wealthy as opposed to Harris? The rich want a status quo, where they are free to do whatever they like without being held accountable by anybody. Isn’t that their ideal?
Yes, “justice” is my part of my label. That is political, economic and social justice, is that so bad? I have been a student of this for more than 50 years. I will stand by that record.
Germany has entered the chat...
Wednesday, Germany's Federal Foreign Office decided to issue a rebuttal to Trump's debate statement about Germany's renewable energy industry...
"Like it or not: Germany's energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables," the Federal Foreign Office shared on X. "And we are shutting down – not building – coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest."
The German Foreign Office also poked at Trump for another comment he made during the debate.
"PS: We also don't eat cats and dogs,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-re … f-sarcasm/Whatever harris said during the debate isn't helping her.
Rasmussen: Trump Leads Harris After Debate
A Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday showed former President Donald Trump with a two-point lead of 49% to 47% over Vice President Kamala Harris in the race for the White House after their contentious debate Tuesday.
Last week, Trump was ahead by one point at 47% to 46%.
The current poll carries a three-point margin of error, with a 95% level of confidence.
It also showed that just 1% of the voters would pick another candidate and 2% remained undecided.
Trump's lead in the poll came because of his advantage among independent voters. The poll showed that he got 51% of independents to 39% for Harris.
Harris snagged 82% of Democrats polled, with Trump taking 82% of the Republicans.
Trump also showed a significant lead among men at 54% to 42%, while Harris was shown to lead women at 51% to 46%.
The poll further showed, by ethnicity:
White voters: 49% for Trump, 47% for Harris.
Black voters: 33% for Trump; 64% for Harris.
Hispanic voters: 58% for Trump; 38% for Harris.
Other minorities: 64%, Trump; 30% for Harris.
The poll further showed that Harris leads with voters under the age of 40 at 50% to 44%, with Trump ahead with voters ages 40-64 at by 51% to 46%. Trump also held an eight-point lead among voters 65 and older.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/polls … d/1180219/Yeah, we can all find some confirmation bias polls. Here is one for Harris...
Harris is up 50% to 45% over Trump in a Morning Consult survey conducted Wednesday of 3,317 likely voters, her widest lead yet in the group’s presidential election surveys and a slight improvement from her four-point lead in a survey taken on the day of the debate and from her three-point lead in pre-debate surveys.
A two-day Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Thursday also found Harris leading by five points, 47% to 42%, a one-point increase from her advantage in an Aug. 21-28 Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 53% of voters who said they had heard at least something about the debate said Harris won, while 24% said Trump won, and the rest didn’t answer.
Far more Democrats (91%) also said Harris won, compared to 53% of Republicans who said Trump did, according to the Reuters/Ipsos survey.
The majority, 52%, of Reuters/Ipsos respondents familiar with the debate said Trump didn’t appear sharp, compared to 21% who said the same about Harris.This is the one statistic that matters the most.
"Trump's lead in the poll came because of his advantage among independent voters. The poll showed that he got 51% of independents to 39% for Harris."Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s endorsement of President Trump was what raked in a lot of those independent voters over to President Trump's side.
I find it interesting (not quite illuminating) that over the course of the last couple of days I have seen many commentaries, and many interviews of people on the streets, that gave the win to Trump.
Someone suggested that if you only heard it on the radio Trump was the clear winner, he was the only one with facts, and infact, when people went back and checked on the fact checkers... the ABC talking heads were wrong in their fact checking!!!
Surprising really that so many top comments were on how ABC was rigging it for Harris, never fact checked Harris, never interrupted Harris to combat her like they did Trump.
And the shorts, the memes... mostly positive for Trump, shorts where he hits home a point or memes of Harris making crazy faces.
I hadn't expected this turn of events, Harris initially seemed to win the debate, but as people had time to digest it, so to speak, it appears the winner was Trump... the loser was ABC and the bias of the media... and Harris got out of there without destroying her appeal to those she appeals to... in other words, no Biden-like melt-down, but also no substance.Linsey Davis's behavior didn't surprise me, because she was supposedly a sorority sister with Kamala Harris at Howard University and she was bound to act in a biassed manner, even though I did find her to be unprofessional. However, I expected so much better from David Muir. He really disappointed me when he acted as disgracefully as he did with President Trump. I had previously thought that David Muir was a fair person, but apparently he's not.
You know, Ken, you brought up an interesting point. I’ve noticed the same trend—many on social media have come to feel that Trump performed better after a few days of reflection. I watched the debate a second time as well. It’s true that Trump made some exaggerated comments and, at times, statements that could be considered misleading, particularly in how he presented his answers. His responses were occasionally disjointed, and he often bounced around before landing on a coherent answer. On the flip side, she had inaccuracies in her statements every time she had the mic. The moderators didn’t address the untruths and misleading claims she directed at Trump, which were quite glaring. It’s definitely worth revisiting the debate. One thing that stands out is that no one here seems to address the lies Harris told, but thankfully, fact-checkers have stepped up to the task.
Its not about the whole debate...
Its about the MEMEs created from it. Trump won the MEME wars.
Trump had solid bits where he hit a home run and people turned it into MEMEs and shorts... which will get millions more views and longevity than the initial reaction to the debate.
Second point:
The reviews, from the Right all the way across to the moderate-Left have been consistently noting the same two things:
1 - ABC fact checked (wrongly at times) Trump and interrupted Trump, they never did either to Harris.
2 - Harris never made a statement of substance, never gave an answer that had anything more than platitudes and story telling to it.
In essence, the fallout from the debate was far more favorable to Trump than I had ever imagined it would be after perusing the debate that night.
[EDIT]
For Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfQjMKQB_kg
Has over 30,000 views, some nobody making his own short video, and the internet is filled with them, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/63SPTHJw7h4
I gotta admit I laugh every time at that one.
Trump may have convinced his supporters of that, like he's able to convince them of the most inane things he claims. But when stepping outside that MAGA media bubble, the consensus is that he got destroyed and that is why most polling is giving Harris a bump higher.
Kamala is saying what she thinks the people want to hear. She really doesn't care about America nor Americans. Let us get factual here. She only cares about her power & prestige. She could care less about the people unlike Trump who cares about America & Americans.
"the consensus is"
The debate was rigged. President Donald Trump had to debate harris and the two moderators. It was obvious harris had rehearsed her answers. They fact checked him at least five time, and usually incorrectly. She told lie after lie after lie and nothing was said.
It is consistent with my belief that democrats can't win a fair fight with President Donald Trump. They know better than to fight fairly with him. Liberals know they lose every time.
It just proves his courage to face such a difficult situation and continue to do what is necessary.Gosh, Mike, don't you people ever stop with the excuses for Trump? Trump gets fact checked more often simply because of the frequency and extent of his lies relative to questionable statements by Harris.
Courage? Trump wouldn't get his hair wet.I like how President Donald Trump lies, but harris gives questionable statements. I believe that is called having double standards.
She lied and wasn't challenged.
The moderators let her get away with telling blatant lies without being fact-checked.
The moderators fact checking of President Donald Trump, in most cases, was also wrong.
It was a rigged debate.
The closing statement of President Donald Trump was exact and has gone viral.
I consider almost getting assassinated and a few days later showing up to the RNC as having courage. President Donald Trump showed up at the border and there was a man near there was on the lose who publicly said he wanted to kill him. A reporter asked President Donald Trump why he was there and the response was, "I have to do the job. It's a dangerous job but it has do be done."
During a debate taking on two moderators and your opponent takes depth of character.
That is courage.First, have you examined what the online fact-checkers said about both candidates? I have, and it is vividly clear if one were keeping score, the two came up neck and neck. One more question, hopefully, you don't mind. Did you feel it was fair for the moderators not to check some of Harris's more glaring mistruths, and hold her feet to the same fire as they factually did Trump's scorched feet? Many of her statements were blatant lies, that deceived the American public regarding what Trump had accomplished during his term, and she mislead with statements with a matter-of-fact tone about what he would do if he got 4 more years. Her context was not, he might, or it's possible --- It was he will! Do you feel this is honest politicking?
"and it is vividly clear if one were keeping score, the two came up neck and neck."
Any source? The number that I have seen circulating is that it was 33 to 1 in terms of Trump's lies. They also let him talk, I believe a full 5 minutes more.
"and she mislead with statements with a matter-of-fact tone about what he would do if he got 4 more years."
And Trump made plenty of erroneous claims about what Harris would do.Lies, lies, lies. What is the count now for each. How big were the whoppers? Did they come with cheese? How about fries? Got to have those sides don't you think. Little lies to distract from the whopper. You know change the taste buds so the bite of the big whoppers are more delightful next time you get a bite of it.
Is there a strategy to telling lies? I can see a Venn diagram for them or maybe a mind map, which is a modern way of thinking. More cerebral. Come to think of it some are so good at it these days that is like watching Australian Shepherd herding a flock of 100+ sheep from a vast field through a ten foot wide gate. Majestic. I always held great admiration for those pups. No joke.
Well, just playing around a little . . . I concede it is a serious matter. That is why I posted an OP on lying in politics especially today's world. Very serious as I see it.Tim, I will have a look at your OP. You always create great food for thought.
Thank you for your comment. I can see you're using some vivid metaphors here to express your frustration with dishonesty, particularly in the political sphere. It's a valid concern, and the issue of lying—whether big or small—is indeed something that warrants serious reflection, especially in today's world where trust in leadership and information can seem fragile.
While your analogy about herding and strategies for deception is creative, I believe it's also important to remember that not every instance of miscommunication or differing opinions is rooted in intentional lies. Sometimes, mistakes happen, or complexities get simplified in ways that lead to misunderstanding. It’s worth asking ourselves, before jumping to conclusions, whether we're seeing the full context or just part of the story.
I'd love to hear more about the specific issues you're concerned with. Conversations like these can help us better understand where others are coming from, and possibly bridge some of the divides that dishonesty often creates.True, I agree that a fair and balanced individual would hold judgment of something shall we say that is 'suspicious' in their mind. The something is a 'that', which is abstract within one's mind? It is not concrete until verified and given validity and credence to one's satisfaction, which will vary from individual to individual. Did you know "Trust but Verify" attributed to Reagan is a Russian proverb? Fact check it. Ironically considering its cold war usage.
I'm wandering now . . . oops!That’s a compelling point! The idea of verification and validity being subjective highlights how our perceptions and beliefs shape our understanding of reality. It's like a dance between personal experience and objective evidence—one's satisfaction might come from personal insight or empirical proof, making the quest for truth as much a journey of self-discovery as it is a search for factual accuracy. What do you think drives the difference in how people seek and find validation? Do you think we see many don't bother anymore?
Firstly, thanks for the reply. Secondly, I am still pondering the two questions, however for expediency (Note that!) I will offer this.
"What do you think drives the difference in how people seek and find validation?"
Off my head, motivation, experience, and desire to know, yet to what extent? Until satisfied, what is expedient, what tolerance is required (From my old machinist days), and/or ???
"Do you think we see many don't bother anymore?"
I don't know really as I haven't been interacting with society in general for ten years now since leaving the work environment. The greatest influence on me in respect to that question would be from here in these two main forums at HP and a few others online I don't frequent as much and a compare/contrast with myself.Almost missed your post! Sorry a bit late with my response
"What do you think drives the difference in how people seek and find validation?"
I think people seek and find validation differently because of a mix of their personalities, past experiences, and what matters most to them. Some people look for validation from others because it makes them feel accepted and valued, while others rely more on their own sense of worth and find validation within themselves. How people were raised, their social circles, and what they’ve been through can shape where they look for approval. For example, someone who got a lot of praise growing up might seek it out more, while someone who learned to be independent might not need as much outside validation.
People may stop "bothering" for several reasons: they might feel unmotivated, think that their efforts won't lead to meaningful results, or feel overwhelmed by how much there is to learn or do. In some cases, people are satisfied with what they already know, or they find the quickest solution (what's "expedient") instead of digging deeper. The tolerance or patience to stick with something—like you might have learned as a machinist—could be lacking. Overall, many factors like motivation, experience, and how much they care about the outcome can play a part in whether people keep trying or give up.Thanks for the reply. I think or guess I misread your usage of validation. It came from the context being I thought it was about people's views, opinions, or perspectives needing validation. I wasn't thinking of validating oneself, though they are interconnected I would say.
I answered the question for the intent of validating an answer to a question or perspective as in these forums where we post links validating a point of view. In other words, one forms a point of view and then how much effort is put forth to validate that. I wasn't thinking of how to validate myself as a person hood with a conscience formed with a history of knowledge and experience. However, they are interrelated I suppose.
Again, as said, as to why bother to validate a point of view or perspective those reasons offered I could rationalize how many people 'bother to validate' their perspective. For instance, how many people bothered to validate if Haitians were in fact eating cats, dogs, and pets before taking a perspective as truth and 'reacting to it'. In other words, how many took Trump and Vance's statements as gospel.
I mean there were protest marches by the Proud Boys and KKK as reported in TV news broadcasts. There were bomb threats made and schools were closed. The state sent 13 police force members to help with the situation in Springfield. It was alive in podcasts, ticktoc, and YouTube.
I ask have we got a real answer to it, yet. It seems Vance stated in a round about way he made it up when he announced it. Or, is that hogwash? I haven't validated it!
Now that wasn't a deflection to become a right/left thing. Only an example where maybe validation is needed. And, if not one could wind up being in the wrong. Then going back to an earlier answer I made about having a suspicious mind.In online chats, some individuals are careful to validate their facts before sharing, while others don’t take the time and simply offer their views. Those who fact-check tend to rely on credible sources and cross-check information to avoid spreading misinformation. This not only boosts the credibility of their input but also encourages a more informed and respectful discussion.
On the flip side, some chat participants share unverified information, either because they’re unaware or because the ease of sharing online makes it tempting to skip validation. This can lead to the spread of misinformation, confusion, or debates based on inaccurate claims. I’m not entirely comfortable commenting on how thoroughly users validate information here on HP, but it’s interesting to read the variety of perspectives. It’s clear who shares comfortably without feeling the need to validate every point—after all, sharing views is about expressing thoughts. I actually like this type of comment. While it’s easy to use "Google fingers," I feel I get to know someone better when they’re brave enough to express an honest view.
That said, there are times I validate something thoroughly, and yet the conversation either fizzles out or gets deflected elsewhere.
"For instance, how many people bothered to validate if Haitians were in fact eating cats, dogs, and pets before taking a perspective as truth and 'reacting to it'. In other words, how many took Trump and Vance's statements as gospel."
In my view, it’s all too common for people to latch onto a headline or soundbite without digging deeper. During the debate, one candidate blatantly lied about the other’s agenda, using words in context that made her claims seem very factual. Trump’s statements were just as exaggerated his context did not point to facts, but his view. Yet hers stuck with many, despite being easily debunked by fact-checkers. Meanwhile, people were more concerned with Trump’s pet-eating comment, which yes was absurd. For me, her lies in the debate on national TV are a bigger issue, affecting our country’s future. It seems people validate facts when convenient and overlook them when it doesn’t fit their narrative. I choose to focus on what truly matters in such a disturbing time in our Nations growth. I always try to look at what is glaring, not what seems like a smaller issue...
I am well over the story, I have an election to concentrate on and have spent plenty of time validating both candidates. And you know what, in my view, one's lies are much more harmful than the others. One is a wolf in sheep's clothing."I am well over the story, I have an election to concentrate on and have spent plenty of time validating both candidates. And you know what, in my view, one's lies are much more harmful than the others. One is a wolf in sheep's clothing."
My view, lies are lies no matter who does tell them. In an abstract way they will carry the same weight at St. Peter's gate to be accounted for. However, I have my standards/criteria as I am sure you as well with the criteria of what is a lie as well as how much weight to be placed upon each."My view, lies are lies no matter who does tell them. In an abstract way they will carry the same weight at St. Peter's gate to be accounted for."
While it's true that all lies are morally wrong, in my view not all lies carry the same weight or consequences in real-world contexts. Some lies, especially those told by political leaders, can mislead the public, harm democracy, or impact millions of lives. For example, a lie that distorts public policy or misrepresents facts in a debate can have far-reaching consequences, influencing elections and governance. On the other hand, smaller personal lies may not have such broad societal effects. The gravity of a lie depends on its impact, not just its moral wrongness.
I appreciate that we each have our own standards and criteria for weighing lies, but I believe it's not just about recognizing a lie, but also understanding its impact. Some lies can be relatively harmless, while others have the potential to harm people, manipulate the truth, or alter important decisions. It’s the consequences that should guide how much weight we place on each lie, rather than simply applying the same level of judgment to all. Lies aren’t one-size-fits-all in their effect.Understood as well as appreciated!!
Yes, what is a lie and what weight to place on it is in essence a variable that is in a wave form grabbing from mathematics. The lie 'moves' through time having greater or lesser weight affected by new information, which may or may not alter the lie with its properties changing its amplitude.
For instance, personally, I deal with a fair share of medical professionals. They have no idea of what I know when they tell me something. So, they take measure of me and share information based on that and make the explanation of this or that for that assessment.
However, in some instances I am very well read on the topic and I know for a fact based on that the information they provided in some cases was blatantly false and others a white lie maybe so as to not alarm me. Either way I know all of them were taking into consideration my 'well being'.
Sharlee, here is a link from CNN and it appears to be quite comprehensive regarding falsehoods from either side. What do you think?
Trump has simply lied more frequently and to a greater magnitude is it not surprising that he would be fact checked more often?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/10/politics … index.htmlC'mon now. Kamala is an inveterate prevaricator. She flips flops on issues. Trump is truthful. I respect Trump far more than I respect Harris.
You’re a bit late to the game. I found the lieonometer to be fairly balanced, showing plenty of examples of dishonesty from both Harris and Trump. Now it’s about weighing those lies. Sure, Trump has a lot of lies under his belt, and while some have been fact-checked and disproven, they’re still being passed around. As for Harris, her track record of dishonesty is on film. Some people are calling her untruths flip-flops, but to me, that suggests she’s changed her values and ideologies, perhaps to say what people want to hear. It’s up to us to sift through all the lies from both sides and weigh them accordingly. Cred --- it's still all about pros and cons. I think it's safe to say this is where individuals need to prioritize what is most important for the Nation at this point in our history. What weight can our Nation bear in the present? We just have a ton of problems and many brewing. This time around it is unlike any other, in my view.
America has massive problems which are worsening. However, the Democrats are concentrating on the abortion & other inane social issues. Well, these issues aren't important at this juncture. The issues of crime & inflation are the key issues. Kamala wants to create a welfare state while Trump wants to create a thriving socioeconomic state.
I would be willing to bet the majority of Americans do not know how severe our problems are or how quickly they are worsening.
The Main Stream Media is in the back pockets of Big Pharma, BlackRock, etc. as well as the DC establishment (who are beholden to Big Pharma, BlackRock, etc.)... so they do not tell the American people anything that goes against what is in their best interests to tell Americans.
How is the war against Russia going?
How far away are we to being at war with Iran?
How are things going with North Korea?
How is the Dollar doing on the global trade stage?
How is our efforts to sell new Treasuries and bonds going?
Are those gangs from Central and South America really gaining foothold in the US?
What are the plans for the tens of millions more migrants coming to the US?
Yeah, it's Rasmussen. A notoriously far-right skewing poll. In the YouGov poll taken just after the debate, the results for Independents were:
And Harris is flipping independents as well. Before Tuesday’s debate, Harris trailed Trump by 9 points (35% to 44%) with that crucial bloc; she now leads by 10 (47% to 37%).
Harris’s new lead is more about her gaining ground than Trump slipping. While the former president has held steady around 45%, Harris is now winning a significantly higher share of Democrats (95% vs. 90%) and 2020 Biden voters (92% vs. 80%) than Biden was.
Harris is also performing 4 points better than Biden was among Latin Americans, 5 points better among women, 14 points better among Black Americans and 17 points better among Americans ages 18 to 29. (These groups have small sample sizes and therefore larger margins of error than the survey as a whole.)
@tsmog Regardless of Trump's personality, Kamala's lies simply were not "fact-checked" by the biased moderators. If you believe Harris offers hope, were you better off four years ago than today? She and Biden did that. Speaking of Harris being sharp, have you seen her "unburdened by what has been" and other word salad videos? Anyone can put on a well-rehearsed performance, including lying about things such as Charlottesville (debunked even by Snopes), bloodbath (which was in reference to the auto industry affected by EV mandates), IVF (Trump champions IVF), etc. Late- and post-term abortions do indeed happen in several states. Crime is UP per the Government's posted reports. If you don't DO any research on your own, you are and will be easily deceived. This isn't a popularity contest about who is more attractive or could win Homecoming queen/king. Both Trump and Harris have served four years, so you HAVE an actual real-life comparison. We either go back and restore the Country or we move forward in destroying the Country. Your choice November 5th.
Careful, Judah's Daughter. There are some diehard Democrats on this discussion thread that are afraid to hear the brutally honest truth about Kamala Harris. They all think that she's an infallible god. If she loses the presidential election on November 5th, they'll be throwing tizzy fits left and right.
Mr. 'TheShadowSpecter' I am not a Democrat!! I am an independent voter whose votes count most this election cycle. So, be careful of what you say because some us independent voters 'Do' take that into consideration to weigh our vote.
In my view, today's "Independent" voters seem to align more closely with Democratic ideologies, especially when it comes to key social and economic issues. While traditionally, being an Independent suggested neutrality or a balanced stance between the major parties, it appears that many of today's Independents lean towards progressive policies, possibly reflecting a shift in the political landscape. Of course, this is just one perspective, and there are certainly Independents who align with more conservative views, but it's an interesting trend that I have observed. Do your ideologies lean more conservative, middle, or liberal?
A fair assessment that polls indicate some support, though by a narrow margin. I'll look for some later for the hell of it. Working on memory for now.
I know for myself I have conservative and liberal values. Plus, there are issues close to my heart and issues I am concerned about on a national level, state level, and for my county - San Diego, California. At times they team up like the border issue being national and imperatively here at the San Diego county border. Last month it had the highest activity with 58,000 arrests. Wow! Where do they go! I'll share at a later time. But, we have a homeless challenge too. And, on and on it goes.
On paper is it is picture puzzle seeking to balance it. Kind of like finger painting when were kids. Everything smears together with delightful colors, though majestic and abstract to some it looks like a haphazard mess ha-ha
Yet, sooner than later it takes form and clarity arrives for the master piece. Then I know what my vote will be.
Oh, no, tsmog. I wasn't trying to single you out. I was making a more general statement about the Democrats on this discussion thread, because a few of them get infuriated whenever anyone contradicts them. Like you, I am also an independent voter. I'm a moderate independent voter. Therefore, I have no attachment to either the Democratic or Republican party in stone. However, if I like a particular candidate from either party, I'm going to vote for that candidate; and this November I intend to vote for President Trump inasmuch as he strikes me as the more pragmatic of the presidential candidates between him and Kamala Harris.
Wouldn't a pragmatist view language as tools for action and problem solving?
How does his recent proclamation of hate, on his truth social site, for Taylor Swift fit into pragmatism?
Under what circumstance is it acceptable for a presidential candidate to declare their hate for another individual?I haven't really followed that story about Taylor Swift. I'm not a Taylor-Swift fan. But since you brought it up, I'll give that story a look.
Many don't favor Taylor Swift --- Free speech is a wonderful thing.
Sure, a pragmatist would be focused on problem-solving—kudos for that. But let’s not forget, Harris comes from a failed administration and continues to back Biden’s many blunders. he did not solve problems, he created them.
Do you think Harris would really appeal to pragmatists? People who typically tackle problems with practical common sense solutions that work in the real world? Harris’s agenda seems to be all about 'I’m going to give you this, and that!'—a series of empty ridiculous promises she has no real power to deliver on. I’ll give her credit for adapting her slang depending on her audience, but in my view, that’s hardly impressive." It's insulting.Pragmatic people won't fall for Kamala's game. Yes, Kamala is playing a game-with the American people. Kamala feels that the American people are stupid & will guile them, telling them anything to be elected. Joseph Goebbels indicated that if you tell people lies long enough, they will believe them to be truths. That is what Kamala is doing & many people are falling for her lines or rather lies. Every time I hear Kamala speak, I become physically nauseous.
Shadow, what you have stated is true. There are Democrats who blindly defend Biden's inane policies, particularly his immigration policies which are putting America in a downward tailspin. Even some of the media are in cahoots w/this leftist party. They have an animus against Trump because he is telling the TRUTH about the crisis in America. Many refuse to see it but more people are waking up.
Okay, and thank you for the reply. The last two election cycles I voted for Teddy Roosevelt as a write in and plan to do that again unless I am swayed.
Ahhh, you live in CA.... your vote doesn't matter there.
There are already at least 10 million mail in ballots set aside for Harris in CA.
And you and I both know it. ;-)Yeah, your right I'm not worth shit. May as well find a cliff and jump off of it.
Nonsense, you believe that just because a progressive State like California votes Democratic consistently that their elections are innately corrupt. Sounds a lot like your Fuhrer Trump.
Thank you ! Onee needs to sak as Trumnp did --- Were you better off four years ago? Harris told so many lies it would be hard to not write a book... But here goes ---
Harris made several statements that fact-checkers found misleading or inaccurate. She claimed that law enforcement officers died during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, but none actually died on that day,
Additionally, she inaccurately suggested that Trump had been indicted specifically for inciting the Capitol violence, whereas his indictment focused on conspiracy charges, not directly on the violence itselfFactcheck.org
One of Harris's key misstatements involved unemployment. She claimed that Trump "left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression." While it’s true that the unemployment rate spiked to 14.8% in April 2020, this was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, not economic policies unique to Trump's administration. By the time Biden took office in January 2021, the rate had DROPPED BACK to 6.4%, which is not as severe as Harris's statement suggested.
Harris also claimed that Trump would sign a national abortion ban if reelected, referencing the conservative policy document "Project 2025." However, Trump has distanced himself from this project and has never explicitly endorsed such a ban, making Harris's assertion speculative at best.
Healthcare Claims: Harris accused Trump of trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without offering an alternative plan. While Trump did advocate for repealing the ACA, he did propose alternatives, though they were not enacted. Her claim oversimplifies the situation, omitting these details.
Yikes yes, this is one you mentioned and needs to be rementioned --- Harris also misrepresented Trump’s statements on violence, suggesting he threatened violence if the election didn’t go his way. Trump had referred to a "bloodbath" during a speech but in the context of economic concerns related to auto industry jobs, not electoral violence
Harris said she would offer families a tax credit of up to $6,000 for each eligible child, as well as a $50,000 tax deduction for small businesses if she succeeds President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. She claimed Trump would favor billionaires and corporations over anyone else, and said the former president planned a sales tax that would hurt ordinary Americans.
Harris accused Trump of systematically undermining law enforcement throughout his presidency. While Trump did face criticism for his handling of various policing issues, he also increased funding for law enforcement in many instances and emphasized the importance of "law and order" during his time in office.
This is really one of her big fat lies ---- Trade Deficit: Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in "one of the highest trade deficits in history." While the trade deficit under Trump was significant, it wasn't the largest. In fact, during George W. Bush's administration, deficits were LARGER, and the DEFICIT UNDER Biden has exceeded Trump's worst year(PolitiFact
Domestic Oil Production: Harris claimed that Biden oversaw the largest increase in domestic oil production in history. While current production levels are high, previous administrations, including Trump's, saw larger year-over-year increases(PolitiFact
As I said --- she lied much of the time her mic was turned on"Trade Deficit: Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in "one of the highest trade deficits in history." While the trade deficit under Trump was significant, it wasn't the largest.'
How is this considered a lie?
Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in one of the highest trade deficits in history."
So yes, Trump's trade deficit was pretty significant.
"Domestic Oil Production: Harris claimed that Biden oversaw the largest increase in domestic oil production in history."
This needed a little context.
Harris has a point that overall oil production under Biden has set records. Production has accelerated under Biden, who has approved more drilling permits on public lands than Trump had in the same point in his presidency.
What undercuts Harris' claim, however, is that other presidents, including Trump and f
Obama, oversaw larger year-to-year increases on U.S. oil production than Biden.
But Trump's mistruths? Just a few..
Trump: "But the governor before, he said, 'The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby.'"
Trump: "Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted (abortion) to be brought back to the states where the people could vote."
Trump: "It was a fraud, just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud."
Trump: "Millions and millions of people … are pouring into our country monthly. Where it's, I believe 21 million people."
Trump: "Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down. You know why? Because they've taken their criminals off the street, and they've given them to (Harris) to put into our country."
Trump: Under Biden and Harris, the U.S. had "the worst inflation we've ever had."
Trump: Referring to the lawsuits he and allies filed alleging irregularities in the 2020 presidential election that he lost, "No judge looked at it. … They said we didn't have standing. A technicality." (That's not a technicality, it's a legitimate ruling) The majority of the lawsuits were rejected because of a lack of evidence of voter fraud.
Trump: On the Affordable Care Act, "I saved it.". LOL
Trump: "Crime here is up and through the roof."
Trump: “She wants to confiscate your guns,”
Trump: "We have to have borders, and we have to have good elections. Our elections are bad. And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote. They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in"
Trump: "fossil fuel will be dead under Harris"
Trump: "The only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs bounce back, and it bounced back, and it went to their benefit, but I was the one that created them,"
Actually...The U.S. regained all the jobs lost during the Covid-19 pandemic in June 2022. Since then, more than 6 million jobs have been created.You will need to take all your interpretation to the fact-checkers --- these were quotes from several, most PolitiFact. I'm not sure any would go out on a limb with poor facts. I will take their experience, and research over laymen.
The above is not my interpretation, all the statements were fact-checked. Which do you contest from the above? I will provide the entire fact check... Probably from multiple sources. Which is your preferred source of fact check? I can use that.
You are also welcome to rebut any of the above fact checked statementsNo need to bother, as I’ve moved on from reading further debate blurbs. I’m focusing on all the current issues surrounding the candidates. That said, I found this particular situation disturbing and, frankly, nauseating. Kamala Harris was mocked online for using what some called a “new accent” at the Congressional Black Caucus event. In my opinion, who does something like this other than someone with little common sense? It felt as though she was talking down to a crowd of Black citizens, which is troubling to see from a leader.
"Harris mocked online for breaking out another 'new accent' at Congressional Black Caucus event
X users mock Kamala Harris' 'new accent' at Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Phoenix Awards Dinner" No really who does this, but a person that has little common sense? Talking, in my view down to a crowd of Black citizens. Down right Yuck
Let me just point out the one that Trump followers had previously called a "lie'
"Trade Deficit: Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in "one of the highest trade deficits in history." While the trade deficit under Trump was significant, it wasn't the largest.'
How is this considered a lie?
Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in one of the highest trade deficits in history."
So yes, Trump's trade deficit was pretty significant. Harris was not lying.Harris’ trade deficit claim misses the mark
Harris: “The Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit — one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America.”
MOSTLY FALSE
At its largest, the trade deficit for goods and services under Trump was about $654 billion in 2020. That’s larger than most post-World War II presidents, but Harris glosses over that the final four years under President George W. Bush each produced a larger trade deficit than Trump’s biggest.
And the trade deficit HAS BEEN EVEN BIGGER UNDER the BIDEN-HARRIS administration. In each of the first three years under Biden and Harris, from 2021 to 2023, the trade deficit has been larger than it was during Trump’s worst year. It set a record in 2022." OH MY ...
Looks like she will wear a huge most likely history-making deficit, doe it not?
Her lies and yes half-truths were many, hard to defend such blatant type lies.
Can you provide some stats where crime is up?
Can you provide some context as to why a later term abortion would be performed?
I believe that trump, at this point has commented on three separate occasions that kids go to school and come home with a sex change... Can you provide some evidence of such? A child who it's happened to maybe?
Post debate fact checking, who came out with more mistruths?
In actual minutes, which candidate had more?
Do you find it admirable that Trump scapegoated an entire group of people who are here legally under our immigration laws to gain political points?
Do you find his close relationship with someone like Laura Loomer to be a positive thing?
Prominent California Democrat leaves the party, joins the Republican Party and now supports President Donald Trump.
This is happening more often then I've seen it in any other election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsIqr1UGMykI am Democrat & have been voting for Trump since 2016. I find that Republicans value order, particularly law, order, & civilization while the Democrats a/k/a Leftists value anarchy.
I was still a Democrat back in 2016, and, like you, I voted for Donald Trump inasmuch as I could not trust Hillary Clinton to lead the nation. Like you, I was what many referred to as a Trumpocrat back then. By 2020, I had become a moderate independent voter; and I voted for Donald Trump once again, because I had no use for Joe Biden and I didn't want to throw my vote away on any of the obscure candidates that were running on the independent ticket back then either.
I think that there is a trend going on of current Democrats and former Democrats voting for Donald Trump instead of for the Democratic nominee, because the Democratic National Committee keeps selecting the wrong person to run for office; and I don't understand that. If they wanted to get a woman president into the White House, they could have selected Gretchen Whitmer instead of Kamala Harris. She would have been more likeable to the American people.
In the debate, I vaguely remember that Kamala Harris claimed that 200 Republicans had endorsed her, but the only ones that I know of are Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney. Meanwhile, I keep seeing reports on the news and on the Internet about Democrats defecting over to Donald Trump and endorsing him in droves. The Democratic National Committee keeps shooting themselves in the foot, and their reasons for doing so remain a mystery.I find her statement where she claimed that 200 Republicans had endorsed her, is a statement that needs proof. She appears to just say whatever she wants her audience to hear. In my view this one needs proof.
I agree, we have tweedle dumb (Biden) do we need tweedle dumber? We just had Trump shot at once again, and nothing from our president. Is The Big Kahuna at the beach? When in America did we see presidential candidates shot at?
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden Respond to Shooting Near Donald Trump...
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- … mp-1954164Great to see someone is in Washington to rip out these kinds of statements. Thanks for the link --- I was so impressed with trump's message "Trump wrote in a statement released by his campaign on Sunday, "I AM SAFE AND WELL! Nothing will slow me down. I will NEVER SURRENDER! I will always love you for supporting me. Unity. Peace. Make America Great Again."
He certainly will never stop fighting. Never saw anyone so dedicated.
"When in America did we see presidential candidates shot at?"
Great point. When have we seen people just trying to get their grocery shopping done shot at, kids just trying to get an education, shot at, people going to a concert, shot at, people just watching a movie at a theater, shot at. Going to a nightclub, shot at, just going to church, shot at....
We appear to be a violent people. When will it end? I don't know I think someone once said...
"It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward,”"Great point. When have we seen people just trying to get their grocery shopping done shot at, kids just trying to get an education, shot at, people going to a concert, shot at, people just watching a movie at a theater, shot at. Going to a nightclub, shot at, just going to church, shot at...."
This is true, that was my point regarding the Hattians --- they may as well buck up, that is how we roll in America now. Shots at a presidential candidate, school shootings, and just sleeping in one's bed. I can say a few decades ago we did not see these forms of violence with such frequency.
In response to the tragic Parkland school shooting, Trump demonstrated a blend of empathy and action. His statement, “It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward,” reflects his immediate reaction to the shock of the event. Beyond words, Trump also took tangible steps to support those affected. He made phone calls to several families who lost loved ones, though the reception of these calls was varied. Additionally, Trump visited the site of the shooting in February 2018, meeting with survivors, first responders, and some of the victims' families. His efforts to engage directly with those impacted highlight a commitment to offering both emotional support and a presence in the face of tragedy, even if his approach garnered mixed reactions.
Trump makes every attempt to show empathy in response to tragedies like the Parkland school shooting. While he may not be considered an eloquent speaker by everyone, his actions often speak louder than his words. In this instance, he not only made phone calls to the families of victims but also visited the site of the shooting to meet with survivors and first responders. To me, this demonstrates that he is a caring man. I believe in valuing deeds over words, as actions require more effort and commitment.
"We appear to be a violent people. When will it end? "
Martin Luther King Jr. once asked that question. The sad truth is despite decades of advocating for peace and nonviolence, the cycle of violence continues to get worse. The persistence of mass shootings, conflicts, and societal violence shows that we have not yet fully embraced the lessons of empathy and understanding he championed.
Our challenge should be to confront these issues with renewed commitment and, as Trump said, "we need to move toward" a future where such violence becomes a distant memory rather than an ongoing reality. Dwelling on past sorrows offers no reward. We, as a society, have yet to fully learn from past violence, and our environment continues to breed violence without the appropriate level of anger and response.Yes, we must clean house. We need strong law & order. Trump is a strong law & order person. We must vote more law & order people to political office from local to national levels. Kamala is part of the leftist brigade as Adams, Braggs, & other leftists who believe in soft or non-existent law & order because "it is oppressive". Look at what leftist, soft policies are doing to America. Such "policies" are destroying America.
Hi Grace, Absolutely, we need to restore law and order across the board, from local communities to the national level. (drain the swamp) Strong leadership is essential, we are going down the tubes fast, and I agree that Trump's focus on law and order has been a positive step. The soft policies we've seen from the left are causing real damage to our cities and communities. We need leaders who aren't afraid to prioritize safety and accountability and govern from strength. We need law and order candidates it is crucial to getting our country back on track, and with good speed.
"It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward,” reflects his immediate reaction to the shock of the event. Beyond words, Trump also took tangible steps to support those affected. He made phone calls to several families who lost loved ones, though the reception of these calls was varied.
Phone calls do little to address our gun violence problem in this country.
I don't know if I get much empathy from his statement at all when I watch the video. To me he seems to be acknowledging what happened, giving condolences but ultimately saying "we have to get over it". As if it was just time to move on from what had happened. Just a fact of life in this country.
"Our challenge should be to confront these issues with renewed commitment and, as Trump said, "we need to move toward" a future where such violence becomes a distant memory rather than an ongoing reality."
But with Trump, it's just "get over it and move on." No plan or even a concept of a plan followed his statement. I assume there is none.
https://youtu.be/G2sAlu2a5vA?si=-MQ5K5kFn2JJ6hpn"Phone calls do little to address our gun violence problem in this country."
What has our current administration done regarding the problem? Lots of talk, and emotional, in my point meaningless blurbs. However, in my view, that is what liberals do best.
When crime stats were looked at after the debate, it showed that, yes crime was up under Biden.
Article -- New DOJ crime data appears to support Trump's debate claims about high crime rates
"WASHINGTON (TND) — The Department of Justice released a new report on Thursday showing that crime rates remain elevated under President Biden.
This new data is challenging the narrative currently being pushed by the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. It also highlights how difficult it is to get an accurate nationwide measure of where crime is actually trending.
The DOJ numbers come from a massive annual government survey of crime victims. The report found 22.5 out of every 1,000 residents reported being the victim of a violent crime in 2023 and 102 of every 1,000 reported being the victim of a property crime. Both of these numbers are statistically unchanged from the year before. Both are also higher than 2020, the final year of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. This appears to back up claims crime remains higher under the Biden-Harris administration than under Trump.
"The public can look at the national crime victimization survey and see that crime is not going down. Again we are told to not believe our lying eyes," said Sgt. Betsy Smith (ret.), spokesperson for the National Police Association.
But the FBI crime statistics tell a different story indicating drops in crime. These are the numbers the White House is focusing on. This set of data shows crime decreases year-to-year, but is still higher than five years ago.
The FBI data, however, has massive holes. In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data reports, causing critics to slam the fact check by ABC moderators during Tuesday's presidential debate.
At one point in the debate, Donald Trump said, "Crime in this country is through the roof." To which moderator David Muir responded,"President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country."
Trump responded, "Excuse me, the FBI -- they were defrauding statements. They didn't include the worst cities."
The former president doubled down during his press conference on Friday."
"I lost a lot of respect for David Muir. He came at me with things ... I was right about the crime stats going way up." DJ Trump
Regarding your view --"I don't know if I get much empathy from his statement at all when I watch the video. To me he seems to be acknowledging what happened, giving condolences but ultimately saying "we have to get over it". As if it was just time to move on from what had happened. Just a fact of life in this country. "
Regarding the statement you are claiming Trump made "We need to move on". He did make the statement at a rally, after his formal remarks to the Nation. When listening to his words, I found it necessary to listen to his complete before and after words, and to note his demeanor.... I found his demeanor as well as his tone very empathetic. I found his remarks very much what the Nation needed to hear. al that point.. Again he was very much empathetic as he shared his remarks.
I have offered the Transcript and a link to watch his remarks to the Nation on the shooting, as well as the rally comments. I hope some who read this comment will check out the video's of his heartfelt remarks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx-yw5zJj74
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna132610
Read Trump’s full remarks to the Nation
My fellow Americans, today I speak to a nation in grief. Yesterday, a school filled with innocent children and caring teachers became the scene of terrible violence, hatred and evil.
Around 2:30 yesterday afternoon, police responded to reports of gunfire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida – a great and safe community. There, a shooter, who is now in custody, opened fire on defenseless students and teachers. He murdered 17 people and badly wounded at least 14 others.
Our entire nation, with one heavy heart, is praying for the victims and their families. To every parent, teacher, and child who is hurting so badly, we are here for you – whatever you need, whatever we can do, to ease your pain. We are all joined together as one American family, and your suffering is our burden also.
No child, no teacher, should ever be in danger in an American school. No parent should ever have to fear for their sons and daughters when they kiss them goodbye in the morning.
Each person who was stolen from us yesterday had a full life ahead of them – a life filled with wondrous beauty and unlimited potential and promise. Each one had dreams to pursue, love to give, and talents to share with the world. And each one had a family to whom they meant everything in the world.
Today, we mourn for all of those who lost their lives. We comfort the grieving and the wounded. And we hurt for the entire community of Parkland, Florida, that is now in shock, in pain, and searching for answers.
To law enforcement, first responders, and teachers who responded so bravely in the face of danger: We thank you for your courage. Soon after the shooting, I spoke with Gov. (Rick) Scott to convey our deepest sympathies to the people of Florida and our determination to assist in any way that we can. I also spoke with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.
I’m making plans to visit Parkland to meet with families and local officials, and to continue coordinating the federal response.
In these moments of heartache and darkness, we hold on to God’s word in scripture: “I have heard your prayer and seen your tears. I will heal you.”
We trust in that promise, and we hold fast to our fellow Americans in their time of sorrow.
I want to speak now directly to America’s children, especially those who feel lost, alone, confused or even scared: I want you to know that you are never alone and you never will be. You have people who care about you, who love you, and who will do anything at all to protect you. If you need help, turn to a teacher, a family member, a local police officer, or a faith leader. Answer hate with love; answer cruelty with kindness.
We must also work together to create a culture in our country that embraces the dignity of life, that creates deep and meaningful human connections and that turns classmates and colleagues into friends and neighbors.
Our administration is working closely with local authorities to investigate the shooting and learn everything we can. We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools, and tackle the difficult issue of mental health.
Later this month, I will be meeting with the nation’s governors and attorney generals, where making our schools and our children safer will be our top priority. It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference.
In times of tragedy, the bonds that sustain us are those of family, faith, community, and country. These bonds are stronger than the forces of hatred and evil, and these bonds grow even stronger in the hours of our greatest need.
And so always, but especially today, let us hold our loved ones close, let us pray for healing and for peace, and let us come together as one nation to wipe away the tears and strive for a much better tomorrow.
Thank you. And God Bless you all. Thank you very much."I'll go back to my original question, what is the Trump plan on gun violence?
What has Harris done? What is Bidens done? Do you have any words to provide from them? I like deeds.
Shar,
I think we can agree this was a moment for harris to seem presidential. She could have held a press conference and talked down the latest assassination attempt against President Donald Trump.
It's an opportunity to act presidential and give people following her confidence that she can do the job of president. She could have looked like a leader.
Nothing.
It's as if she thinks the job of president is to speak off teleprompters, engage in rigged debates, and control any exposure to the press.
harris is a lot of things, but she is definitely not a leader in any sense of the word."What has Harris done?"
Harris is a vice president, I think folks should acquaint themselves with the duties of such.
But as part of the administration, she leads The Office of Gun Violence Prevention .
The administration was able to sign in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, arguably the most significant legislative action in nearly 30 years .
Beyond that, they have not had the cooperation from Republicans to enact even more significant reform.
"The FBI data, however, has massive holes. In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data reports"
From the FBI...
"For the 2022 data year, to provide nationally representative data, the FBI accepted NIBRS data and SRS data submissions from agencies. NIBRS data was submitted by 13,293 law enforcement agencies whose jurisdictions covered more than 256 million United States inhabitants. SRS data was accepted from 2,431 non-transitioned agencies representing 55,441,278 inhabitants. These agencies added an additional 16.6% population coverage, bringing the total national population coverage for Crime in the Nation, 2022 to 93.5%.
Quarterly numbers from the FBI will not be as inclusive.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases … statisticsYour article is old oct 2023...
Sept 13, 2024
Article -- NEW DOJ crime data appears to support Trump's debate claims about high crime rates
"WASHINGTON (TND) — The Department of Justice released a NEW REPORT on Thursday showing that crime rates remain elevated under President Biden.
This new data is challenging the narrative currently being pushed by the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. It also highlights how difficult it is to get an accurate nationwide measure of where crime is actually trending.
The DOJ numbers come from a massive annual government survey of crime victims. The report found 22.5 out of every 1,000 residents reported being the victim of a violent crime in 2023 and 102 of every 1,000 reported being the victim of a property crime. Both of these numbers are statistically unchanged from the year before. Both are also higher than 2020, the final year of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. This appears to back up claims crime remains higher under the Biden-Harris administration than under Trump.
"The public can look at the national crime victimization survey and see that crime is not going down. Again we are told to not believe our lying eyes," said Sgt. Betsy Smith (ret.), spokesperson for the National Police Association.
But the FBI crime statistics tell a different story indicating drops in crime. These are the numbers the White House is focusing on. This set of data shows crime decreases year-to-year, but is still higher than five years ago.
The FBI data, however, has massive holes. In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data reports, causing critics to slam the fact check by ABC moderators during Tuesday's presidential debate.
At one point in the debate, Donald Trump said, "Crime in this country is through the roof." To which moderator David Muir responded,"President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country."
Trump responded, "Excuse me, the FBI -- they were defrauding statements. They didn't include the worst cities."
The former president doubled down during his press conference on Friday."
"I lost a lot of respect for David Muir. He came at me with things ... I was right about the crime stats going way up." DJ TrumpThe data from the FBI was last published in 2022. That is the information I cited.
Let's look at the recent quarterly report from the FBI..
On Monday, June 10, 2024, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program released the Quarterly Uniform Crime Report (Q1), January-March, 2024
The report...reported violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent. Murder decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 12.5 percent. Reported property crime also decreased by 15.1 percent
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases … ata-update
"The FBI data, however, has massive holes. In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data
This is incorrect and the FBI data I previously cited from 2022 clearly stated that it covered 93% of the population. Not less than half.
"In an open letter, first written about on Monday by USA Today, 238 people who worked for former President George H.W. Bush, former President George W. Bush, former Arizona Sen. John McCain and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney call on their fellow “moderate Republicans and conservative independents” to join them in backing Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, over Trump and his vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio"
https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harri … 1e126edbc9200 Wow that's a long list! Maybe some proof would be nice. Come on. The link is not available
I know what you mean. Even if it does turn out to be true about the 200-plus Republican and independent defectors, the fact that Tim Walz's own family members are defecting over to Donald Trump doesn't look good on Tim Walz or Kamala Harris. Also, Tim Walz is refusing to explain to news reporters why people in his own family are endorsing Donald Trump instead of Tim Walz and Kamala Harris.
What do you mean if it turns out not to be true?. You're questioning the letter?
https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harri … 1e126edbc9I just heard about another attempt on Trump's life!!
If Kamala is a shoo-in, then why don't the crazies leave Donald Trump the heck alone!?!
I am more angry over this latest attempt than just about anything else right now!!
Hmmm, interesting. Meanwhile, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's family are endorsing Donald Trump for president as indicated in this article here.>>> https://www.patrioticviralnews.com/arti … ing-trump/
That doesn't look good on Tim Walz or Kamala Harris, to say the least.Hey, the left has already demonized his brother and all the rest. I mean anyone can do just the slightest research on Walz to see he is a far-left politician.
Lol does your family all agree on the same political ideology? Don't know many who do.
Did you not find it odd several of his family members claimed they would not vote for him? His brother made some disparaging remarks.
No not really. If they're Republicans, why would they vote for a Democrat? Just because they're family members, their political ideology should align? Just in my own personal experience, I don't find it works that way.
But the odd thing about it all is that Tim Walz refuses to interview with journalists who question him about it. If it were only a case of him and his family members having a mere difference of political opinions, that would be one thing. However, they're not even going to vote for him but rather for Donald Trump, and they've all put it all on blast for the whole world to know. He has to find their actions to be humiliating for him.
Did you see where he called Kamala a "prostituder?"
How could he goof that one so bad?"He has to find their actions to be humiliating for him."
Why, because they identify more with Republican ideology than he does?
Isn't that their prerogative? Would you be humiliated if your parents or siblings didn't agree with your political beliefs?You're comparing apples and oranges. I agree with you that it's not unusual that people in an everyday family will have family members who each belong to different political parties. However, Tim Walz is a vice-presidential candidate and a national figure; and whenever journalists approach him to ask him why his family members are voting for President Trump instead of for him and Kamala Harris, he gets furious at them instead of answering their questions. There has to be an underlying reason for that, and he's too ashamed to talk about it with the press and the media.
I'm sorry, I just don't get where you're coming from. If my sister were to run for governor of my state as a republican, she wouldn't get my vote. She's a wonderful person but I'm not on board with her political views.
I have heard no personal attacks from his family members. No one stating that there is anything other than pure ideological differences between them.Actually, Tim Walz's family members have directed verbal attacks against him. In an interview, they told the news reporters that:
"The family warned that with everything they know about Tim, this guy could be a DISASTER for the country if him and Kamala get into the White House.
Tim’s brother even warned that the Minnesota Governor is not the kind of character that you want in a position to make critical decisions for the future of America."
If you don't believe me, here is the link to the article>>>>>>>>
https://www.patrioticviralnews.com/arti … ing-trump/So, he's basically repeating word-for-word the propaganda he's being fed by Trump. In other words, he's the typical MAGA cult member.
When the left refers to MAGA as a cult, I see it as a sign of individuals who don't know what a cult is or what it means.
Since they don't have the ability to articulate or convey ideas and concepts in an intelligent way, they have to refer to those who disagree with them as a cult. These are individuals who do not have a grasp of the truth or reality.
Sad, actually, when think about it.When the leader of a political party can convince 70% of those in that party of a blatant falsehood, pretty sure that qualifies it as a cult. The sad part is that there are a bunch of people who lack the basic critical thinking skills to know that the leader is obviously lying.
Exactly. It brings to mind when Gary Johnson was running for president on the Independent ticket back in 2016. Every time anyone disagreed with him, he'd accused that person of being a racist despite that the topic of discussion at hand had nothing to do with race. He wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch. Every time he couldn't remember a crucial detail about something when interviewed, he kept telling reporters that he must have been having an "Aleppo" moment.
Deleted
Jeff Walz clarifies comments about brother Tim Walz’s political views...
"Jeff Walz, who is a registered Republican and donated $20 to Trump’s 2016 campaign per The New York Post, explained his social media posts were intended to rebuke rhetoric that he was in lockstep with his brother’s views.
I was getting a lot of feedback from my friends, old acquaintances, thinking that I was feeling the same way that my brother did on the issues, and I was trying to clarify that just to friends,” Jeff Walz said. “I used Facebook, which wasn’t the right platform to do that. But I will say, I don’t agree with his policies"
Jeff Walz reiterated he completely disagrees with his younger brother’s policies, he will depart from the public eye. He has not communicated with members from either political party.
Jeff Walz said there were “stories (he) could tell” that implied his brother wasn’t “the type of character you want making decisions about your future.”
Now, he told NewsNation that these “stories” follow a similar line to one in which Tim Walz’s siblings didn’t want to sit with him due to car sickness when they were younger
"Nobody wanted to sit with him because he had car sickness and would always throw up on us, that sort of thing,” Jeff Walz said. “There’s really nothing else hidden behind there. People are assuming something else.
“There is going to be no further statements to anybody, and we’re not campaigning or anything for him or against him or anything like that"
Well that's that.
https://ktla.com/news/jeff-walz-clarifi … cal-views/There is greater hostility between Jeff Walz and Tim Walz than you think.
The New York Post article by Jon Levine reads:
["Besides Jeff, Tim Walz, 60, has a sister, Sandy Dietrich, 63, who lives in Nebraska, where the Walz clan grew up. Another brother, Craig Walz, 44, died when a tree fell on him during a storm which ripped through a Minnesota campsite in 2016.
Jeff and Tim Walz haven’t spoken in eight years, Jeff Walz wrote.
And the governor — who has fudged details of his military career and who delayed calling out the National Guard even as his state burned during the George Floyd riots in 2020 — didn’t bother to let his older brother know that he was picked as Harris’ running mate.
“My family wasn’t given any notice that he was selected,” Jeff Walz wrote.]"There is greater hostility between Jeff Walz and Tim Walz than you think".
I'm not reading between the lines. The man made a very clear statement. He was interviewed, had the opportunity to say whatever he wanted.
This is great news, and gives me confidence that more will follow.
@Willowarbor The FBI posts crime stats online. The data only goes to 2022, but Trump and others have reported that high crime cities such as Chicago, IL were left off the report! In 2020 all violent crime in the U.S. was reported at 565,882 vs. 2022 at 809,381.
There are several states that have no limits to when a woman can abort her child. There's a recording on X and other sites by a “student for life” who called an abortion vendor (CARE Clinic in Bethesda, MD) proving that late term abortions are real. She pretended to be 34 weeks pregnant (40 weeks is full-term) and said her boyfriend simply left the picture. She was told she could have an abortion, along with how the procedure would unfold.
In Tim Walz's state of MN he was forced to revise previous legislation allowing for babies delivered during an attempted abortion that survive to not receive medical care and were simply set aside to die (FIVE post-birth infant deaths are recorded).
Walz also signed HF 146, that threatens to remove children from parents, if parents do not provide gender affirming care (aka trans surgeries).
CA passed a bill that will not prosecute mothers/parents of infants who die within the first month post-birth. The assumption is the baby could have fetal alcohol syndrome or be a crack baby of addicted parents who neglect to care for their infants, and yet would not be prosecuted. Who's to say how that infant died.
Point is, 60 Million abortions over the last 50 years hardly points to rapes, incest and life of the mother catalysts. Planned Parenthood, which used to be named The Negro Project, was exposed by an undercover reporter that they actually sell baby parts.
Who lied more? Kamala lied out both ends of her body without consequence, just as the captured liberal media. No one fact-checked her and the attempted fact-checking of Trump was still misinformation by the moderators.
Laura Loomer was the girl who hopped Nancy Pelosi's fence with a couple of Mexicans to prove a point - Pelosi called the police! Loomer, of course, agrees with Trump when it comes to illegal immigration, but she is not connected to him in any significant way.
Trump has openly stated he is FOR legal immigration and is 100% against ILLEGAL immigration. Even legal immigrants are extremely upset about all the illegals just "walzing" into our Country, whether on foot over the border or by plane or bus. Where's the 300,000+ missing children no one wants to talk about? How many Americans have died from Fentanyl that crossed the border? Wake up and do some research before you just blindly follow the Pied Piper off a cliff, forcing the rest of the Country to fall with you!"Violent crime rates, especially for homicide in large cities, have fallen sharply during Biden’s presidency, after a surge during the pandemic. The violent crime rate is believed to be near its lowest level in 50 years.
Trump has a point that the quarterly data released in June by the FBI is incomplete — [b[not every law enforcement agency reports its data on time or accurately for the report[/b] — but he’s wrong to suggest crime is worse today than at any time in American history. Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and consultant, maintained a dashboard that compiles crime statistics, and it shows the murder rate declining significantly, year over year, in many major cities. Overall, there have been nearly 18 percent fewer murders in 277 cities, according to Asher.
The Council on Criminal Justice examines monthly crime rates for 12 violent, property and drug offenses in 39 American cities that have consistently reported monthly data over the past six years. In July, it reported steep declines in homicide and most other violent crimes back to levels that predated the pandemic."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ris-trump/
"There are several states that have no limits to when a woman can abort her child. "
How often do you believe this happens? And can you identify some reasons that would necessitate a later term abortion? And should they be banned?
I'll remind folks that 93% of abortions occur before the 13th week.
"How many Americans have died from Fentanyl that crossed the border? "
Tell me who brings it across? Hint, it's not the migrants... It is smuggled for our people, by our people.Appears to be another mistruth from the debate --- perhaps Harris should have considered doing better research into the subject. Before making her statements on Crime. Perhaps checking with the DOJ
ABC New DOJ crime data appears to support Trump's debate claims about high crime rates Sept 13, 2024
WASHINGTON (TND) — The Department of Justice released a new report on Thursday showing that crime rates remain elevated under President Biden.
This new data is challenging the narrative currently being pushed by the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. It also highlights how difficult it is to get an accurate nationwide measure of where crime is actually trending.
The DOJ numbers come from a massive annual government survey of crime victims. The report found 22.5 out of every 1,000 residents reported being the victim of a violent crime in 2023 and 102 of every 1,000 reported being the victim of a property crime. Both of these numbers are statistically unchanged from the year before. Both are also higher than 2020, the final year of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. This appears to back up claims crime remains higher under the Biden-Harris administration than under Trump.
"The public can look at the national crime victimization survey and see that crime is not going down. Again we are told to not believe our lying eyes," said Sgt. Betsy Smith (ret.),spokesperson for the National Police Association.
But the FBI crime statistics tell a different story indicating drops in crime. These are the numbers the White House is focusing on. This set of data shows crime decreases year-to-year, but is still higher than five years ago.
In 2022, less than half of the police departments in the country gave the FBI complete crime data reports, causing critics to slam the fact check by ABC moderators during Tuesday's presidential debate.
At one point in the debate, Donald Trump said, "Crime in this country is through the roof." To which moderator David Muir responded,"President Trump, as you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country."
Trump responded, "Excuse me, the FBI -- they were defrauding statements. They didn't include the worst cities."
The former president doubled down during his press conference on Friday.
What's the plan to make sure that evil people don't possess guns?
How can we address the terrible things being said on social media about the attempted attack on our former president? In my opinion, this kind of toxic rhetoric could incite violence. As we've discussed before, words matter—this applies not just to one side, but to both. For example, I’ve pointed out that Harris is constantly at the podium spreading misinformation to Americans, rhetoric that I believe is more damaging than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime. Making promises that most likely could never come to fruition.
About the same time that Trump stops the sick-minded rhetoric towards the Haitians that is actually provoking violence. Where are your calls for that stoppage?
"In my view, this sick-minded rhetoric could provoke violence."
Yes just as it has caused chaos in Springfield due to hate filled threats toward immigrants. Just As Trump proclaiming he hates Taylor Swift could cause someone to act on those feelings.
Clearly there are being a lot of irresponsible and unconscionable things said by all sides. I expect more from those who aspire to public office, especially the presidency. Can we control what Joe blow says on x? No we can't. But thankfully Joe blow doesn't have the largest megaphone in the world.
How do we get people to speak responsibly? I don't know good role models maybe? All the more reason that someone who speaks as irresponsibly as Trump cannot return to the White House.
I am just as concerned with potentially dangerous rhetoric against Trump as I am against groups of people and just us regular people in general. Many on this forum we're not concerned in the slightest about the irresponsible statements made against Haitians, yet are pearl clutching when Trump is similarly attacked?
Words do matter for all of us. I fear that the Trump campaign is only going to accelerate the heated rhetoric. He has brought on Laura Loomer and she has made some really vile statements.Right? Shar wants to stop the rhetoric on the same day that Trump posts 'I hate Taylor Swift' on his social media account. It's pretty clear from the words to see which side is promoting the hate.
Nice try V, not sure why you (and Willow) still defend the lost left so aggressively!?!
His use here is comparable to the use of the word "fight". Doesn't mean we will literally swap punches in an arena or bullets on a battleground.
I say I hate disco, I hate celery, I hate illegal immigration...there is a wide margin between the way we all generally use these words, and the outright intentional targeting of Donald Trump; keeping the crazies all worked up to go after him!
But then...... you already know all of this.He is using the largest megaphone in the world to single out hate for one certain individual. That is irresponsible and he should know better. Saying I hate a vegetable is really not equivalent.
I am sure, I too have said, I hate Taylor Swift. Lol, not a fan.
But, whatever Operative, carry on.
In the meantime....... worked up crazy people are trying to take out a President of the United States, but keep doing what you do best.How large was your audience when you said you hated Taylor Swift?
It’s truly surprising and concerning how some people can equate the attempt on Trump’s life with a statement he made expressing hatred. This comparison not only oversimplifies complex situations but also risks trivializing serious threats to public figures. Addressing such attempts on a person’s life should be treated with the gravity they deserve, rather than being diluted or distorted by unrelated statements or perceptions.
I am more shocked, I think Shar, than anything else that a political party seems to mean more to them than this man's life!
I guess I shouldn't be, it also means more to them than a preborn baby's life!
This is what we are up against and why, I cannot linger for very long in these forums. :°("I am more shocked, I think Shar, than anything else that a political party seems to mean more to them than this man's life!"
Did anyone in this forum say that?
Is expressing hatred toward anyone a quality we wish to see in a president?
The things you listed are things. Spewing hate towards another person, which directs followers to think the same thing, is dangerous. But then again, maybe you don't know this already.
In my view, This is minor compared to all the times Harris and other Washington Democrats have called Trump a dictator and claimed he would destroy the Constitution, among many other things. In my view, this group is dangerous and poses a significant threat to our nation. They're employing tactics similar to those used by some of history's most infamous dictators to wreak havoc on the world. You may consider not sharing your views on this subject with me.
We are worlds apart when it comes to what we consider dangerous rhetoric. I see one side using psychological propaganda, which I believe is the most dangerous form of rhetoric. History shows that when this tactic is employed, it has caused unimaginable harm to entire populations.You are employing a dodge here, Sharlee
In my view, Trump is behaving as a dictator and I am satisfied that he lives up to every threat against the application of the rule of law.
I am not going to muffle my voice and neither should democrats in concern over Donald Trump.
Yes, we are world's apart as to what we consider dangerous rhetoric and there can be no healing in this regard.
"Many on this forum we're not concerned in the slightest about the irresponsible statements made against Haitians, yet are pearl clutching when Trump is similarly attacked? "
I have to say — you might want to go back and read this thread. Many people have already addressed your concerns, repeatedly. It’s possible you’re dwelling on this because you’re not hearing what you want. Perhaps it's worth considering respecting others' rights to share their perspectives.
The gravity of an assassination attempt far outweighs any controversial statements Trump may have made. It's not just a matter of "pearl-clutching"—an actual attempt on someone's life is a direct threat to our democratic process and national security. Comparing that to rhetoric simply isn't on the same level; the potential consequences of violence are far more severe than any words that have been spoken.
In my view, this kind of thinking isn't rational, and it seems that liberals are more inclined to approach issues in this manner."I have to say — you might want to go back and read this thread. Many people have already addressed your concerns"
Yes, as you had previously posted the following below..
"But it’s as if all this rhetoric couldn't possibly have consequences, right? LOL The man has now survived what could potentially be two assassination attempts. So forgive me if I’m not overly concerned with some hurt feelings of Haitians in Ohio. Maybe they should consider moving somewhere where free speech isn’t protected."
What's good for the goose? This can be applied to trump?
"The gravity of an assassination attempt far outweighs any controversial statements Trump may have made.".
Are you saying that rhetoric that may harm Trump's life is more important than rhetoric that could harm another individual's life? He gets a pass to say anything he wants without regard to consequences?
In terms of the Springfield Ohio incident, JD Vance has kept it in the new cycle daily. Doubling and tripling and at this point probably quadrupling down on it. He can't open his mouth without talking about it.Here is my view regarding your thought --- "Are you saying that rhetoric that may harm Trump's life is more important than rhetoric that could harm another individual's life? He gets a pass to say anything he wants without regard to consequences?"
Comparing Donald Trump’s disparaging comments about Taylor Swift and his offhand remark about Hattians eating pets” to the gravity of Trump facing a second assassination attempt is an unconvincing analogy. While words and controversial statements can evoke strong reactions, they fundamentally differ from the severity of actionable DEEDS. The impact of such statements pales in comparison to the heightened concern and emotional response elicited by the real threat of a second assassination attempt. It’s crucial to recognize that the weight of tangible, potentially life-threatening actions far exceeds the influence of mere WORDS, regardless of their provocative nature. This is my view, and it is very obvious I don't share your opinion on the issue. I won't spend any more energy on this subject of Taylor or the Hattians.
I certainly would reenter a conversation if a armful deed resulted from Trump's words. I also do not buy into 'well they were threatened". I feel deeds outweigh words or threats."I feel deeds outweigh words or threats.
Are you saying that words are only deemed harmful after the fact? They are only harmful if someone has acted on them? But his comments in terms of Haitians has had an impact. It just doesn't matter? Or it only matters to the point that someone is threatened with a gun? There is some sort of scale of consequence? What about the potential or hate or harmful action in such a statement as " I hate Taylor Swift". I think we can all agree that the statement leaves open the possibilty or potential of a hateful or harmful action.
When someone with such a huge voice and reach chooses to make inflammatory or incendiary comments, there is always the potential that someone will hear that as a call to action.
What rhetoric does maga feel is responsible for the assassination attempt? Did someone on the left state that there should be a second assassination attempt, a call for it in some way?You selected a few words but left out the context that led to my final sentence. I find this tendency to overlook context one of the most troubling issues in communication today. In my view, this is a growing problem
Here’s the context behind the seven words you chose to comment on. This reflects my perspective with good clarity.
Comparing Donald Trump’s disparaging comments about Taylor Swift and his offhand remark about Hattians eating pets” to the gravity of Trump facing a second assassination attempt is an unconvincing analogy. While words and controversial statements can evoke strong reactions, they fundamentally differ from the severity of actionable DEEDS. The impact of such statements pales in comparison to the heightened concern and emotional response elicited by the real threat of a second assassination attempt. It’s crucial to recognize that the weight of tangible, potentially life-threatening actions far exceeds the influence of mere WORDS, regardless of their provocative nature. This is my view, and it is very obvious I don't share your opinion on the issue. I won't spend any more energy on this subject of Taylor or the Hattians."It’s crucial to recognize that the weight of tangible, potentially life-threatening actions far exceeds the influence of mere WORDS, regardless of their provocative nature.
But it's the words that lead to the tangible, potentially life-threatening actions. Words can lead to bomb threats, words can lead to assassination attempts. P
Some people are choosing the deeds because of the words. Hateful, incendiary , irresponsible statements all have potential power to lead to action. We just don't know ahead of time where are those statements could lead. I Think it's better that folks who have the power to reach a mass audience should choose their words carefully. It's their responsibility.
Trump continued to vilify these people on Saturday in Nevada by continuing to call them illegal.If Harris continues to vilify Trump for a podium with her lies. We could certainly have see perhaps have another go at Trump. I find this woman purely She is openly misrepresenting Trump and his agenda. I won't waste my time listing the rhetoric she has spouted in just this past week. Let alone the many other Washinton nut jobs have been pushing. Vile bunch
I have been away for a while. Many people on this forum who support Trump have tied this assassination attempt to Trump's statements about Taylor Swift and illegal immigrants eating cats and dogs.
When in fact, we don't even know what his motive was for trying to take out Trump. We do know he spent time in Ukraine and that he was trying to recruit people to fight in Ukraine. But we really don't know with any certainty what his motive was. I think it was a good thing that he was taken alive instead of being killed. Dead people don't talk.
I read Mary Trump's book on the Trump family and it is very revealing about how Trump grew up without any love from either of his parents. That is why he requires so much attention and is a narcissist.
Roy Cohn who was Joseph McCarthy's lawyer in the '50's was a very close friend to Trump and became his mentor. McCarthy always told Trump no matter how deep in the muck, you get never admit guilt, sue and attack every time you are charged with something.
Here are links to Roy Cohn who Trump learned from about how to distract, delay, and attack court proceedings.
https://youtu.be/4-L1FKjpxOs?si=BW5f-wwzdNz3HqA0
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/p … -cohn.html
Absolutely. It's shocking to see some of the things being said on social media today. It's clear that we need to distance ourselves from this kind of negativity—there's really no better way to describe it than an "evil element."
Yes...the debate was rigged.
Viral ‘ABC whistleblower affidavit' makes shocking claims, Bill Ackman seeks a probe, finds 'allegations credible’
An affidavit, purportedly from an anonymous "ABC News whistleblower," has sparked controversy after being circulated online. The document alleges close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to the recent debate against Donald Trump.
What does the viral ABC whistleblower affidavit suggest?
The affidavit alleges several serious claims regarding the debate preparation and ABC News' role. One of the primary allegations is that Kamala Harris was given access to sample or similar questions before the debate. If true, this would have given her an unfair advantage over Donald Trump by allowing her to prepare more thoroughly for specific topics.
Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits.
The affidavit also asserts that the Harris campaign influenced ABC to avoid probing into allegations against Harris’ brother-in-law, who has been accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.
Additionally, ABC staff members are said to have been fearful of retribution from Trump, possibly implying that they felt pressured to comply with the Harris campaign's requests to avoid conflict.
The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings that prove the Harris campaign pressured moderators to fact-check Trump during the debate. These recordings, if they exist, could provide key evidence in backing the whistleblower's assertions.
Moreover, it is alleged that ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable.
The whistleblower reportedly signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, further raising the stakes as these claims are now in the hands of political leadership.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-ne … 42745.htmlSeriously? Even a middle school kid could have predicted the topics: immigration, abortion, the economy, and so on. What wasn’t expected was the debate about eating dogs and cats.
Not a single question was unexpected to anyone. This wasn't a quiz, but a platform where the two candidates talk about their positions on the well known issues.
There are no questions to "leak" here. Isn't the more rational explanation, given that every question/subject of debate was completely obvious and predictable, that one candidate was prepared and the other wasn't?"Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits."
This should have been discussed. It is an important topic.
"ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable."
harris controlled what would be discussed and wouldn't be discussed. They demanded President Donald Trump be fact-checked and harris not be fact checked.
Clearly, the evidence proves the debate was rigged.what "evidence"would that be?
This is completely unsubstantiated.
And another whistleblower in the hands of a republican committee? LOL what can go wrong?It's not an interview. It is a signed affidavit signed under penalty of perjury.
Everything that happened during the debate now makes perfect sense.
The link leads to a "whoops"! with "This page doesn’t exist or can’t be found."
Then it redirects to MSN landing page for news articles. I found it interesting they did not have a subtopic for politics.It seemed like she was rehearsed to respond to certain questions, and at times, she looked completely caught off guard, like a deer in headlights. Her awkward, stiff odd expressions made it clear she wished she were anywhere else but on that stage. I'll admit, I find it hard to watch or listen to her, especially with her nasal voice. She's simply not someone I find likable.
Mike, this woman spreads rhetoric on a daily basis while campaigning. In my view, she pushes what amounts to propaganda because her agenda is so unrealistic that it could never actually be achieved.
And just how many "tell all" accounts have been provided by Trump relatives calling him a madman and unfit? We all want to focus on the Walz family, how about this?
I must laugh --- wish I had a buck for every time Mary Trump was mentioned here, and on social media. Her word was taken as 100% got to be true... Come on. Must laugh
But any member of the Walz. family who doesn't agree with the political leanings of Tim must be taken as gospel?
This is the context I was responding to. I did not refer how I might feel about some of Walzs family not supporting him. Just pointing out many here did take Mary Trump's word as gospel. I see no problem at some here bringing up Walz's family and sharing their views on the matter. Would be very hypocritical to not consider what many here felt about Mary's claims.
Credence2 wrote:
And just how many "tell all" accounts have been provided by Trump relatives calling him a madman and unfit? We all want to focus on the Walz family, how about this?
I must laugh --- wish I had a buck for every time Mary Trump was mentioned here, and on social media. Her word was taken as 100% got to be true... Come on. Must laugh
Sharlee, I am laughing but not for the reason you think.
Maryann Trump Berry and Mary Trump, why do you dismiss these two having disparaging words about Donald Trump, while taking the opinions of Walz rightwing oriented siblings as gospel?
The Kennedy Clan dismissed Robert Kennedy Jr. as his views are inconsistent with the Kennedy tradition.
So why are we taking any of this seriously? Families can have divergent political view amongst themselves, so what is the point? What is the difference?"Maryann Trump Berry and Mary Trump, why do you dismiss these two having disparaging words about Donald Trump, while taking the opinions of Walz rightwing oriented siblings as gospel?"
"So why are we taking any of this seriously? Families can have divergent political view amongst themselves, so what is the point? What is the difference?"
I did not disparage Tim's family in any respect. I did not offer a view on what they may have shared. I did not delve into that media blurb. I have no idea what he said, only that something was said, and a family pic circulated. I was trying for humor --- perhaps you remember humor? Just reflecting on the old days when "Mary" was great fodder for conversation. You know sort of history repeating itself but with a different human being. I can honestly say, I have not said much on social media about Tim, a bit, in regards to some of his legislation, and that I find him to be an odd man. I have bigger fish to fry, and her name is Harris --- Gosh, again I must at best smile... Why so aggressive?
Here is the permalink to where the conversation started.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … ost4342571I confess, that I have not been following either of the two Trump relatives closely. My sense of humor is still here, forgive me if I miss the punch line every now and then.
No problem, this thread has some long ongoing discussions, that have taken many twists and turns.
Trump is eating up the media attention he is getting from both assassination attempts. He loves playing the victim and attacking his opponents. That's part of the playbook for a master con-artist when their con has been discovered. I do have to give him credit. He does know how to take a crisis and turn it into opportunity for himself.
He blames the left for everything that has happened to him, but he won't allow himself to even think about how his own words can have dire consequences on unstable people. There is a price we pay for every one of our decisions. There is a price we pay for even doing nothing.
The root cause of all of this is the 2nd amendment. The firearm manufactures, gun lobbyist, and the NRA are having a field day.
Come to America where anybody has the right to bear arms. Even unstable people, terrorist, and children. Like Opra Winfrey says, "You get a gun, and You get a gun, and...
Our thought and prayers are with you and your family, but we are not going to do anything about gun control.. To do nothing is to do every thing and it has a big price to pay.
https://open.substack.com/pub/counterpo … medium=webThe claim that Trump is "eating up" the media attention from assassination attempts and using them to his advantage seems largely unfounded. Assassination attempts are grave events that have significant implications not just for the individual targeted, but also for the broader public and democratic institutions. It’s unlikely that anyone, including Trump, would view such attention as something to relish. While Trump is known for using media attention and turning certain situations to his advantage, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that he would exploit an assassination attempt for personal gain. The media's coverage of such incidents is a reflection of their seriousness, not an opportunity for political maneuvering. Though Trump has a history of portraying himself as a victim of the "establishment" to energize his base, the assumption that he would approach an assassination attempt with the same opportunism as a political debate or scandal is a stretch. The gravity of these situations far exceeds the kind of crisis he might typically use for political benefit.
At some point common sense must kick in --- Please consider
It’s important to recognize that the dynamic of blaming and inflammatory rhetoric goes both ways. From the moment Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, he has been subjected to intense criticism and insults, often in harsh and vilifying terms. Many of his opponents have compared him to figures like Hitler and framed him as a grave threat to the nation, using extreme language to express their concerns about his policies and behavior. These attacks, too, can contribute to a toxic political environment where emotions run high and the discourse becomes less about constructive debate and more about personal attacks. Just as critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric can have consequences on unstable individuals, the same holds true for the language used against him. This kind of vitriol, from both sides, can deepen divisions and create an atmosphere where extreme views and actions feel justified.
It’s absolutely true that we need to address the issue of gun violence, but it's a two-edged sword. Alongside efforts to reduce gun-related deaths, we also need to focus on providing proper care and support for those struggling with mental illness. Both aspects are critical to finding a comprehensive solution.
We are witnessing a fever pitch of emotions in America, where the hate for this man is palpable. However, it's important to recognize that not everyone shares this same level of animosity toward him. Is it fair for those who harbor such intense dislike to expect or even demand that others feel the same way? In a democratic society, people are entitled to their own opinions and perspectives. Forcing uniformity of thought, especially when it comes to such a divisive place , undermines the diversity of viewpoints that should be encouraged in healthy public discourse"From the moment Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, he has been subjected to intense criticism and insults, often in harsh and vilifying terms"
From the moment Trump took office, he started to divide the country into fake news and Fox news. For all the time he was in office and even today, he calls the MSM fake news and disparages the real news on Fox news and MAGA outlets. He calls the MSM and its people a threat to democracy. I read the summary of Project 2025 and in my view, he and his cohorts are the real threat to democracy.
This is all I have to say about Trump and his media blame game for his attempted assassinations'.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 … ch-florida" I read the summary of Project 2025 and in my view, he and his cohorts are the real threat to democracy."
He has denied supporting Project 2025. I've reviewed some of it, and it's quite extreme, and crazy. However, I haven't seen any of its proposals reflected in the agenda he’s promoting during his campaign. It’s hard to believe he would agree with these suggestions, as they seem to contradict much of what he accomplished during his previous term and what he's currently advocating.
Trump is blaming both the media and Democrats for the attempts on his life. It's undeniable that the rhetoric from both Democrats and the media has been very harsh, and it's also true that some of their statements have been hyperbolic and filled with visceral hate.It's undeniable that the rhetoric from both Trump, his supporters and the MAGA media have been very harsh, and it's also true that some of their statements have been hyperbolic and filled with visceral hate
Do you see what I did?. I changed a few words and and now it applies to Trump and his supporters. Again it goes back to what Trump says and does in the political arena that can have dire consequences. In my view, he brings this all on by himself, just like all the charges against him in the various courts.
He is his own worst enemy. As I have said before he is a narcissistic master con-artist. Who is acting like his con has been uncovered Most of that happened in the last debate with Kamala Harris while she just let him uncover his con while he was trying to defend himself.. Did you even read the article that I posted? The emperor has no clothes..I am stunned that the left doesn't own what they've said about President Donald Trump and instead have sought to blame the victim.
That speaks volumes about the left.
It's so sad.Yep, now they are saying that he is using the attempts on his life (which they've suggested didn't happen) to his full advantage. They will never cut this man a break!
Did you see his rally in Long Island last night? Wow!! Trump was fired up! New Yorkers were fired up... because they are FED UP!! Americans are fed up!
You can't keep a good man, a fighter, down, he will only come back stronger! MAGA!!How they are blaming President Donald Trump for the assassination attempts on his life is like blaming a rape victim because of the clothes she wore on a particular night. Blaming a gun shot victim because he didn't give the robber the money from the till soon enough.
The left is truly unhinged.
Beyond sad --
I completely agree with your points. It’s absurd how these serious threats against Trump are often downplayed or ignored by many on the left and the media. Meanwhile, Democrats are quick to paint themselves as victims of violent rhetoric, yet seem silent when it comes to addressing actual assassination attempts on a former president. It’s a clear double standard, and the hypocrisy is staggering. Can't imagine how this form of mindset is occurring. It turns my stomach.Are they downplayed or ignored any more than the mass shootings that occur regularly in our country, the supermarket and school shootings? We just had a school shooting in Georgia a few weeks ago that killed two children and two teachers. I don't think it was ever even mentioned here. Yet there is supposed to be some sort of different response because a man had a gun in the bushes at trumps golf club? Nah, he was issued his standard thoughts and prayers. The same lame phrases that go out to all. Now if folks want to talk about addressing gun violence or mental health issues a lot of us are up for that. Those of us on the "left". talk about the need for gun safety measures and a real response to America's need for mental health policy on the daily. And we're often called fascists for it LOL. Let's talk solutions.
"Are they downplayed or ignored any more than the mass shootings that occur regularly in our country, the supermarket and school shootings? "
Are you being sarcastic? Sure, mass shootings get plenty of media coverage—for days, even. But, I’ll admit, it doesn’t seem to compete with the nonstop buzz about JD/Trump's cat-eating story. I mean, for some people, that story practically overshadowed the school shooting. I didn’t see it mentioned much here, either.
"We had a school shooting in Georgia just a few weeks ago that killed two children and two teachers. I don’t think it even got a mention here."
Honestly, it seems like current news barely gets discussed around here. I’m probably best known for saying things like, “Hey, you’re beating a dead horse,” or “This isn’t about Trump.” It’s like current events don’t exist—people are too caught up in TDS.
Some folks do try to bring up political news, but it’s frustrating that by the fourth comment, the thread is hijacked by Trump bashing."it doesn’t seem to compete with the nonstop buzz about JD/Trump's cat-eating story."
That was completely due to Vance himself. He talked about it multiple times a day for days on end. Then he was caught repeating something he was specifically told was a baseless lie and then goes on TV saying he needed to "create" a story to draw people's attention to immigration... That was all Vance keeping it in the medias spotlight.
But wait there's more...
Trump says he's going to go to Springfield in the next couple of weeks... What could go wrong?
Why keep the cat story going? Especially since it's been such an embarrassment to the campaign?
As far as candidate bashing, I think it's pretty equal and that is to be expected when we are in the midst of the presidential election. Honestly though, Trump and Vance provide a whole lot to talk about.Hey, have at it... Maybe we will have more to talk about when Trump visits Springfield. I would imagine he has something planned, he seems to be keeping the cat story alive and well. So, seems all the fodder has not caused any lost sleep. I now can't wait to see what he has up his sleeve. One must admit he has good karma when it comes to turning things ion their head.
Oh, candidate bashing? Absolutely par for the course in any election. And guess who's taking the spotlight? Trump and JD, of course. They're all about stirring the pot, bringing up every issue that's gnawing at Americans—like migrants in their towns, the ever-increasing cost of living, and crimes linked to migrants. They're out there, loud and clear, detailing their plans to "fix" these problems.
Quite a contrast to Harris, who insists, "we won't look back." "no we won't look back" Giggle Giggle--- Oh, really? If we did, we'd see the chaos her and Biden's administration has created in no time. Just sweep all that mess under the rug—forget the problems we've caused, because now we've got brand-new ones for you!
This is my reply, I agreed with your comment and offered my reasoning as to why he is possibly blaming them. Do you feel the Demacrats, and media have not hounded him for years now? I have no time to list the many derogatory and hate-filled words that I have witnessed from Washington Dems as well as left media.
Oh My --- "Again it goes back to what Trump says and does in the political arena that can have dire consequences."
I'll be honest, this statement strikes me as quite odd, especially considering that Trump has faced two assassination attempts. Have any Democrats or left-leaning media figures been subjected to the same? Hopefully, the motives behind both men who attempted Trump's life will be fully uncovered.
After doing a lot of research, I’ve concluded that Harris repeatedly lied when she spoke. Many reputable fact-checkers have shown fairness in reviewing the mistruths from both sides, and their assessments of the debate are there for anyone willing to examine them.
I have little respect for those who don’t seek the full truth about what both candidates said during the debate. I did my research thoroughly and make no excuses for either side. I’ve moved on to more current issues now. I'll leave you with the last word on this matter out of respect, but just know I won’t be responding further."Have any Democrats or left-leaning media figures been subjected to the same?"
Does the Paul Pelosi attack count?
Or this?
"Virginia man has been charged with making violent threats on social media against Kamala Harris shortly after she began her campaign for president.
Frank Carillo, 66, of Winchester, faced court on Monday over threatening messages posted on GETTR, a conservative social media platform.
One stated Ms Harris "needs to be put on fire alive", while another said she would "regret ever trying to become president".
Mr Carillo was arrested on 2 August. FBI agents seized an AR15-style rifle, a handgun, and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a search of his home.
Investigators allege that Mr Carillo did "knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm" against Ms Harris."
BBC reported this? Did our media totally ignore this one, this was surprising to me as it was the first time I've seen it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2077pj6nq6o
Oh geez, missed this one too...
"On Sunday, before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire celebrated the prospect of political violence against Vice President Kamala Harris.
“Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero,” the party wrote on X, before receiving swift backlash and deleting the post. Later that day, the party published a follow-up, announcing that it “deleted a tweet because we don’t want to break the terms of this website we agreed to” and claiming that libertarians are “the most oppressed minority.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/186016/loc … ris-threat
This one too ..
MEMPHIS, TN - United States Attorney Kevin G. Ritz today announced that a Memphis-area man has been charged with making threats against President Joseph R. Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former President Barack Obama.
On July 27, 2024, Kyl Alton Hall, 37, made numerous posts on the social media platform X. Specifically, in the posts, he threatened to kill, assassinate, shoot, and crash the plane of President Biden; assassinate Vice President Harris; and assassinate former President Obama.
A federal indictment returned on August 20, 2024, charged Hall with two counts of threats to a sitting President and Vice President.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdtn/pr/ma … -president
Maybe, just maybe these , coupled with the Trump assassination attempts, point to a larger, a deeper issue in our country? Just a stab in the dark. But the reality? This is America.Do you know why Harris pushed Trump's button in the debate and put him on defense for the whole debate? I look at Trump and Harris in this light. Trump has dirty laundry that has been hanging on his clothes line for years.
Harris also has dirty laundry as any politician does, but Trump's dirty laundry far exceeds Harris and other politicians. Tumpers wear glasses that filter out all of Trump's dirty laundry and just look to see Harris' couple of sheets hanging on her clothes line, like why doesn't she give interviews and she lies and says the same thing all the time?
They see immigration as one of the big problems. However, Trump killed a bi-partisan bill that both sides approved, but Trump went to congress and killed the bill to make Biden look bad. He had no idea Harris was going to run against him.
When Trump was asked if he regretted Jan. 6, He couldn't even answer the question, but distanced himself from it by saying he was just there because he was asked to give a speech. When evidence has shown that he and his cohorts planned the whole thing. He has always said from the very beginning, "If I lose, the election is rigged." When asked this time about the election, He said It would be O.K. if it was fair. Fair to him, means him winning.
How dumb does a person have to be to have a known ultra conspiracy theorist riding shot gun in your airplane to believe that people are eating cats and dogs? Look at the damage control they have to go through to distance themselves from that. As far as I know she is still part of his team.
Dead men don't talk. So in the first attempt, no one knows what the shooter's motivation was. In the second attempt, and to the best of knowledge, they have yet to disclose what his motivation is.
Trump is easy to criticize in so many ways, because he has more dirty laundry than probably any other president in our history, in my view.
As I said before, Trump is his own worst enemy and he has no one to blame but himself. Trump can't accept losing and that is his biggest downfall.Why anyone running for public office would come anywhere near Laura Loomer is baffling.
Melania looks different
Where's his wedding ring?My husband doesn't either, nor any other rings, he tried, but it can be very dangerous on job sites.
Same here—been married for 58 years and counting. I have a big ass diamond that sits in a draw, very rarely warn. It is not rings that keep two people in love together.
People have different personal choices and reasons for their decisions. A wedding band doesn't define someone's commitment or character.Amen sister!!
Except mine's a little ass diamond!!
lolIt's not the size that counts --- Did I really say that?
Nah. I dont use mine. My husband does.
The ring in Trump's case is not an issue. Or if he is having an affair, who cares. But how close and how much influence she is to his campaign... And honestly, not even that. Maybe to some MAGAs seeing a ray of light. We all know who he is. He's pandering to his people.
That's why he must be defeated, once again.It's good to know Harris is above pandering to her people and that she, and those behind her, have such benevolence in their efforts.
Are you attempting to make a comparison between the rhetoric of Harris and Loomer? Do tell. What do you find positive about Trump's inclusion of Loomer in the campaign?
What do you find positive about Trump's inclusion of Loomer in the campaign? Laura Loomer has not been known to speak at any Trump official rallies. What is she doing for the campaign?
Did Trump add her to his campaign staff? All I have seen are unsubstantiated rumors from the left media. There might be some confusion or misinformation circulating about Trump adding Laura Loomer to his staff. Speculation and rumors often spread quickly, especially on social media or less reliable sources. As of now, there have been no official reports or announcements indicating that Donald Trump has added Laura Loomer to his staff. Perhaps I missed an announcement, a quote from someone on his campaign staff would go a long way about now.She's been traveling on his plane with him. Attended the 9/11 remembrance ceremony. Attended the debate with him. She's been pictured pretty regularly with him.
I think you mentioned two occasions when she was with Trump. He put out a statement on Truth Social --- "On Friday night, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Loomer does not work for his campaign. "She’s a private citizen and longtime supporter. I disagree with the statements she made but, like the many millions of people who support me, she is tired of watching the Radical Left Marxists and Fascists violently attack and smear me," DJ Trump
We need all the fighters we can get, and having Trump back in the White House would be a win. Sure, she might come up with a dossier full of mistruths, or be able to say a laptop is Russian information, but she's got a lot of people tuning in to hear what she has to say. At the end of the day, a vote is a vote.She was also on the scene after the assassination attempt
.
She is really an absolutely vile person. Not sure why she'd be hanging around.
Side note, love his description of everyday people who call themselves Democrats...
"she is tired of watching the Radical Left Marxists and Fascists violently attack and smear me," DJ Trump"
https://ktla.com/news/politics/ap-polit … w-a-rifle/
Didn't know who she was, so I searched:
Transcript
Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.
Leah Feiger: In New York's Central Park in 2017, a crowd was enjoying a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when a woman stormed onto the stage. She was upset that the theater company decided to recreate Caesar as a Donald Trump–like figure who was then bloodily stabbed to death. She disrupted the show shouting, "Do you want Trump to be assassinated? Stop the normalization of political violence against the right!" The woman was escorted off stage and arrested. Later, she appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News show to talk about the experience.
Laura Loomer [Archival audio]: Yeah, look, this is assassination porn, right? So, the left is taking pleasure in watching an assassination attempt on President Trump. Shakespeare once said that violent delights lead to violent ends, right? And so when you're going to delight in the assassination of our president, it's going to have a violent end.
Leah Feiger: Loomer was also at Trump's side during a September 11 memorial, even though she has claimed that 9/11 was an inside job. And after the second attempted assassination on Trump on Sunday, Loomer raced to West Palm Beach to cover it and has been posting conspiracies about it on X ever since. So, who is Laura Loomer? And how much influence does she have over Trump? Is Loomer a mirror for Trump's worst tendencies or is she fueling them? We at WIRED have been following Laura Loomer for a very long time now, especially WIRED senior reporter, David Gilbert, who is joining me from Cork, Ireland. Hey, David.
----
I didn't have to read much more, just another arrow they are using to attack the reputation of Trump and/or those around him.
Whatever she has said or done I am sure will inflated, exaggerated, or fabricated to make her look bad... and Trump by association.I had never heard of her before she was brought up on social media for a week or so. She sounds as if she is a conspiracy theorist. Not sure why anyone should be concerned about her. Trump put out a statement "On Friday night, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Loomer does not work for his campaign. "She’s a private citizen and longtime supporter. I disagree with the statements she made but, like the many millions of people who support me, she is tired of watching the Radical Left Marxists and Fascists violently attack and smear me,"
She has a strong presence on Rumble, X, and now Truth Social. I've grown numb to the endless media nonsense about Trump. They're clearly desperate, and it shows. In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a patriot like him. He’s relentless in his mission, and it's truly something remarkable to witness.
At last night's rally, Trump's fighting spirit was palpable. The energy in the crowd reflected his unwavering commitment to his goals, and it was clear that he remains undeterred despite the constant political and media pressure. His speeches were filled with defiance and determination, underscoring his refusal to back down from his mission to "Make America Great Again." You could feel the intensity in the air as he rallied his supporters, vowing to continue his fight for what he believes in, no matter the obstacles. This wasn’t just another political event—it was a testament to Trump's unrelenting drive, a force that has become a phenomenon in its own right. His supporters clearly feed off this energy, feeling emboldened by his resilience.
It’s clear that his influence isn't fading; rather, it seems to grow stronger with each rally. For many, he symbolizes a patriot who refuses to be silenced or beaten down.That's all you found when you search Laura Loomer?
How did you miss this?
Loomer quoted a Sunday post in which Harris was talking about her Indian heritage and said that if she wins the election, “the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center and the American people will only be able to convey their feedback through a customer satisfaction survey at the end of the call that nobody will understand.”Here is what is important about Loomer. In the debate Trump said that Haitians living in Ohio are eating other peoples cats and dogs. That bit of nonsense came directly from Laura Loomer. Ever since then Trump and company have been doing damage control but to no avail.
Because of Trump narcissism, he surrounds himself with people who admire and adoree him, no matter how looney they are, case in point MTG and Boebert.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics … index.html
Meanwhile on X..
Elon Musk published and deleted a post wondering why no one was trying to assassinate Biden and Harris...
Helpful??
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/ … f?mod=e2twI can imagine that many Americans had similar thoughts but chose not to express them publicly, valuing free speech. It's worth noting that anti-Trump comments about the second attempt on Trump's life have been largely overlooked. Elon Musk is known for his outspoken nature, and his statements often resonate with common sense. He uses his right to free speech to share his unfiltered views, and many Americans appreciate his willingness to openly express his thoughts. This is America, and we have the freedom to do so. I feel he has a bit of a macabre way of laughing at some with his tweets, and then he removes them. Yeah, he is out said what many are not brave enough to ask...
I've considered what might have happened if the attempt had been made on Harris instead. I can hardly imagine the Democrats' reactions, given their struggle to manage any situation. Their hypocrisy has become increasingly laughable."No, neither does she
"Vice President Kamala Harris has criticized Donald Trump as "dangerous" in relation to Project 2025, a controversial plan associated with his allies and the Heritage Foundation. In a political ad, Harris expressed concerns that Trump and his supporters have a “dangerous plan” to control aspects of American life,"
"Kamala Harris has referred to Donald Trump as wanting to be a dictator, specifically in relation to his comments about potential actions if he were reelected. During a debate in September 2024, she stated, "Trump wants to be dictator on Day 1," -- Did these statements lead to violence?
Neither does he -- BEACH BINGO BIDEN -- Could have this statement have led to violence (2022) – During a Democratic fundraiser, Biden referred to the "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) wing of the Republican Party as “semi-fascist,” a comment that stirred controversy.
How about this oldie but goodie --- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for claiming former President Trump poses "a danger to our country and the world" on the heels of a second apparent attempt on his life. Should she get a pass? She has made a fool of herself over and over with her rhetoric.
Statements used to make a point -- one could write a book with these three the main characters rhetorically dangerous statements. Do they get a pass?Sharlee, Donald Trump isn't dangerous whatsoever. It is the DEMONcrats who are dangerous. It is they who are causing unsafe, hazardous conditions such as rising crime etc. I saw on the news that near 66th Street & Amsterdam Avenue in New York City, an 81 year old woman was punched by a migrant. She was unconscious until someone helped her. This havoc is the result of Democrat's extreme liberal policies. Giuliani straightened New York -Adams is RUINING New York. I suggest that people vote for Trump & others who are strong law & order people.
If those on the left want to know why there are assassination attempts against President Donald Trump they simply need to look in the mirror. They have a long history in being reckless in what they say.
Among the comments:
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"If we were in high school I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him," from Joe Biden
"When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?"
"They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump. That's a fact."
"Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him?"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House."
The Trump campaign itself released a compilation of some of the threats, and identified those making the threats. They mostly are political or media figures or political operatives:
Kamala Harris: "Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms."
Harris: "It's on us to recognize the threat (Trump) poses."
Harris: "Does one of us have to come out alive? Ha ha ha ha!"
Joe Biden: "It's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye."
Biden: "I mean this from the bottom of my heart: Trump is a threat to this nation!"
Biden: "There is one existential threat: It's Donald Trump."
Biden: "Trump is a genuine threat to his nation … He's literally a threat to everything America stands for."
Biden : "Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."
Biden: "Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. … and that is a threat to this country."
Tim Walz: "Are (Republicans) a threat to democracy? Yes … Are they going to put peoples' lives in danger? Yes."
Gwen Walz: "Buh-bye, Donald Trump."
Nancy Pelosi: "(Trump) is a threat to our democracy of the kind that we have not seen."
Jasmine Crockett: "MAGA in general – they are threats to us domestically."
Dan Goldeman: "He is destructive to our democracy and … he has to be eliminated."
Disgraced Harris staffer TJ Ducklo: "Trump is an existential, urgent threat to our democracy."
Liz Cheney: "Trump presents a fundamental threat to the republic and we are seeing it on a daily basis."
Steve Cohen: "Trump is an enemy of the United States."
Maxine Waters: "Are (Trump supporters) preparing a civil war against us?"
Waters: "I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that (Trump) is connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Trump is an "existential threat to our democracy."
Adam Schiff: Trump is the "gravest threat to our democracy."
Gregory Meeks: "Trump cannot be president again. He's an existential threat to democracy."
Dan Goldman: "Trump remains the greatest threat to our democracy."
Jake Auchincloss: "What unifies us as a party is knowing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to Democracy."
Abigail Spanberger: "Trump is a threat to our democracy … the threats to our democratic republic are real."
Annie Kuster: "Trump and his extreme right-win followers pose an existential threat to our democracy."
Becca Balint: "We cannot underestimate the threat (Trump) poses to American democracy."
Jason Crow: "Trump is an extreme danger to our democracy."
Michael Bennet: Trump is "a threat to our democracy."
Steven Horsford: "Trump Republicans are a dangerous threat to our state."
Gave Vasquez: "Remove the national threat from office."
And more….
https://www.wnd.com/2024/09/found-video … ald-trump/This one's about right about where the two parties are in terms of ugly rhetoric.
The guys at The Bulwark call Trump out for doing exactly what he's criticizing others of doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY5u27_ … bHdhcms%3DThat's all you got?
Unproven speculation from a biased political cartoon?Well, I could list out all of the right's violent rhetoric, but it would encompass an entire page in this forum. And then we'd have to listen to you dismiss it as not credible. Better to go with the humorous photo and the breakdown from the pundits at The Bulwark.
I believe what I see with my own eyes, a President of the United States has been mercilessly targeted, and one half of this Nation does not seem to care.
*former president
He made it out with his life. He was more fortunate than most. Gun violence is a part of the fabric of American life.
Let's apply Trump's own wisdom to the situation...
"It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward,”
It's not that people don't care, he's been given the customary thoughts and prayers but maybe a lot of us out here are becoming desensitized by all of the gun violence.And yet, those eyes are blind to the many crimes he has committed. I wouldn't trust any pair of MAGA eyes.
"We have to be brave. Otherwise, we aren't going to have a Country left."
Donald J. Trump, two days after 2nd attempt on his life at a Town Hall tonight.
This man amazes me!
The least we can do, beyond pray for him and for our Country, is be truth tellers countering the truth slayers.
MAGA!
God Bless America!
Suffolk polling post-debate in Pennsylvania:
Harris up 49% to 46% statewide.
In two bellweather counties:
Erie County - Harris up 48% to 44% (Erie went for Biden by 1% in 2020)
Northampton County (Allentown) - Harris up 50% to 45% (Also went for Biden by 1% in 2020)
So, it appears Harris is outperforming Biden in Pennsylvania after the debate.VP Harris 'fact-checked' in real-time:
Hold on. Don't get excited, this isn't intended as a pro-Trump (or MAGA) or anti-Harris comment (but the meat is there, so y'all go for it). It just brought a chuckle and we need more of those.
You're welcome. ;-)
GAYeah, we need them (chuckles) more than most realize.
There is pressure from the Biden Administration (Blinken and Biden) to escalate the war with Russia... no joke...
Pentagon lifers are losing their jobs because they are trying hard to keep us out of WWIII and that isn't exactly what dementia Joe wants."Pentagon lifers are losing their jobs because they are trying hard to keep us out of WWIII and that isn't exactly what dementia Joe wants."
Interesting! I have taken note of the propensity of WWIII since reading your posts over the years. In other words, it is not buried in my gray matter.
On that topic curious just now I sought polls on it. I discovered one by YouGov published March 21, 2024. The very first graphic indicates 3 in 5 Americans believe it is somewhat likely another world war will happen in the next 5 - 10 years. Of the demographics Republicans were highest in percentage at 32 for very likely.
Most Americans think there will be another world war within the next decade
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … ext-decade
It is a somewhat lengthy article with 9 graphics ranging from who would be allies, who would volunteer to serve, who would support nuclear retaliation, and more. Maybe take a peek skim here and there and look closely at the graphics.It could explain why Congress is trying to bring back the military draft.
Thank you... But, But ya forgot about the cat story... My God Ken... This is one scary situation. I
Take a breath Ken, give that chuckle some time to permeate.
GACan any of us few remaining sane souls really afford to take a breath?
My gawd, have you forgotten what we have endured for the last 4 years?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dQTx4vic0Dc
Which became this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCPJlGulhRw
Which became this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB-tpsUsAi0
No time to joke... no time to breath ...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H8-uYAVhaCsGood one... We have no time to sit back on fences any longer. Or we may get the biggest ass - ache of our lives.
Preparation H ... for Instant Relief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5kXcc-TJ8
Amen, hear, hear and cheers to this thread from "take a breath Ken" on!!
Sitting on the fences is a funny thing. Some do it until election day then they decide by osmosis or a flip of a coin. Me, I had/am to struggle between Trump and my ideals of conservatism and the Republican Party with their modern day (current) ideology and practices. In other words, vote Trump or Party. Trump lost. However I am still weighing party.
Also, now I have to debate if Harris gets my vote. I am not really in favor of the Party as it is today, so again the same struggle candidate vs. Party with its ideology and values.
At task are issues, concepts and actions regarding Liberty with its aspects, and considerations for their advertised economics and how much debt will be produced due to those advertised plans. Trump doesn't fair well right now from research in the long run of acquiring debt. However, is it futile to even worry about debt? Long discussion.
Some of the issues at hand are . . .
Social Security and Medicare. Trump's ideas seem to be cut taxes causing the program to reach insolvency sooner. Unsure of Harris.
Health Care while realizing the industry accounts for 17.3% of GDP. Wow! So, is it like a freight train running out of control? What measures do those candidates have in mind? Unsure.
Racism and ethnicity prejudices. That spills over into the illegal immigration arena. I will reserve to comment at this time.
Homelessness. My take that is symptom of a much greater issue that is being overlooked today from observations within my county - San Diego. We are seeing more and more seniors becoming homeless along with Veterans. Remember we are a military town per se with the Navy and Marine Corps.
The border issue. Something has to be done on many levels. Build the damn wall I say. Until then do something with increasing resources so the border patrol can do their damn jobs. Change the frick'n laws, CONGRESS!!! Get off your damn butts!!
I could on, yet will stop there while I gather my thoughts . . .I think it is good that if we can identify the ultimate threat of the Party:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3YT1cm7b1Eg
That we also identify that Trump isn't what the Media tries to define him to be (IE - Hipster... that German guy from the 40s) ... he is, in fact, the voice of the deplorable, downtrodden, American citizens that have been denigrated and discarded by the American Political Elites.
Trump is not a person, not anymore, he is a symbol... for the people that still want freedom from an all intrusive, all powerful Big Brother.I appreciate your defense of Trump, yet I reject it. Maybe you may feel that follows the rule of haste makes waste, thus rejecting Trump is haste. Contrary to that is I have done my due diligence and am quite comfortable with my decision. I can live with it even if he wins I will not have any regrets.
However, I am wavering on Party. There are a lot of dimensions to undertake on that with the question if the arrived upon conclusion is greater than that of not voting for 'Trump', thus biting my tongue and cast my vote for him on the ballot with protest.As a California voter, I think you have the same luxury I do (I live in Maryland, Blue by +32 pts.). We can vote our conscience without having to worry about helping the opponent. Both states are so heavily Blue that our presidential votes won't matter.
For the last two elections, I have felt like a rebel giving both parties the finger when I vote with a write-in name. I don't think picking a party is very important. The Independent category suits me just fine.
GAhmmm . . . I appreciate our predicament I guess could be said. Ken, shared something similar the other day regarding my vote didn't count since I lived in California. I gave a snarky reply using metaphors essentially saying He was right and that I was worth S*** and should find a cliff and jump off it.
The background of the meaning being Republicans shouldn't bother going after my vote much less the Democrats. I never have seen a commercial for any presidential candidate on TV, though plenty for state and local races. So, jumping off a cliff meaning not vote.
Fortunately, or maybe not, voting is part of my identity as a citizen feeling I have an obligation to vote. Some say it is a privilege and some say it is right, I feel as said it is an obligation.
After replying to Ken, I went off on adventure about my (our) circumstance if there is value in voting. I arrived on one particular article I found enlightening linked next if interested. One element it expanded on is the contrast/compare of "idealism and solidarity rather than self-interest." It used capitalism. Also, one section was a cost-benefit analysis.
Note: The theme is explaining "Every Vote Counts" (EVC) thesis.
In a democracy, does every vote count? by The Loop (ECPR Political Science Blog, European Consortium for Political Research)
https://theloop.ecpr.eu/in-a-democracy- … ote-count/
Your closing nailed it. The Democrats and liberals don't seem to understand the 'why' of that point. It appears, to me, that their assumption that we are 'deplorables' explains it all. If they would consider the 'walk a mile in their shoes' concept—just as a perspective to understand — they would be a stronger party.
GAWe knew all along, but it's good that you finally admitted it.
"Sitting on the fences is a funny thing. Some do it until election day then they decide by osmosis or a flip of a coin. Me, I had/am to struggle between Trump and my ideals of conservatism and the Republican Party with their modern day (current) ideology and practices. In other words, vote Trump or Party. Trump lost. However I am still weighing party."
This is very understandable, I respect your thoughts as very sensible. To be honest, after following your comments, I don't find you have much in common with Conservatism.
"At task are issues, concepts and actions regarding Liberty with its aspects, and considerations for their advertised economics and how much debt will be produced due to those advertised plans. Trump doesn't fair well right now from research in the long run of acquiring debt. However, is it futile to even worry about debt? Long discussion"
Have you been listening to all the freebies Harris is proposing? And I suggest you have a look see at what Biden's final debt will be. I have read a bit on the subject. I feel Biden spent cash on projects, although very important, he could have used better judgment about his timing.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ted-under/
https://www.heritage.org/debt/commentar … ional-debt
"Social Security and Medicare. Trump's ideas seem to be cut taxes causing the program to reach insolvency sooner. Unsure of Harris."
Trump has shared he would work on taking taxes off SS, and work to build the fund back to being out of danger of collapsing. However, I am aware there could be drawbacks. Pros and cons are both out there.
"Health Care while realizing the industry accounts for 17.3% of GDP. Wow! So, is it like a freight train running out of control? What measures do those candidates have in mind? Unsure." I know Trump's. i have no idea of her ideas about healthcare other than in 2020 she campaigned on One Healthcare for All. Socialized medicine. And I am aware of the problem I would have with that. Many of my friends live in Canada and come to Mexico and pay a small amount for the care they were refused due to age...
Regarding the border and the many issues that surround this administration's lack of controlling all the issues -- I feel we have not seen anything yet. And California will take a huge chunk of the problems that are coming. This subject is book-worthy, and not worth taking the time. Yes, we need Congress to change the laws or at best a strong president that will fight like hell to solve the problems -- I mean 300,000 unaccompanied kids are missing... This discusses me... I live in Mexico where yes, children are in the back streets in abuse markets. I don't like to think we lost 300,000 kids. It truly sickens me. Not sure how this fact has been put on a back burner.
I have had no problem making my decision, I look at job performance first. I am not willing in any respect to take a gamble on the Nation. Seen enough, and hell not one to only see what I want to see.
I respect your view, you are very much a man who looks into every crack --I do admire that. But man the cracks are many, and we are about to collapse." I don't find you have much in common with Conservatism."
What is that age old adage, don't judge a book by its cover?
I appreciate your commentary and will give it due diligence at later time for consideration. I have bookmarked this to come back to it.
"I have had no problem making my decision, I look at job performance first. I am not willing in any respect to take a gamble on the Nation. Seen enough, and hell not one to only see what I want to see."
Good for you. Thank God we are each unique individuals with our own minds. My mind is made up on Trump, but not party at this time. I am happy with that as you are probably happy with your decision.
"I respect your view, you are very much a man who looks into every crack --I do admire that. But man the cracks are many, and we are about to collapse."
As I shared with Ken a little ways back I have an interest in three scientific studies that I apply to politics and governing of this nation with its ever changing society composed of varying cultures. Those three are . . .
Chaos theory
The cusp of catastrophe
Entropy
I know, I know that gives cause for me to be considered 'Weird' an accusation made at conservative leaders. Just joking. However, I do consider those three. Three long stories of observance I find interesting with my novice approach having fun, fun, fun while wringing my hands at times."What is that age old adage, don't judge a book by its cover?" In try not to, bad habit of mine...Always trying to figure out people.
"Good for you. Thank God we are each unique individuals with our own minds. My mind is made up on Trump, but not party at this time"
I find the Rep party very frustrating, and don't like much of what I see from many of them showboaters, and stuffed shirts, so what is one to do?
" As I shared with Ken a little ways back I have an interest in three scientific studies that I apply to politics and governing of this nation with its ever-changing society composed of varying cultures." All good variables. I am very scientific hence my education, and that tells you I am much of the time thinking in black and white terms, not always. I was also wringing my hands on this election. It becomes harder and harder every four years. This is why I went to pros and cons.I appreciate the dialogue.
" It becomes harder and harder every four years. This is why I went to pros and cons."
A little story. When I could register to vote back in '72 I proudly registered as a Republican following my mentors influences as well as my conservative upbringing in a military family, Scouting achieving Life and the God & Country award many say is higher than Eagle, and a strong presence in youth leadership at my evangelical church, which at one time my ambition was to be a missionary.
I first voted for Nixon with a smile following my loyalty to the Republican Party. I voted Republican loyally and dutifully until the election of 2016. Why? I left the workplace in 2013. In 2014 I sat down one day asking myself why do I believe what I believe. It has been a journey since. I am still on that quest.
[Edit: Think of Plato's cave allegory]
In other words, I was a mindless sheeple for 42 years following a kind of dictated social conditioning to be conservative. I questioned that as shared above. Thus, I am at where I am today.
So, yes, you may have seen the liberal side of me more than the conservative. If I was to place a ratio on it I would say conservative 60% and liberal 40%, with a caveat. What those specific differences are and how those weigh with choices in recent elections.
Beginning with 2016 I voted a write-in for Teddy Roosevelt. Not wanting to vote for the candidates on the ballot for 2016 & 2020 I went with the standout president I admire from maybe the half dozen biographies I have read of former presidents. However, down ballot is different story with state and local elections where I have chosen from both sides of the isle depending on this and that with a default to the Republican Party."In other words, I was a mindless sheeple for 42 years following a kind of dictated social conditioning to be conservative. I questioned that as shared above. Thus, I am at where I am today.
I jumped in at Reagon, stayed a Republican until Obama's first time around. Did not vote his second time around. Saw a path that scared me ... Voted for Trump both times he ran. Felt he did a really good job, especially with COVID ( being an RN) I appreciated all he did. Even came out of retirement for a few months to return to ICU to use my skills. hard time, but I can tell you the majority I worked beside felt he was doing a good job. It's come down to whether was I happier under Trump or Biden. I am with Ken we need to consider where we have been headed the last four years --- with good speed. Do we want to continue down this unknown road?Thanks, while I remember your volunteering during Covid. What a debacle in history that was. There will be books on that in many academic fields for years to come. My sister-in-law was a school district superintendent, recently retired, during Covid, so got some first hand stories that were not tales of her experience. Hair pulling is my summation from listening to her, though she handled it professionally and efficiently.
Anyway, I should have added I have read this forum topic since I became a member of HP 13 years ago on and off. Steadily since 2015. Yet, I have always been blown away at the knowledge of the participants. I don't have that especially historically.
Today I have cognitive issues with memory recall. So, I read something and I forget it just as fast. So, commenting in this forum leaves me shall we say disarmed.
So, I read getting perspectives from both sides here. And, then research it for my own satisfaction. Doing so gives me clues along with the many newsletters I get from both sides of the isle, however more are conservative and some more far right than I get for far left. Such as the Daily Wire and Daily Caller. Yes, Fox and CNN too. But, like I said I have propensity to forget it quickly.
To sum up Trump I wouldn't apply to work for him. Yet, if he was hired to lead the company I worked for, I would follow his dictates giving him credence and a latitude of faith based on his record. Also, I wouldn't hire him.
Consider, with my Christian and conservative upbringing I support whoever is president. That is based on scripture and my dad, a US Marine, drilling into my head the President is the Commander-in-Chief.COVID—that was certainly a challenging time for so many, and I can only imagine how intense it must have been for your sister-in-law in her role as superintendent. It sounds like she handled it with admirable professionalism, even in the face of what I’m sure were incredibly difficult circumstances.
I completely relate to your experience of participating in forums like this one. The wealth of knowledge from contributors can indeed be impressive and a bit overwhelming at times! It’s great that you take the time to read different perspectives and do your own research—it’s something I strive for as well. I also appreciate your honesty about your memory recall challenges; I think many boomers can relate to that feeling of information slipping away at times.
Your balanced approach to supporting leaders, regardless of personal opinion, and grounding it in your faith and upbringing, shows a lot of integrity. It’s not always easy to do, but your stance of respect for the office of the president, no matter who holds it, is commendable. Thank you again for sharing your insight. I always find your thread interesting, never run of the mill.
I might add --- So, while I get the allure of not feeling tied to a party, I think there's value in being committed to still choosing the candidate, as you are working on. It's not always easy or straightforward. However, voting remains a powerful tool for change, and being thoughtful about how we use it is essential. While I understand the frustration with a system that doesn’t always seem to represent values.
You have expressed you still engage with the process of carefully choosing a candidate who could potentially make a difference. Clearly, you are on board keeping around democracy.Thanks, Sharlee! Appreciated!
Just to toss something into the mix. According to Pew Research (2019) 81% of independents have a lean. Along with that Gallup shares independents the year 1988 were 33% growing to 43% the year 2023. With myself I do lean conservative/Republican as shared earlier.
In case you want to read this letter, they were on a similiar boat.
LetterThanks!! I saw it posted elsewhere and glanced at it. I read it just now in its entirety giving it recognition as a strongly authoritative in their collective position. In my mind, impressive. I will copy/paste to my research folder on my PC for future use.
"No time to joke... no time to breath ..."[sic]
That perspective is probably part of our problem. We could step back through a lot of 4-year segments and find your thought rotating from side to side depending on who holds the presidency.
Consider how many times have we been told 'This is the most important election of our lifetime.'
But this time it really is, right? Maybe it could be if folks were just as serious about their down-ballot votes as they are for the presidential one.
GA"But this time it really is, right?"
I absolutely understand the point. I have considered this.
However... one has to have Open Eyes to the efforts going on.
There has been a deliberate and accelerated effort to make drastic changes since 2020 and the Pandemic.
Lets consider what it appeared Trump's 4 years did vs. Clinton:
1) Ukraine war would have happened 4 years earlier.
2) America would have joined the Global Compact on Migration 4 years earlier, which would have precipitated the massive influx of migrants earlier.
3) Iran would have never been sanctioned, had Trump remained those sanctions would still be in place and Iran would not have had the billions to send to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
4) Saudi Arabia and the UAE probably would still be trading oil in the Dollar and probably would not be members of BRICS now, if Trump had remained President.
5) There would be no DEI efforts being pushed onto everyone nor EO sanctioned 'minority status' for Trans, no takeover of women's spaces, etc.
There are big differences in the direction the Nation went... and there will be bigger differences to come.
A Harris Administration will push for the things we see going on elsewhere in the Western World, the criminalization of online speech to the shutting down of independent farmers, etc.
They are telling you what they believe, all you have to do is listen:
https://x.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/18 … 4680502458
https://x.com/MonaKnows2/status/1826096393892548719
https://x.com/PamelaHensley22/status/18 … 0926486576
[EDIT] Something else of note... I predicted this as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qnDqasq7i0
I found that funny when I saw it the first time --- then I realized it is not funny, millions believed her, and still do on this day, and still will when they vote. This woman is dangerous, her lies pose a great danger, they just might get her elected.
However, I truly know you posted this to make a point, I would guess in sarcasm.
I’m redirecting the discussion back to the topic of the debate. The conversation has branched into various subjects, including consequences, and I’d like to build on that aspect. Yes, the consequences I’m referring to are directly related to the debate.
David Muir, the anchor of ABC’s "World News Tonight," might have alienated some viewers following last week’s presidential debate, which stirred controversy among conservatives. During the debate, Muir and co-moderator Linsey Davis fact-checked former President Trump on five occasions but did not address any inaccuracies in Vice President Kamala Harris's statements. This led many conservatives to criticize the debate's fairness, with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America even demanding a correction for a fact-check on Trump that they deemed "100% inaccurate."
In the days following the debate, "World News Tonight" saw a drop in viewership, averaging 6.7 million viewers on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, compared to 7.6 million earlier in the year. This 12% decrease is notable, especially when compared to the more modest declines experienced by "CBS Evening News" and "NBC Nightly News" during the same period. Please note factually, that despite this dip, Muir’s newscast remains the leading evening news program.
The exact reason for the drop in viewership is unclear, but former President Trump has criticized ABC’s coverage as "one-sided," suggesting that Harris should have been subjected to fact-checking as well. Trump expressed his discontent to Fox News, claiming that the debate was unfairly biased and accusing Muir of losing credibility.
In a post-debate discussion, Davis admitted that her approach to fact-checking was influenced by the previous CNN debate, which had been criticized for allowing unchallenged statements. She shared with the Los Angeles Times that the aim was to avoid the same issues that plagued the Biden debate.
Furthermore, ABC News' Martha Raddatz pointed out a factual error by Harris, who claimed that no U.S. military personnel were in combat zones. Raddatz corrected this by noting the presence of U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq, as well as ongoing military operations in the Red Sea and by special operators. Despite these corrections, Muir and Davis did not address this issue live during the debate's viewership of nearly 70 million people. Raddatz confirmed that fact-checkers had found Harris’s statement to be false.
In our discussion on this thread about the consequences of mistrust, it’s evident that ABC has faced repercussions due to perceptions of bias in their debate moderation, particularly in failing to fact-check Vice President Harris’s responses. However, the broader issue remains: what about the consequences of the misinformation Harris presented to an audience of 70 million Americans who are deciding on their vote? Many viewers might have left the debate with incorrect information, not just from one misleading statement but from several inaccuracies shared by Harris. The absence of accountability during the debate could have significant implications, potentially swaying election results and affecting the governance of our nation.
Please understand that my comments on this topic are not meant to overshadow or diminish the discussion about Trump's statement at the debate regarding Haitians eating cats and the views we've shared on that matter. My intention is to address the issue I've raised while remaining focused on the theme of consequences. I believe that Harris's lack of complete truth during the debate may have been overshadowed by other breaking headlines.It appears that the bomb threats in Ohio are hoaxes from overseas. According to the governor of Ohio.
"Ohio governor contradicts Democrat narrative with damning revelation about bomb threat 'hoaxes' in Springfield
Gov Mike DeWine revealed the bomb threat 'hoaxes' are coming from 'overseas'
Ohio's Republican governor revealed on Monday that reported bomb threats against various sites in Springfield, Ohio, that have been blamed on Republican rhetoric surrounding the Haitian migrant crisis in the town were all "hoaxes."
"Thirty-three threats; Thirty-three hoaxes," Gov. Mike DeWine announced during a press conference. "I want to make that very, very clear. None of these had any validity at all."
DeWine said during the press conference that many of the threats came from "overseas."
"We have people unfortunately overseas who are taking these actions," DeWine added. "Some of them are coming from one particular country."
The governor's office said it is not disclosing the country in an effort to discourage threats to the schools and other buildings."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-g … pringfieldGov. DeWine urges Trump and Vance to end ‘very hurtful’ comments about Haitian migrants
...
Some of the bomb threats came from foreign countries. Others came from in the United States.
And all of them have been hoaxes. That's correct. None of them have panned out. We have obviously checked each one out. But they have been very disruptive. Schools have had to close. We put in our Highway Patrol to the schools, so they can be open today.
...
So, we have put 36 members of the Ohio State Highway Patrol, our special unit, literally in the schools. They go in the morning in the schools. They make sure there's no bombs, there's nothing. We just want to be able to assure the parents that it is safe.
And if I was a parent, I would be concerned as well with all these different threats and all this all this rancor and all this hate.
...
Well, the immigration issue and the border issue obviously is fair game. We can certainly do better on the border than we're doing. We could do a lot better.
But if you want to talk about these individuals, these Haitians who are in our cities, our city, look, they're legal. They came here because they want to work. They have been hired by our local businessmen and women, and when we talked to them the other morning, they told us these are great workers. They come to work. They want to work.
In fact, they want to work overtime. They're being paid just what, obviously, what anybody else would be paid. So they have been a boost to the economy. Springfield in Ohio is really coming back. And Springfield has seen a lot of new industry come in, and there weren't enough workers.
This is what the companies told us. After the pandemic, when everything started moving forward, there was not enough workers, and so they started filling them in with these Haitians.
So those comments are — about eating dogs and things, they're very hurtful. They're very hurtful for these men and women who work very, very hard. They're obviously very hurtful for their children.
Amna Nawaz:
They're hurtful, but are they also fueling these threats?
Gov. Mike DeWine:
Well, look, as the mayor said today, Mayor Rue, he said before this, we had Haitians here for three years, four years, and we did not have any of these.
Now, look, the people who are making these threats are the bad people. They're the wrong people. We're having some come from overseas. We have people who want to mess with the United States. We have some coming within the United States from people who are sick or who think that, for some reason, this is funny.
...
Amna Nawaz:
If these comments that are baseless that are being made by former President Trump and Senator Vance, if they were not being made, would those threats stop?
Gov. Mike DeWine:
Well, I don't know. I can't predict what would happen, but the statements are wrong. I have said they were wrong. The mayor has said they were wrong. And, frankly, they need to stop.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/gov-d … n-migrants
Two of the colleges in Springfield, Ohio have gone to remote learning until further notice.
She took questions on Tuesday from the National Association of Black Journalists.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/har … rcna171122Gee, she actually took questions from a very supportive group.
Trump-Vance ticket has done combined 55 interviews since last month compared to 14 for Harris-Walz
Harris steps up interviews with another one taped on Wednesday
Former President Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, have sat down for at least 55 interviews since the Harris-Walz ticket was formed, compared to 14 non-scripted interviews for the Democratic presidential ticket thus far.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-van … arris-walzWhat's the expectation? That she goes before the five on Fox? Yeah just as soon as Trump sits down with Maddow. Her campaign's media strategy is obviously different than that of Trumps. At this point, I would argue that the Trump campaign flooding of the zone, especially with Vance, is backfiring. Trump looks tired, Ill, bored and easily confused when he speaks lately. Vance puts his whole foot in his mouth every time he opens it. Their campaign would do itself a big favor if both of these guys would stay in the house a little more often.
She hasn't had a single press conference since being coronated by the democrat party to be their presidential nominee.
President Donald Trump has done several.
Holding press conferences is part of the job of being president. Maybe somebody should tell harris this fact of life.
It is obvious harris is running from questions because she has nothing worthwhile to say other than, "I was raised in a middle class family...okay?"
The public knows nothing about her. Hiding from voting public and concealing her positions seems to be her campaign strategy.What's the expectation? That she goes before the five on Fox? Yeah just as soon as Trump sits down with Maddow.
He sat down with ABC one of the most biased networks. Maddow, please my stomach be still...
It is apparent you did not watch the rally last night. He was in high
spirits, sharing his good nature with his audience. He was on fire.
'Vance puts his whole foot in his mouth every time he opens it. Their campaign would do itself a big favor if both of these guys would stay in the house a little more often."
Why, we put up with Biden/Harris hiding? We just did not like it. Transparency is the ticket. Her hiding will be her downfall. And her laugh.Guessing you missed Trump’s Town Hall with Sarah Huckabee Sanders and his Rally in Long Island. The man is energetic and on fire. New Yorkers may actually turn from the dark side. That would be something!
That would be good. New York is his home state.
I wouldn't be at all surprised at this juncture Shadow. The crowd at the rally went crazy when Rudy's name was mentioned.
They know how NYC was... and could be again!!
Basing a vote on who does more television appearances to spew lies is so on-brand for MAGA.
I noticed she was asked some great, probing questions, but her responses were the same rehearsed lines we heard during the debate. She didn’t offer any new information—anyone could have lip-synced her answers.
She definitely needs to appear in a real press conference where she's questioned by multiple outlets. Right now, she's being kept out of sight, just like Biden. I would like to see how she handles pressure like press conference offers.Totally agree, the National Association of Black Journalists have been on point with really some of the most substantive questions.
Her campaign's strategy does really appear to be one of sticking to a set narrative on all the major issues. Not much or anything off the cuff. It seems like the campaign wants to provide an unwavering consistent message. While I can understand that (there's no "she said this today but she said this yesterday"). It comes off, at times, as too safe, to scripted and repetitive. It also prevents folks from knowing who she really is beyond the narratives/rhetoric.
She's running the shortest campaign in modern history, my guess is that her strategists see no room for verbal missteps and are playing it with extreme caution. I do think it's obvious they are all in on this strategy, will it pay off? We shall see.
While I agree with most of her policy, I'm not enthused about the delivery of the message."Not much or anything off the cuff. It seems like the campaign wants to provide an unwavering consistent message. "
It seems like this strategy was used with Biden, and it worked. However, they may not have considered that their party is now under intense scrutiny, with some questioning, "What are they hiding?" Additionally, the media is highlighting his lack of substance and the repeated use of the same talking points.
Trump's short-term memory is so fried that he cannot ever remember that there was no audience at his debate with Harris.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/delusional-u … 57826.htmlI think it's obvious, if you watched the entire Gutfeld segment(which I did) , that he was referring to the television viewing audience. There were places that were gaging the audience response during the debate with graphs, etc.
ANY little thing that can be taken out of context and misconstrued becomes a big deal to those on the left.
It is a sign of desperation.Was the attack on the Haitian Community with Trump's stupid comments about people eating pets on national TV, or that idiot Vance clinging to the lie taken "out of context"?
No, it is you right wingers who are the very definition of "out of context" and I work feverously toward the goal of your complete and total defeat in every aspect by November.Cred,
Have a good day.
Hope all is going well with you.Cred --- I have not picked up on anyone defending the pet-eating comments from JD or Trump. I have noted, that many here are interested in continuing the conversation.
Deflecting to a more current issue that correlates with the candidate's statements. I want your thoughts on Harris debate statement --- “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century.” VP K. Harris
We have a military in non-combat in Israel and Ukraine. However, in great harm's way. While it is true that the U.S. is no longer engaged in large-scale conflicts like the Afghanistan war, there are still thousands of American troops deployed in areas that are considered combat zones, especially in the Middle East. These troops are involved in counter-terrorism missions, including operations against groups like ISIS and the Houthis. U.S. forces have faced hostilities, and some service members have been injured or killed in these operations.
Harris' statement about no U.S. military personnel being in combat zones is certainly a bold one, and her delivery seemed confident. However, the facts indicate that thousands of U.S. troops are indeed in harm's way.
Her role as vice president, and the potential for her to assume the presidency, raises questions about whether this reflects a lack of awareness or a communication issue regarding military deployments.
Your thoughts would be appreciated ---
The only desperate ones are the ones trying to defend Trump's clear racism in Springfield, Ohio and failing mentation.
“I don’t think I’m a believer,” Trump continued. “But I have interviewed pilots that look – I like Tom Cruise – but better than Tom Cruise.”
It's a safe bet he's NEVER flown with Tom Cruise and so would know NOTHING about his actual flying abilities. Therefore he must be referring to Tom Cruise's fictional character in Top Gun.
Having said that, 1st it's Hannibal Lecter, now it's a fictional pilot. What's next; Yosemite Sam took a couple of shots at him? Wily E. Coyote is trying to sabotage his campaign?It's becoming increasingly clear that Harris supporters are growing desperate. The media is amplifying every word Trump says, while ignoring the fact that we have an incompetent man in the White House. However, I've noticed a shift on social media, where support for her seems to be waning.
While it might be technically accurate to say there wasn't a live audience in the studio, it's misleading to suggest there was no audience at all. An audience isn't limited to those physically present. Trump excels at engaging with people, whether through interviews, rallies, or simply by showing up and speaking with Americans. It's unfortunate that some choose to focus on a few remarks he makes, rather than recognizing the significant harm this woman and her boss have done to our country—and, I might add, to a few others around the world as wellDesperate? Support waning?
Must be why she just campaigned with Oprah and her lead in the polls just went up this week.
And when the media amplifies Trump's words, that only hurts him because those words are ridiculous.
As to the harm done to our country - pretty sure wrecking the economy was done in 2020. Pretty sure the failure to let legislation pass to update our asylum laws falls on only one candidate. And definitely sure that handing everything over to murderous dictators is not the answer. Harris exposed Trump's susceptibility to manipulation in that debate. The country watched it happen in real time.
I think to understand the situation in Springfield, Ohio you need to watch this townhall conducted by Vivek Ramaswamy.
Listen to what the residents are saying about the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qxA3TLj0xUDo you think these conversations could have been had to begin with, without resorting to ridiculous pet eating stories? Yes, yes they could have.
If a candidate wants to have an honest dialogue about issues, have it. Don't bring some garbage about one group stealing and eating another group's pets. The public isn't stupid and we deserve more than such idiocy.
The dishonest pet rhetoric did a disservice to absolutely everyone involved.I think the point is that the current president and vice president are democrats. The majority of the main stream media is democrat.
It took Vivek Ramaswamy to get a town hall. A man who ran for president during the Republican primary and dropped out.
Where are the democrats? No democrat official or democrat media. It took Republicans to get the concerns and worries of the people of this community to the national spotlight.
That speaks volumes.What also speaks volumes is the Republican lies led to bomb threats against the children of this community. Nothing was stopping a town hall on the issue prior to the lies and threats against children.
The Trumpers speak of desperation on the part of the democrats and Harris and company. However, the real desperation comes from Trump and company. If he doesn't win this election, he has several charges against him that are just waiting in the wings to be brought to fruition.
If Kamala Harris doesn't win, she just goes back to being herself, unless Trump does something to harm her. If Trump doesn't win, he may pull another Jan. 6 before he is looking at the world through bars. As I have said before, Trump's brain is not wired to accept losing, especially a presidential election.
Of course, the biased supreme court justices who are beholden to him could act on the immunity rule and then Trump will enact Project 2025 and pardon every guilty malfeasance person who has been in jail for Jan. 6. Viva Las Vegas. I don't know why I said that, but it seems appropriate.If Kamala wins, what is your prediction?
"Trump will enact Project 2025"
Cue the theme from the "Twilight Zone."Here is your twilight zone.
What is Project 2025? What to know about the conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration
By Melissa Quinn, Jacob Rosen
Updated on: September 10, 2024 / 11:00 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Voters have been hearing the term "Project 2025" invoked more and more by President Biden, Vice President Harris and other Democrats in the run-up to the November election, as they seek to sound the alarm about what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.
Overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the multi-pronged initiative includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.
Trump and his campaign have worked to distance themselves from Project 2025, with the former president going so far as to call some of the proposals "abysmal." But Democrats have continued to tie the transition project to Trump, warning that its policy proposals are what Americans can expect if they elect the former president in November.
Here is what to know about Project 2025:
What is Project 2025?
Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is composed of four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration; a LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration; training for that pool of candidates dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy;" and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office.
It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project's associate director. Dans announced on July 30 that he would be stepping down from his role as head of Project 2025 and departing Heritage in August.
Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.
Much of the focus on — and criticism of — Project 2025 involves its first pillar, the nearly 900-page policy book that lays out an overhaul of the federal government. Called "Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise," the book builds on a "Mandate for Leadership" first published in January 1981, which sought to serve as a roadmap for Ronald Reagan's incoming administration.
The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive branch, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank.
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with advisers in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D,C., on June 25, 2019.
Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with advisers in the Oval Office of the White House on June 25, 2019.
MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
The Heritage Foundation also created a "Mandate for Leadership" in 2015 ahead of Trump's first term. Two years into his presidency, it touted that Trump had instituted 64% of its policy recommendations, ranging from leaving the Paris Climate Accords, increasing military spending, and increasing off-shore drilling and developing federal lands. In July 2020, the Heritage Foundation gave its updated version of the book to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee's platform committee, which adopted the platform at July's convention.
John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will "integrate a lot of our work" with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.
Candidates interested in applying for the Heritage Foundation's "Presidential Personnel Database" are vetted on a number of political stances, such as whether they agree or disagree with statements like "life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death," and "the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials."
The contributions from ex-Trump administration officials have led its critics to tie Project 2025 to his reelection campaign, though the former president has attempted to distance himself from the initiative.
A line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025's published blueprint for the next Republican president that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. CBS News' data team extracted more than 700 specific policy proposals from Project 2025's policy guide and compared each one to policies enacted during Trump's first term as well as his campaign platform, rally speeches and interviews.
What are the Project 2025 plans?
Some of the policies in the Project 2025 agenda have been discussed by Republicans for years or pushed by Trump himself: less federal intervention in education and more support for school choice; work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps; and a secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws, mass deportations and construction of a border wall.
But others have come under scrutiny in part because of the current political landscape.
Abortion and social issues
In recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agenda calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its 24-year-old approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone. Other proposed actions targeting medication abortion include reinstating more stringent rules for mifepristone's use, which would permit it to be taken up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, instead of the current 10 weeks, and requiring it to be dispensed in-person instead of through the mail.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that is on the Project 2025 advisory board, was involved in a legal challenge to mifepristone's 2000 approval and more recent actions from the FDA that made it easier to obtain. But the Supreme Court rejected the case brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations on procedural grounds.
The policy book also recommends the Justice Department enforce the Comstock Act against providers and distributors of abortion pills. That 1873 law prohibits drugs, medicines or instruments used in abortions from being sent through the mail.
US-NEWS-SCOTUS-ABORTION-PILL-NEWSOM-TB
Mifepristone and Misoprostol pills.
Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, the volume states that the Justice Department "in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills."
The guide recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden administration before Roe's reversal and create a "pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department's divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children."
In a section titled "The Family Agenda," the proposal recommends the Health and Human Services chief "proudly state that men and women are biological realities," and that "married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them."
Further, a program within the Health and Human Services Department should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."
During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Biden reversed that policy, but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be reinstated.
Targeting federal agencies, employees and policies
The agenda takes aim at longstanding federal agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. The agency is a component of the Commerce Department and the policy guide calls for it to be downsized.
NOAA's six offices, including the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, "form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity," the guide states.
The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, should be dismantled and its agencies either combined with others, or moved under the purview of other departments altogether, the policy book states. For example, immigration-related entities from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Health and Human Services should form a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency staffed by more than 100,000 employees, according to the agenda.
The Department of Homeland Security logo is seen on a law enforcement vehicle in Washington on March 7, 2017.
The Department of Homeland Security logo is seen on a law enforcement vehicle in Washington on March 7, 2017.
Getty Images
If the policy recommendations are implemented, another federal agency that could come under the knife by the next administration, with action from Congress, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The agenda seeks to bring a push by conservatives to target diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in higher education to the executive branch by wiping away a slew of DEI-related positions, policies and programs and calling for the elimination of funding for partners that promote DEI practices.
It states that U.S. Agency for International Development staff and grantees that "engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda" should be terminated. At the Treasury Department, the guide says the next administration should "treat the participation in any critical race theory or DEI initiative without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment."
The Project 2025 policy book also takes aim at more innocuous functions of government. It calls for the next presidential administration to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines that have been published by the Department of Agriculture for more than 40 years, which the authors claim have been "infiltrated" by issues like climate change and sustainability.
Immigration
Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his last two presidential runs and has continued to hammer the issue during his 2024 campaign. Project 2025's agenda not only recommends finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but urges the next administration to "take a creative and aggressive approach" to responding to drug cartels at the border. This approach includes using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard to help with arrest operations along the southern border.
A memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that prohibits enforcement actions from taking place at "sensitive" places like schools, playgrounds and churches should be rolled back, the policy guide states.
When the homeland security secretary determines there is an "actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens" that presents "urgent circumstances" warranting a federal response, the agenda says the secretary can make rules and regulations, including through their expulsion, for as long as necessary. These rules, the guide states, aren't subject to the Administration Procedure Act, which governs the agency rule-making process.
What do Trump and his advisers say about Project 2025?
In a post to his social media platform on July 5, Trump wrote, "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."
Trump's pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
The former president continued to disavow the initiative in social media posts, insisting that he knows nothing about Project 2025, and he repeated that message in his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Sept. 10,
"I have nothing to do with Project 2025," he said. "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it."
In response to Dans' exit from Project 2025, Trump's campaign said the initiative "had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the president in any way."
"Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you," said Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, senior advisers on the Trump campaign.
While the former president said he doesn't know who is in charge of the initiative, the project's outgoing director, Dans, and associate director, Chretien, were high-ranking officials in his administration. Additionally, Ben Carson, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Trump; John Ratcliffe, former director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration; and Peter Navarro, who served as a top trade adviser to Trump in the White House, are listed as either authors or contributors to the policy agenda.
Still, even before Roberts' comments during "The War Room" podcast — typically hosted by conservative commentator Steve Bannon, who reported to federal prison to begin serving a four-month sentence last week — Trump's top campaign advisers stressed that Project 2025 has no official ties to his reelection bid.
Wiles and LaCivita said in a November statement that 2024 policy announcements will be made by Trump or his campaign team.
"Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions," they said.
While the efforts by outside organizations are "appreciated," Wiles and LaCivita said, "none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign."
In response to Trump's post in July, Project 2025 reiterated that it was separate from the Trump campaign.
"As we've been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement," a statement on the project's X account said on July 5.
The initiative has also pushed back on Democrats' claims about its policy proposals and accused them of lying about what the agenda contains.
What do Democrats say?
Despite Trump's attempts to keep some distance from Project 2025 and his campaign's criticisms of the initiative, Democrats continue to connect Trump with the transition effort.
Before dropping out of the race, Mr. Biden himself accused his Republican opponent of lying about his connections to the Project 2025 agenda, saying in a statement that the agenda was written for Trump and "should scare every single American." He claimed on his campaign social media account on July 10 that Project 2025 "will destroy America."
In a speech to the American Federation of Teachers on July 25, Harris also knocked Project 2025.
"Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Nine hundred pages in writing," she said. "Project 2025 is a plan to return America to a dark past."
Harris returned to that message in her speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 22 as she formally accepted her party's nomination.
"We know what a second Trump term would look like. It's all laid out in 'Project 2025.' Written by his closest advisers. And its sum total is to pull our country back into the past," she said.
On the opening night of the DNC, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow appeared on stage with an oversized copy of "Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise," the book that details Project 2025's proposals.
"There's only one way to stop him and to stop Project 2025," she said after dropping the book on the lectern with a thud. "How do we do it? We elect Kamala Harris this November."
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat from Michigan, holds up a Project 2025 book during the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Monday, Aug. 19, 2024.
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat from Michigan, holds up a Project 2025 book during the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on Monday, Aug. 19, 2024.
Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz also called out Project 2025 in his DNC speech, saying, "Project 2025 will make things much, much harder for people who are just trying to live their lives."
Congressional Democrats pivoted to Project 2025 when asked in interviews about Mr. Biden's fitness for a second term following his lackluster showing at the June 27 debate against Trump. Mr. Biden announced his withdrawal from the race for the White House weeks after the debate as the swell of Democrats calling for him to step aside never abated.
"Trump is all about Project 2025," Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman told CNN in July. "I mean, that's what we really should be voting on right now. It's like, do we want the kind of president that is all about Project '25?"
What are Republicans saying about Project 2025?
GOP senators, including Trump's running mate JD Vance, have sought to put space between the White House hopeful and Project 2025, casting it as merely the product of a think tank that puts forth ideas.
Before he was selected as Trump's vice presidential pick, Vance told NBC's "Meet the Press" that organizations will have good ideas and bad ideas, not all of which Trump agrees with.
"It's a 900-page document," he said in July. "I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document. But he is the person who will determine the agenda of the next administration."
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio expressed similar sentiments on CNN's "State of the Union."
"It's the work of a think tank, of a center-right think tank, and that's what think tanks do," Rubio said.
He said Trump's message to voters focuses on "restoring common sense, working-class values, and making our decisions on the basis of that."It's a straw man argument.
President Donald Trump has distanced himself from project 2025 many, many times.
Even the creators of it have said they've never discussed it or anything about it with the Trump campaign.
Yes, cue the theme from the Twilight Zone.
Unless he does something to harm her? You mean the same way that he manipulated the justice system to have Hilary arrested and sentenced?
Yes, he is making up things which is pretty ludicrous. That seems about the only way they can try and smear him, by telling us how he is going to be a dictator this time--even though they conveniently forget that he was already in the office of president before this and never arrested or imprisoned his opposition.
"led to bomb threats against the children of this community"
Springfield Bomb Threats Coming From Overseas Bots: Mayor
Then more than 33 bomb threats arrived over the past five days, aimed at the city hall, healthcare facilities, schools and colleges. All were determined to have been hoaxes and many were from overseas, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said Monday.
https://www.newsweek.com/haitian-immigr … mp-1955243'Many.'
And what kind of attention was on Springfield, Ohio before the debate. Zero. That is called cause and effect. At the end of August, a woman filed a police report that her cat was missing. Her own Trumpism put the blame on her Haitian neighbors. Two days later she finds her cat in her own basement. Two weeks later, Trump insists that Haitians are eating cats based on someone's racist accusations that were devoid of any proof.
MAGA, in a nutshell.They could've eaten her cat. They help themselves to all sorts of small creatures within reach according to their habits from home.
Thanks for sharing the facts from the governor.
I watched the recent meeting in Springfield, Ohio, Vivek Ramaswamy listened to citizens who expressed their concerns about the challenges they face due to the influx of thousands of migrants in the area. The problems stemming from this situation have significantly impacted the community. Thanks to the media coverage, the issues in Springfield are receiving greater attention, allowing the voices of the residents to be heard and understood. Additionally, Governor Mike DeWine provided facts to clarify the situation and set the record straight, underscoring the importance of addressing these concerns.The point is why did Trump and Vance promote such a lie in the first place regardless of the extent of the fallout? So, the source of the threats are irrelevant in view of the primary question.
JD Vance was reacting to many calls he got from his constituents about their pets being taken and Haitians talking about eating them.
Have you seen what the local authorities have called "investigations?" People claim a Haitian ate their cat so the police go and watch the person's house and then report no cats were take. I suppose someone needs to tell them there is no more pet for them to take.
That's just the beginning. The investigations they conducted were bogus.
After that nonsense, they go out and say, "There's no credible evidence." This is made possible because they didn't do a credible investigation of it.
There have been too many allegations to ignore.JD Vance was reacting to many calls he got from his constituents about their pets being taken and Haitians talking about eating them.
Vance's first reaction should have been to tell the truth.
His campaign contacted the city to ask if there was any validity to the pet eating allegations and the campaign was told that they were baseless lies.
If Vance wanted to have a conversation about immigration, he could have done so without scapegoating an innocent group of people.I looked for a list of cultures/areas where dogs and/or cats are considered food and commonly eaten. I found a list of around 17 or 18 where it is so. If we have a community of people raised in such a culture I would not find it surprising that our pets were disappearing.
But Haiti was not one of those areas; I found nothing to indicate that Haitians commonly eat dogs or cats. Given that it is highly unlikely that Springfield has a large number of people eating pets.
On the other hand I would not expect a mayor or other dignitary to announce that the city population is eating dogs and cats whether they are or not. Questioning such an individual is as worthless as taking the word of a politician looking for votes.You found nothing?
That is interesting.
I was with many Haitians back in 96, for an extended period of time.
They will eat anything that moves that is big enough to cook. Lizard, Rodent, Sea Turtle, Squid... it doesn't matter.
I actually find that you found nothing in your search revealing... I mean, no wonder why the average American is so clueless to reality outside of Americana.
I mean... what the heck do you think is going on in Haiti?
It doesn't even have a functional government... gangs/cartels control Haiti.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ … 110664002/Many Haitian Vodou practitioners sacrifice animals as part of their religious ceremonies, but not all of them do. Animal sacrifice is a central part of the faith and is often used to make offerings to spirits and the dead. Vodou is widely practiced by Haitians. However, I did some research, and there have been NO reports of such activity in Springfield Ohio.
There have been, on X... pictures, videos, didn't bother with looking into it in depth, but of course if there are 20k migrants from Haiti there... then there are 20k Haitians living there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmdOGut4Gw
https://x.com/Scarfer13/status/1835622331948962246
It is so strange... "there are no reports of Haitians eating geese or cats"...
WTF?
We have Chinese Restaurants that are being shut down today... in 2024... for being caught using Cat as chicken.
We have plenty of Americans today... in 2024... that hunt and eat geese.
When someone comes from a place like Haiti, where several thousand people were murdered last year... where many catch and kill the food they eat... why would you expect anything else?
You don't unlearn how you live just because you are put on a plane and flown halfway across the globe to a new country.A viral photo of a man holding two geese that accompanied many posts making claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield was actually taken in Columbus, about 50 miles away. The Ohio Division of Wildlife confirmed the man had picked up roadkill. The man was picking up the two geese that had been hit by a car.
In order to collect a carcass, people need documentation from a county sheriff or wildlife officer, the wildlife organization explained, but according to the Franklin County Wildlife Office, this is not required for geese, meaning the man had a right to them.
Anthony Harris, a local influencer who said in a widely shared video of a City Commission meeting that Haitian immigrants were killing and eating ducks at a local park, has since admitted he had never seen it happen.
---
On Aug. 26, the Clark County Sheriff’s Office relayed a report of two men and two women believed to be Haitian each carrying a goose.
“The officer was initially unable to reach the witness but later made contact. No supporting evidence to verify the claim was found,” according to ODNR.
Clark County officials said earlier this week they scoured 11 months of call records and found the Aug. 26 call was the only one of this type to their dispatch center.
“No videos have surfaced, no pictures have surfaced, no dead geese have surfaced; there’s nothing to substantiate that it’s happening,” Clark County Commissioner Sasha Rittenhouse said Wednesday.
ODNR has a dedicated wildlife officer assigned to Clark County who routinely monitors Snyder Park because it is a popular fishing area, the agency says.
SMHJD Vance recently defended his claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were abducting and killing pets for food, citing reports from his constituents. Vance stated that local residents told him they had witnessed these events firsthand.
Oddly enough he is sticking to his statement. I did hear that Trump will be visiting Springfield. This strange claim needs to be clarified.Deleted
I have plenty more showing the wonderful world of Haitai, you can SMH to the reality of them all you want... all it is tho, is showing reality:
https://haitiantimes.com/2023/03/22/un- … ed-troops/
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2018/11/23/ … l-injured/
https://avax.news/pictures/199887
Is that going to be how we determine what is "hate speech"?
Telling facts, showing proof, stating what is, all will be considered "hate speech" if someone else finds it offensive?So, over a ten-year span, you were able to find some images of unrest in the country to come to the conclusion of what that country is.
January 6, 2021
Las Vegas 2017
Uvalde 2022
And there are plenty more in the US that could be posted. I guess by the same standards, the US is a 'wonderful world.' Surprised you haven't moved somewhere safer yet.Showing these photos are proof of what? The fact remains that JD Vance was told the pet eating rumor was a baseless lie and he made a very conscious decision to spread that lie publicly. Photos of Haiti have nothing to do with the situation.
Ignorance of Haiti, and Haitians, are at the heart of this.
That anyone would be surprised that Haitians are eating geese and cats in Springfield Ohio just shows the ignorance of Americans and our American media.
This is normal for Haitians, who fish for their meals, who butcher their own animals prior to preparing them to eat. We have become detached from that process in America.
What Trump said was, I am certain, factually correct.
Somewhere, a Haitian in Ohio, caught and cooked a goose or cat.
The fascinating thing is the effort to denounce saying so, and the effort to deny it happened, and the effort to label this as racist, xenophobic, etc.I guess every non vegan in the world is eating cats. Yum.
MAGA ranchers, how do you prepare them? I like mine fried.You know, you might be my type after all, maybe we can get together next weekend for drinks?
I assume you are joking but I am just curious if you have Santeria practicioners there in Puerto Rico. Here in Brazil we have Macumba, an offshoot of Candomblé which is very similar to Santeria, and, like voodoo, considers black cats have special powers and are sacrificed to collect their blood. Macumba practitioners do not eat them, but they are killed and drained of their blood.
Yes. Santeria and Espiritismo. But is not that common. I believe there are some animal sacrifices for special occasions and, after the ritual, the animal is cooked and eaten.
"That anyone would be surprised that Haitians are eating geese and cats in Springfield Ohio just shows the ignorance of Americans and our American media."
So where were the documented instances of this happening?
Bottom line? JD Vance was wrong to spread lies day after day.Yeah, well, I thought better of sharing this link...
And then I listened to the Devil on my shoulder and said, heck with it:
https://notthebee.com/article/let-me-us … -and-geese
...and wtf is Walz really doing in that photo?
Allegations, Mike?
Whether or not it is true that Haitians are dining on stolen cats and dogs, Vance said, the story has proven important in calling attention to the problems that Springfield is experiencing as a result of a migrant influx. "I've been trying to talk about the problems in Springfield for months," he told Bash. "The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do."
This is what Vance had said verbatim?
So, what am I going to make of this? The stupid fables from one man that has brought so much angst to an innocent community. You Republicans and Trumpies are showing your true colors and black is not one of them. I recall Vance also saying that regardless of the fact that they are in the US legally, they are still illegal. Kinda dumb, because with an attitude and reasoning like that all people of color who are American citizens would be next on Vance's list and consigned out of the country.
This is one of many reasons why I distrust and can NEVER support YOU people (Trumpy conservatives)
And what does that say about Trump? A man with a childlike mentality incapable seeing the ramifications and consequences of the things that he says and does. A man who is impulsive and fails to think things through. What would possess him to say such unvett d nonsense to a national audience? That is certainly not the kind of person that I want at the helm. The debacle at Arlington was another example of his creating his own problems.
I don't know why so many of you worship him, because he is the classic definition of an idiot.
Trump has no idea what's in project 2025...lol
"A line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025's published blueprint for the next Republican president that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. CBS News' data team extracted more than 700 specific policy proposals from Project 2025's policy guide and compared each one to policies enacted during Trump's first term as well as his campaign platform, rally speeches and interviews.".You have to be more specific.
The policies of President Donald Trumps past policies brought a great economy, peace in the world, a secure border, and more.
Maybe project 2025 is something the democrats may need to follow.I have read some of the projects, I can honestly say I saw nothing thus far that would relate to Trump's previous term in office or his campaign agenda. His current agenda is all about fixing our nation's problems and moving the Nation forward. In my view, this is just another propaganda ploy to try to say "Hey look over here, don't listen to anything Trump is saying."
I mean they are running out of BS to throw at him.
After taking time to read the article, I found it was just more or less an OP using mostly conjecture to make generally compare, and fit a round peg into a square hole. Hopefully, others will take the time to read the article and share their views.
But a line-by-line review by CBS News identified at least 270 proposals in Project 2025's published blueprint for the next Republican president that match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises.
CBS News' data team extracted more than 700 specific policy proposals from Project 2025's 922-page policy guide and compared each one to policies enacted during Trump's first term as well as his campaign platform, rally speeches and interviews.
But as previously mentioned, the followers of MAGA generally really seem to like project 2025.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/project-20 … -policies/Where are the policies that connect any of Trump's previous or past policies? This article offers a lot about Priject 2025, but nothing to indicate that Trump has used the recommendations or will use them. It's a lengthy article filled with conjecture.
After taking time to read the article, I found it was just more or less an OP using mostly conjecture to make generally compare, and fit a round peg into a square hole. Hopefully, others will take the time to read the article and share their views.
Perhaps, this is more explicit for you. I apologize for the paragraph spacing.
Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency
11 September 2024
It is a 900-page policy "wish list" for the next Republican president, a proposal that would expand presidential power and impose an ultra-conservative social vision.
"What you're going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025, that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again," Vice-President Kamala Harris said early in the ABC News presidential debate.
Donald Trump, who has repeatedly disavowed the document, responded: "I have nothing to do with Project 2025".
Dozens of former Trump administration officials have however contributed to the think tank's proposals, providing Democrats with an attack line against the former president.
The backlash against some of the more radical proposals in Project 2025, conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, has been intense.
The project's director stepped down after criticism of the plan from Democrats and anger from the Trump campaign, which accused Heritage officials of trying to exaggerate their influence over the former president.
And despite Trump distancing himself from Project 2025, it continues to remain a key election talking point.
Here's your guide to what the document contains.
Who wrote Project 2025?
The Heritage Foundation is one of Washington's most prominent right-wing think tanks. It first produced policy plans for future Republican administrations in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was about to take office.
It has produced similar documents in connection with subsequent presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump won the presidency.
That's not unusual - it's common for US think tanks of all political stripes to propose policy wish lists for future governments.
And Heritage has been successful in influencing Republican administrations. A year into Trump's term, it boasted that the White House had adopted nearly two-thirds of its proposals.
The Project 2025 report was unveiled in April 2023, but Democratic opposition to the document has ramped up as this year's race has intensified.
Democratic politicians have launched a "Stop Project 2025 Task Force" and even set up a tip line to collect insider information on Heritage's activities, claiming there is a "secret" part of the agenda pushing a list of executive orders.
The Harris campaign and its surrogates have consistently brought up the project in interviews and speeches.
Trump began pushing away from the document in early July.
"I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it.
"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
During the presidential debate with Harris, he was more nuanced, and said the ideas in the document included "some good, some bad".
"But it makes no difference," he said. "I have nothing to do (with it)."
The team that created the project was chock-full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president.
Dans left the project in late July, clearing the way for Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to take over. He said he was leaving during the presidential election season in order to "direct all my efforts to winning, bigly".
Russell Vought, another former Trump administration official, wrote a key chapter in the document and also serves as the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform policy director.
More than 100 conservative organisations contributed to the document, Heritage says, including many that would also be hugely influential in Washington if Republicans took back the White House.
The document itself sets out four main policy aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation's sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely.
Government
Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control - a controversial idea known as "unitary executive theory".
In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.
The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.
The document labels the FBI a "bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization". It calls for drastic overhauls of this and several other federal agencies, as well as the complete elimination of the Department of Education.
The Republican party platform has absorbed many - but not all - of these ideas.
It includes a proposal to "declassify government records, root out wrongdoers, and fire corrupt employees". It pledges to slash regulation and government spending, and explicitly calls for closing the Department of Education.
But it stops short of proposing a sweeping overhaul of federal agencies as outlined in
Project 2025.
Abortion and family
The mentions of abortion in Project 2025 - there are about 200 of them - have sparked some of the most contentious debate.
The document does not call for a an outright nationwide abortion ban - and Trump says he would not sign such a law.
However, it proposes withdrawing the abortion pill mifepristone from the market, and using existing but little-enforced laws to stop the drug being sent through the post.
Harris said during the presidential debate: "Understand, in his Project 2025 there would be a national monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages."
That appears to be a reference to proposals in the document to bolster data collection on abortion.
More generally, the document suggests that the department of Health and Human Services should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family".
On abortion at least, the document differs fairly substantially from the Republican platform, which only mentions the word "abortion" once. The platform says abortion laws should be left to individual states and that late-term abortions (which it does not define) should be banned.
It adds that that access to prenatal care, birth control and in-vitro fertilisation should be protected. The party platform makes no mention of cracking down on the distribution of mifepristone.
What are abortion laws in US states?
Immigration
EPA Migrants at the US southern border wall in Juarez City, MexicoEPA
Increased funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border - one of Trump's signature proposals in 2016 - is proposed in the document.
Project 2025 also proposes dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and combining it with other immigration enforcement units in other agencies, creating a much larger and more powerful border policing operation.
Other proposals include eliminating visa categories for crime and human trafficking victims, increasing fees on immigrants and allowing fast-tracked applications for migrants who pay a premium.
Not all of those details are repeated in the Republican party platform, but the overall headlines are similar - the party is promising to implement the "largest deportation programme in American history".
What a Trump second term would look like
Climate and economy
The document proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and calls for the next president to "stop the war on oil and natural gas".
Carbon-reduction goals would be replaced by efforts to increase energy production and energy security.
The paper sets out two competing visions on tariffs, and is divided on whether the next president should try to boost free trade or raise barriers to imports.
But the economic advisers suggest that a second Trump administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the Federal Reserve and even consider a return to gold-backed currency.
The GOP party platform does not go as far as Project 2025 in these policy areas. The platform instead talks of bringing down inflation and drilling for oil to reduce energy costs, but is thin on specific policy proposals.
And Trump himself has come out in favour of raising tariffs on imported goods.
Tech and education
Under the proposals, pornography would be banned, and tech and telecoms companies that allow access would be shut down.
The document calls for school choice and parental control over schools, and takes aim at what it calls "woke propaganda".
It proposes to eliminate a long list of terms from all laws and federal regulations, including "sexual orientation", "gender equality", "abortion" and "reproductive rights".
Project 2025 aims to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in schools and government departments as part of what it describes as a wider crackdown on "woke" ideology.
The proposals in this policy area are broadly reflected in the Republican platform, which in addition to calling for the abolishing the Department of Education, aims to boost school choice and parental control over education and criticises what the party calls the "inappropriate political indoctrination of our children".
The plan's uncertain future
It includes strategies for implementing policies immediately after the presidential inauguration in January 2025, such as the creation of a database of conservative loyalists to fill government positions, and a programme to train those new workers.
But with the Trump campaign seeking to distance themselves from the project, its future is in doubt - even if many of its core ideas seem likely to shape policy in a hypothetical second Trump administration.
At the same time, many of the proposals would likely face immediate legal challenges from Trump's opponents if implemented.It would appear you are assuming Trump will adopt recommendations that are in Project 2025. As you have shared in your comment a quote from Trump that shows him not involved with the Project 2025, he called it "abysmal" -- that is pretty much what I thought about what I thought after reading some of it.
There is no evidence or confirmation that Trump plans to implement any of Project 2025's recommendations. I find it unfortunate that Harris, other Democrats, and some media outlets are making definitive statements implying he will adopt the proposals in this document. For instance, during the debate, Harris referred to it as “in his Project 2025,” which, in my view, borders on propaganda and is, at best, irresponsible and unfair. He has well distanced himself from Project 2025.
"Understand, in his Project 2025 there would be a national monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages." VP Harris
Her statement was fact-checked by several outlets. I will Offer WAPO's assessment. She clearly was not being truthful at the debate and unfairly made a statement that was in no respect true. However, millions walked away from the debate believing her untrue statement.
The Washington Post's Fact Checker reviewed Kamala Harris's statement and found it misleading. They noted that while "Project 2025" exists as a policy framework from conservative groups, it does not include any provisions for a national monitor of pregnancies or miscarriages. The article emphasized that the claim exaggerated the implications of the project. They typically assign a "Pinocchio"
I am willing to believe Trump regarding his thoughts on Project 2025. Do you have any problem with Harris's propensity to lie? Fack-checkers are keeping close tabs on her mistruths... One only needs to be willing to read them.
Funny enough I researched your thread's subject and offered what I thought fair assessment of my view. Crickets. I am not interested in sharing with those that just read what they can accept. Just make for a one-sided conversation.
At any rate, we are very close to casting our votes -- all the handwriting will be for naught as far as I am concerned."I am willing to believe Trump regarding his thoughts on Project 2025. Do you have any problem with Harris's propensity to lie? Fack-checkers are keeping close tabs on her mistruths... One only needs to be willing to read them."
That's rich. You want me to be concerned about Harris' minimal lying, while Trump is the epitome of liars. He holds the trophy for the most lying of any president in the history of this country. As they say all politicians lie, but not to the depth and magnitude of Trump.
Have you ever stopped to think why would there even be a Project 2025, if it wasn't for Trump to implement if he is elected president. Why would so many of Trumps people be involved in framing this 900 page document?
I know you think Wikipedia is not credible, but as far as I'm concerned, it has the most complete analysis of what Project 2025 is about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2 … 0election."I know you think Wikipedia is not credible, but as far as I'm concerned, it has the most complete analysis of what Project 2025 is about"
That speaks volumes.What speaks volumes... that you accept what is known to be an extremely biased source for information? Or the hyperbolic overexaggeration they give of Project 2025?
Trump is trying to distance himself from project 2025 but doesn't he stand to lose some support from his base? He is trying to moderate his positions but but many in his base like what's in project 2025 and don't want to see moderation of any kind.
One of the key directives in 2025 is mass deportation. Is Trump reneging on this?
Another important component of 2025 is shutting down the department of education, is Trump abandoning this also? These are things that have strong support within his base. It would seem that distancing himself would endanger that support.It is clear that Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, and he has certainly shared his own vision for America. His agenda seems focused on addressing the problems created by the current administration and moving forward with policies to improve the future of the country. However, the question arises whether distancing himself from Project 2025 might cause him to lose support from his base. While some may argue that many in his base are drawn to the strong, bold policies of Project 2025 and might resist any form of moderation, it’s important to remember that Trump’s support comes from a diverse coalition. His ability to identify and respond to the changing concerns of his supporters has been a key factor in maintaining their loyalty. Furthermore, his base has always appreciated his focus on American strength, security, and prosperity, which remains central to his platform, regardless of whether he adopts or distances himself from Project 2025.
No doubt, Trump does face a balancing act when it comes to distancing himself from Project 2025, as he navigates the challenge of maintaining his base’s enthusiasm while appealing to a broader electorate. His supporters often favor strong, unmoderated positions, but Trump’s political history shows that he is willing to make decisions he believes are necessary, even if they don’t align perfectly with every segment of his base. A good example is his stance on abortion, where he has taken a more nuanced approach, advocating for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, and a given period of weeks to obtain an abortion. This shows that while Trump listens to his core supporters, he also considers the views and needs of the broader American public. It is likely that with Project 2025, he will continue to balance these pressures, prioritizing what he believes is best for the country overall while still advancing his core principles. In my view, his history shows he governs for all Americans.Do you feel he's still supporting and staying on track with mass deportation and abolishing the department of education as outlined in project 2025?
Trump did not explicitly say he would abolish the education system. However, during his presidency and campaign, he advocated for significant changes to education, such as promoting school choice, expanding charter schools, and reducing federal involvement in education. Critics sometimes interpret these positions as undermining the traditional public education system, but an outright abolition was not a stated goal. I have never heard him state he would "abolish the education system". I am afraid I would need a quote on that statement from Trump. ( I feel we need a good long look into our education system, and reform is needed in my view)
What I have learned about his immigration plans. --- He certainly understands he may not have helped from Congress --- Trump has emphasized a tough stance on immigration and deportation throughout his campaigns and presidency. He proposed increasing the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and resources to enforce immigration laws more strictly. Trump pledged to prioritize the deportation of undocumented immigrants with criminal records, asserting that they pose a threat to public safety. He also sought to end the policy of "catch and release," where migrants apprehended at the border are released into the U.S. while awaiting court hearings.
He continues to promote the construction of a border wall to prevent illegal immigration, arguing that it would facilitate enforcement efforts. Trump proposed reforms to asylum policies aimed at expediting the deportation of individuals who do not meet asylum requirements. These positions reflect his broader immigration policy goals, focusing on border security and strict enforcement of immigration laws.Trump has said on several occasions that he will shut down the agency if he returns to the White House.
“I say it all the time, I’m dying to get back to do this. We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he said earlier this month during a rally in Wisconsin.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tr … wisconsin. 35.35"However, during his presidency and campaign, he advocated for significant changes to education, such as promoting school choice, expanding charter schools, and reducing federal involvement in education."
I understood that he aimed to decrease federal involvement. Your quote indicates he wants to return responsibilities to the states, suggesting he believes some states might handle education better than others. This could highlight which states struggle with education standards, potentially leading to a more educated population than we currently have. I recognize that action needs to be taken. We have problems education our children.
(35:35) Fifth, we will drain the government education swamp and stop the abuse of your taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s youth with all sorts of things that you don’t want to have our youth hearing. Ultimately, we’ll … And you know what we’re doing here. I say it all the time. I’m dying to get back to do this. We will ultimately eliminate the Federal Department of Education and send education back to Wisconsin and back to the States. We’ll send it back to the States so that Ron Johnson can run it, okay? We’ll send it back here.
(36:17)
Mr Tiffany, we’ll get to our Congressman Tiffany involved. He made a good speech, too. We are at the bottom of every single list in education, you know that? We are at the bottom of every single list, and yet we’re number one in terms of cost per pupil. So, you know the expression I used once, twice, three times before, and it was very effective actually, what the hell do we have to lose, right? We’ll send our education back to the States and some states will do a fantastic job. Some won’t. And it’s the same ones that are laggards right now. I don’t want to name them because why would we want to embarrass Gavin Newscom and some of these people. Gavin Newscom. Why would we want to embarrass him?How much power do the states already have? Isn't the federal dept of education pretty much toothless regarding curriculum? From my understanding they are pretty much a data collection source, provide financial aid, and monitor issues like race in education.
Also, curious, I found an article by US News listing states education systems and rankings. The state I live California is ranked at #37. Kind of sad.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states … on/prek-12
"That's rich. You want me to be concerned about Harris' minimal lying, while Trump is the epitome of liars. "
You started this thread—are you open to seeing what fact-checkers discovered about inaccuracies from both candidates? Would you be willing to take a look and seriously consider the misleading statements Harris made during that debate?
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation as a framework intended to build on Trump's legacy while addressing contemporary political challenges, creating a vision that appeals to his supporters and the Republican base.
However, it's important to note that there is no evidence that Trump participated in its creation or has stated he would adopt its framework. It’s possible that narratives from the Democratic Party and left-leaning media could misrepresent this issue, leading to assumptions about Trump's involvement or intentions. Trump has publicly claimed he will not consider using the framework, which raises questions about the accuracy of any claims suggesting otherwise.
It’s clear you hold a perspective that I struggle to understand regarding your belief that Trump will incorporate elements from Project 2025. It feels as though a significant portion of the country has lost touch with reality. I no longer see it as sad, but dangerous.
I read the Wikipedia link, but it doesn't provide anything new beyond what I already know about the project, nor does it offer convincing evidence that Trump will adopt this framework if he wins. I believe most people have likely already made up their minds on how they'll vote.If Donald Trump gets elected president this November, he'll be so busy undoing all the damage that Joe Biden has done to this nation that he won't have time to read a 900-page document. He'll likely throw it in the trash even though it's from the Heritage Foundation.
@Readmikenow PROJECT 2025 is A LIE of the LEFT. They won't give it up because you and others that are NOT watching ANYTHING but ONE NARRATIVE believe it. Trump did NOT create, read or endorse what the Heritage Foundation Think Tank created. Stop spreading and believing the LIE.
I completely agree with you.
I wish they would stop with the "Good people on both sides" lie. That has been debunked many times. Even the left-leaning Snopes debunked it.
I wish they would stop with the "blood bath" comment. President Donald Trump was talking about what would happen to car industry.
I with they would stop with so many lies they tell. It's ridiculous.But... that's all they [the left] have, their many lies. They can't stop, it will only get worse. Buckle up.
Local Republicans reject Trump's claims about Haitian immigrants in their towns
Republicans in places like Springfield, Ohio, and Charleroi, Pa., say Haitian immigrants have provided a needed boost to their struggling municipalities.
Camera Bartolotta knew she had to say something.
The Republican state senator in Pennsylvania caught wind that former President Donald Trump was targeting a small town in her district as part of his new focus on recent Haitian immigration to red America.
At a rally earlier this month, Trump mentioned that Charleroi, with a population of 4,000 people, had experienced a significant wave “of Haitian migrants under Vice President Kamala Harris” that was “costing local taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.” He claimed the town was now “virtually bankrupt” as immigrants brought “massive crime to the town and every place near it.”
Soon after, right-wing influencers began parachuting in, hoping to document evidence of immigrant malfeasance and uncover divisions in the town. Rumors of migrant workers being “bused in” quickly spread online.
So Bartolotta took to social media. On Facebook, she said the recent immigrants to her community were there “LEGALLY to WORK, and pay taxes, and raise their children, and be part of the community, etc.” On X, she pushed back against videos claiming to show migrants being bused in, imploring the right-wing LibsOfTikTok account to “Please, check the facts before posting information [that] jeopardizes the safety of good, hard-working people.”
“I know the story of my neighborhood town, and I know the plight that a lot of these people escaped. I know what the kids are going through,” she said. “To see how the issue was being twisted and these individuals were being maligned and threatened and completely misunderstood, I felt it necessary [to speak out], because I represent everyone in my district, even those people who are there on work visas and are doing their best to raise their families.”
“I wanted to clear the air,” she continued. “I think I just poured gasoline on a fire. Who knows? But I just wanted to set the record straight.”
MOREI can't take credit for this, but it speaks well to the matter:
4 years ago, there were zero federal programs to illegally transport Haitian migrants to the US.
Harris launched multiple programs, including flights, to mass import Haitian illegals—with no public consent. 500K and counting.
No public officials has offered ANY public explanation for why these programs were launched or what benefit they are supposed to bring to Americans.
But if you believe we should return to the policy of just a few short years ago — illegals are deported, not imported — the media and Democrat elites calls you racist.
The same elites who melted down and deported a few dozen illegals from their ultra-rich coastal Hamlet in Martha’s Vineyard.
The leftist media hates you. The Democrat party hates you. And the only way to make your voice heard is to vote, vote, vote.
https://x.com/StephenM/status/1834706044079292924Well, considering they were legally imported to help fill jobs, those that are calling them illegals is actually pretty damned racist.
Claiming it was Harris who makes policy is another lie in that post.Ken, Ken — you might as well be beating a dead goat. It's obvious to many Americans that the huge influx of migrants, whether legal or not, has occurred under the current administration. All one has to do is look at the massive number of encounters. Yet, it's equally clear that many simply don't care, and the entire situation seems to have gone over their
heads. I expect your comment to receive a quick diversion to Trump. In my view, some in our society today, have a hard time seeing what is smack before them. Your photo's do speak for themself.If anyone else said it, no one would care... when Trump points it out, well, it has to be disproven... Regardless of the reality.
The gangster named ‘Barbecue’ who controls Haiti’s violent slums
https://www.ft.com/content/e5060468-dd3 … fe0e921ae9
The DC elites are totally clueless to who they are letting into the country and how dangerous they are. We are funding and supporting the cartels and gangs' entry into the US.
Open-border policies put in place by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have empowered the drug cartels in Mexico to seize operational control of the Southwest border and smuggle illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists and drugs into the United States.
Hundreds of thousands have taken advantage of Mayorkas’ parole programs and his illegitimate CBP One policy, accepting his offer of no-questions-asked release into the United States.
Per the New York Post, “Honduran migrants working for Mexican cartels brazenly took over San Francisco’s drug market thanks to lax policies.”
Another paper reported that the cartels are operating “on a very large scale” in Montana, thousands of miles from the border.
Drugs and the violence associated with them are engulfing communities across the country, and it can all be traced back to the cartels. Which can all be traced back to the Biden-Harris open-border open-society efforts.
Transnational gangs like MS-13, whose motto is “kill, rape, control,” are also taking advantage.
This will continue, gang control will become commonplace on the streets of America, with a Harris Presidency."Open-border policies put in place by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. "
What policy specifically did he "put in place?' I think we all understand that it is the role of the Congress to draft US immigration law.And it is the Executive Office's role to enforce, or not, those laws.
The Biden Administration’s Immigration Enforcement Priorities
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product … B/LSB10578
On January 20, 2021, President Biden revoked President Trump’s 2017 executive order on immigration enforcement priorities and directed DHS to implement new policies.
On September 30, 2021, DHS Secretary Mayorkas announced more permanent immigration enforcement guidelines.
In a memorandum to DHS components, Secretary Mayorkas asserted that DHS will only pursue the removal of aliens who fall within three distinct categories: (1) Threat to National Security, (2) Threat to Public Safety, and (3) Threat to Border Security.
Aliens falling within the “Threat to National Security” category include those who are engaged in activities relating to terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security.
Aliens falling within the “Threat to Public Safety” category generally include those who engaged in “serious criminal conduct,” but the guidelines require consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
The mere fact of a criminal conviction, regardless of its severity, is not sufficient in assessing whether enforcement action is warranted.
The Biden Administration’s attempt to reprioritize immigration enforcement efforts prompts questions of perennial interest to lawmakers on the scope of executive discretion in enforcing immigration laws, and how much resource limitations and policy preferences may inform enforcement priorities.
Based on previous estimates of the impact of similar immigration enforcement guidelines, the Biden Administration’s immigration enforcement guidelines could exempt the majority of removable aliens from enforcement efforts.Because Biden rescinded some executive orders from the Trump era does not equate to laws not being enforced. Enforcement priorities under Biden have been a categorical approach, whereby immigration status, criminal history, and time spent in the United States were the primary factors for making enforcement decisions.
Biden's policy prioritized apprehending and deporting non-U.S. citizens who pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security, giving agents more discretion to consider individual circumstances.
A narrower focus on removing those pose threats versus casting a wide net, makes more sense in my opinion.
Ken, I completely agree with your concerns about the current state of our border policies and the dangerous implications they have for our communities. It’s alarming how open-border strategies seem to empower drug cartels and transnational gangs, allowing them to operate with near impunity across the country. The fact that criminal elements are taking over drug markets in cities far from the border highlights just how far-reaching this issue has become. The ongoing violence and the presence of gangs like MS-13 pose significant threats to public safety, and nothing is being done to address these horrific issues effectively. What can be done now -- The problem is huge, and only mass deportation would help with the problem, as well as shutting that dam border until the migrants Biden let in can be handled by hearings, and deported as need be.
We need to secure our borders and protect our communities from these dangers. And yes now!
We can hope Trump wins or we will see more of the same, and live with the many consequences as Europe is now feeling the consequences of leaving their borders open.
"4 years ago, there were zero federal programs to illegally transport Haitian migrants to the US."
They have been granted TPS.
TPS was established by Congress in 1990 as part of the Immigration Act. It allows people from countries that are experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to live and work in the United States."Harris launched multiple programs, including flights, to mass import Haitian illegals—with no public consent. 500K and counting".
Can you identify the programs?
Sharlee, Voodoo is very similar to the practice of Macumba, an offshoot of Candomblé, a traditional African religion. Black cats are sacrificed to collect their blood, as people that practice this faith believes it has many benefits. https://www.giromarilia.com.br/noticia/ … ugada/4731 I do not have this link in English. It is about a woman who is trying to stop the sacrifice of black cats here in Brazil.
Practitioners of Macumba or Voodoo do not put up signs to welcome new worshipers and certainly would not welcome the city administrators. Of course there are no reports of such activity in Springfield as no one is going to announce this to anyone in the press.That certainly does not mean it is not happening.
What we do see are fewer black cats. If someone really cared to know the truth it would be easy enough to ask families how many black cats have come up missing. I do not think they are eaten like ducks but they are stolen and sacrificed, which is why we have no black cats here and there are not going to be black cats wandering around loose in a place where Haitian immigrants are placed.Sometimes, for a moment, I believe that Americans will wake up.
And then I watch something like this and I go, nope, we are screwed:
https://youtu.be/7wm4JBRaTnY?t=32Well, Ken, I saw the video and my first reaction was "cheap shot". I don't expect 20 year college students or any 20 year old to be the very epitome of knowledge and wisdom. But A woman as President, why not? Many European Democracies have female prime ministers and heads of states and the sky did not fall. Who knows maybe a woman at the the helm could introduce a different perspective and approach? It may even be better that what we have now.
I am going to ask Mr. Ken if he would pick on someone his own age, instead? Here are several examples of prominent people and politicians with plenty of sound adult reasoning (Republicans) as to why they support Harris over Trump. Let's talk about them rather than make the final determination on the viability of VP Harris' campaign based upon the opinions of teenagers.....
https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-repu … an-1939178From the same source, Newsweek arrives another list . . .
Full List of Republicans Signing Letter for Harris but Not Biden by Newsweek (Updated Sept 20,2024)
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- … ns-1956304
"In a letter to the public, over 100 ex-Republican members of congress and national security officials from the Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush and Trump administrations argued that while they might "disagree with Kamala Harris" on many issues, Trump had demonstrated "dangerous qualities," such as having an "unusual affinity" for dictators like President Vladimir Putin of Russia and "contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior."
"We believe that the President of the United States must be a principled, serious, and steady leader who can advance and defend American security and values, strengthen our alliances, and protect our democracy," the letter reads. "We expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but we believe that she possesses the essential qualities to serve as President and Donald Trump does not. We therefore support her election to be President.
"We firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump. As President, he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interest above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country's founding documents."
Both the source you provided and this one causes one to pause.Do you have a hypothesis as to why it came out this way? Perhaps, As we get closer to the elections more endorsements came through after Biden dropped out of the race. What do you think?
I didn't see this reply until today, Cred, Wed 09/25/24. In a round about way, I think the vast majority of at least independent voters, learners of both parties, and good portion of old school shall we say Republicans (Inclusive of leadership) started over with a 'Zero Point' when Harris became the Democratic Candidate. A 'Zero Point' is something I do meaning a new beginning point while emphasizes going forward. Of those voter segments mentioned Biden was a complete different assessment.
[Edit: After some more thought . . . Perhaps those republicans coming out today supporting Harris it may have been they were biting their tongues about voting for Trump when against Biden while remaining publicly silent due to some type of disdain for Trump. When Harris became the candidate the ball game changed.]
As shared elsewhere I am a 'data freak (Junkie)' as that was my job for the last 14 years of my career doing things like data mining, analysis, and creating reports. In other words, I like polls and have an interest in polling as a science. With my excursions I found it interesting of those comparing the dynamics of Harris vs Biden, Harris vs Trump, Biden vs. Trump both with Kennedy and without.
Interesting things have/are occurring such as . . .
"In an ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted from August 23 to 27, 24 percent of Republicans have a positive view of Harris' campaign, while 93 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents rate the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign positively."
Quarter of Republicans View Kamala Harris Campaign Positively: New Poll by Newsweek (Updated Sept 2, 2024)
https://www.newsweek.com/quarter-republ … ll-1947231
And, then remembering back about the Haley supporters who said they wouldn't vote Trump. Along with that are the Kennedy supporters who said they wouldn't vote Trump.
Yet, Trump vs Harris seems close, but how narrow are the margins in Swing/battle ground states.
Some of the horrible lies Trump tells:
Kamala’s illegals are also crushing your wages and stealing your jobs— last month alone, American-born workers LOST 1.3 million jobs, and migrants GAINED 635,000 jobs.
So as we create millions of new manufacturing jobs here in Georgia and nationwide, we will make sure these jobs go to AMERICAN CITIZENS, not ILLEGAL ALIENS.
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1838642629237469590
Vote Trump, and you will see a mass exodus of manufacturing from China to Pennsylvania, from Korea to North Carolina, and from Germany to right here in Georgia.
https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1838649326584893932'Vote Trump, and you will see a mass exodus of manufacturing from China to Pennsylvania, from Korea to North Carolina, and from Germany to right here in Georgia.'
More Trump wishcasting. No plan to achieve that pipe dream.It doesn't really matter does it?
We know what the choices are
Do you believe in NO Borders?
Do you believe Transmen should be treated as women and protected as a minority and allowed to compete against women?
Do you believe in spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year funding wars and helping kill hundreds of thousands of people and escalating toward nuclear war?
Do you believe in double digit inflation and increased taxation?
If you want and believe in these things... Vote Harris.I believe the right gets many of those things very wrong. The most obvious is the 'no borders' claim. Then when presented with the opportunity to update our asylum laws, the right chose not to.
The next is that everyone on the left agrees with the idea that trans women should be competing with biological women.
I do believe we should stand with our allies against foreign invasion.
The global inflation we have seen was from a pandemic caused by an anti-science moron who thought that it'd be a great idea to reduce CDC staff in China from 47 to 14 in 2019. A few months later, cue the pandemic. That people on the right put that on Biden is their own idiocy.
But I do believe in increased taxation - for the wealthiest Americans - like we had until Reagan allowed the wealth gap to balloon. But I also believe in spending cuts and a balanced budget.Somebody should educate Trump on how tariffs work. He is going around the country and saying if he is elected he is going to place 100% tariffs on cars manufactured in Mexico and other countries. What he and his MAGA folks don't realize is that the importer pays the tariff as a tax to the exporter. That tax is then passed on to the consumer as an increase in price of the goods.
When Trump was in office, he did that with goods coming from China. He claims we raked in 39 billion in tariffs. The fact is we paid out 39 billion to China as the exporter. He tired to export wheat and soy beans to other countries and they told him they would go elsewhere for their products and they did. He ended up subsidize those farmers.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto … -113955740So... if the price of a F150 made in Mexico is hit with a 100% tariff...
And the price of a F150 made/assembled in America isn't... what do you think happens?Speaking of education . . . Your tariff explanation doesn't seem right. Tariffs are collected from importers by U.S. Customs and sent to the Treasury. No tariff money goes to the exporting nation. I think.
GAHere is an article that I wrote about tariffs i and how they work back in 2019.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Tariffs-Made-Simple
"Somebody should educate Trump on how tariffs work. He is going around the country and saying if he is elected he is going to place 100% tariffs on cars manufactured in Mexico and other countries. What he and his MAGA folks don't realize is that the importer pays the tariff as a tax to the exporter. That tax is then passed on to the consumer as an increase in price of the goods." PP
When Trump says he will impose a 100% tariff on car companies bringing their vehicles into the U.S., he is referring to a tax that would double the cost of the imported cars at the border. This means that if a car company wanted to sell a vehicle in the United States, they would have to pay a tax equal to the price of the vehicle itself to the U.S. government.
Logically, car companies would not make any profit on a car period.
The increased costs --- immediate effect would be that the car company would need to pay a tax equal to the price of the car just to bring it into the U.S. For example.
To maintain profit margins, car companies would likely pass these increased costs onto consumers by raising the retail price of their vehicles. This could result in outrage higher prices for consumers, potentially leading to few sales... WHO WINS?
Perhaps this strategy although very different could work out to bring many automobile companies back into the US. Trump has also claimed he will offer great incentive for those who want to move back or set up shop. Such a simple plan, such a common-sense plan --- He more or less says --- come back to the US or fold. It's time for bold moves, moves that will benefit America.
"When Trump was in office, he did that with goods coming from China. He claims we raked in 39 billion in tariffs. The fact is we paid out 39 billion to China as the exporter. He tired to export wheat and soy beans to other countries and they told him they would go elsewhere for their products and they did. He ended up subsidize those farmers. " PP
While it is true that the U.S. government collected approximately $39 billion in tariffs on goods from China during Trump's presidency, stating that "we paid out 39 billion to China as the exporter" is misleading. Tariffs are imposed on imports, meaning that the revenue collected goes to the U.S. Treasury, not to China. The assertion conflates the idea of revenue collection with payment to the exporting country. The tariffs are a cost to U.S. importers, but they do not constitute a payment to China.
The claim about exporting wheat and soybeans overlooks the complexity of international trade dynamics. Yes, U.S. farmers faced challenges due to retaliatory tariffs imposed by countries like China. However, the decision by some foreign buyers to seek alternatives does not negate the fact that U.S. agricultural exports remained significant. The U.S. continues to be a major exporter of agricultural products, and farmers often adjust their strategies based on market conditions. While some farmers received subsidies as a temporary measure to mitigate the impact of tariffs, this is a common practice in agriculture during trade disruptions, not an indication of failure.I hate to tell you this, but your comments are generalizations about how tariffs work.
Please read this and let me know how you feel about some specific examples of tariffs in the real world..
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/wh … ariff-hike
Do you know why we switched from GNP to GDP? GNP is about Gross National Product and only accounted for goods and services made here.
GDP accounts for products manufactured here, but also parts that are made in other countries and assembled to products made here. Mexico makes many parts that are assembled to cars made here.
Please read this article to understand what happens with cars and parts made in other countries that are sold here
https://econofact.org/how-much-of-your- … -in-mexicoAs for what I tried to share about Donald Trump, he has stated that he intends to use a combination of very high tariffs and substantial incentives to encourage automobile companies to bring their manufacturing plants back to the United States. I would describe this as a "stick and carrot" approach—where tariffs act as the "stick" (a deterrent against outsourcing) and the incentives act as the "carrot" (a reward for investing domestically).
Trump hopes to bring back more manufacturing to the United States, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign-made parts. His approach involves a combination of high tariffs on imports and offering significant incentives to companies that bring their production back to the U.S. This strategy appears to be designed to make domestic manufacturing more attractive and cost-competitive.
In terms of the automotive industry, Trump may be hoping that by implementing these measures, the parts currently made abroad—such as those manufactured in Mexico—will eventually be produced domestically. This would not only boost the U.S. manufacturing sector but also reduce dependency on international supply chains, thereby keeping more of the value-added work within the country.
I would think --- GDP, rather than GNP, aligns more closely with Trump's plan because GDP focuses on all economic activity within the U.S., including production by foreign companies operating in the country. Trump's goal of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. would directly impact GDP, as it measures all goods and services produced domestically, regardless of ownership.
On the other hand, GNP measures the production of U.S.-owned companies, regardless of where that production occurs. If a U.S. company produces parts abroad, those would count toward GNP but not GDP. Since Trump's plan aims to increase domestic production—including parts currently made abroad—the measure of success would be reflected in an increase in GDP, as more manufacturing activities are brought back within U.S. borders.Does Trump's plan take into account labor costs here compared to having lower labor costs in other countries? Corporations are all about bottom line profits. That's why we send parts to other countries to have them assembled over there and then imported back here. Even with all of that, the bottom line profit is still higher than US labor costs.
That is precisely what corporations do with China and other low labor cost countries.. What assembly workers here are going to work as cheaply as Chinese labor?
Trump hopes to bring back more manufacturing to the United States, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign-made parts. His approach involves a combination of high tariffs on imports and offering significant incentives to companies that bring their production back to the U.S. This strategy appears to be designed to make domestic manufacturing more attractive and cost-competitive.
What significant incentives would Trump's plan have for companies to bring their manufacturing back here?. The only thing I can think of is money or lower taxes. Where would that money come from? Lower taxes for corporations reduces revenue taken in to pay our debt and fund government entities.. Sounds like a shell and pea game to me.Do you understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy? When Biden puts a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and complains about the unfair Chineses trade practies, as he does in this article https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … practices/ the Dems all stand behind him and support him. When Trump discusses tariffs the Dems tell him that it will not bring manufacturing back. It sounds like the Dems are the ones practicing the game to me.
DrMark1961: I never said I liked Biden's policy for Tariffs. I don't like tariffs, especially in a global market place. Corporations are always concerned about their bottom line profit. One of the ways they achieve that is by lower labor costs from other countries.
How many assembly line workers in this country do you think would work for the same pay scale as Chinese assembly workers?
Trump plans on offering incentives to corporations to bring back manufacturing here. I can't find anybody who can tell me what those incentives are. I don't think Trump even knows. Those are just buzz words he has picked up that sound good.
They have to be in some form of money and where is that money coming from? Trump already took defense money to fund his wall that was supposed to be paid by Mexico. Where is he going to get the money for his incentive plan? Another shell and pea game.I agree that tariffs are often a bad idea. But what else do we have in the arsenal to combat another country competing with our businesses? Obviously unfair, but what else can we do about it?
Trump's incentives to bring back business - you're right in that I've heard no specifics. On the other hand, Democrats in general, specifically Harris, don't appear to find it a problem that so much of our manufacturing has moved overseas. Of the two I'll take recognition without specific solutions over pretending it hasn't happened or isn't a problem.Yes, point taken, I do not think I have seen you support tariffs even when they were proposed by Biden-Harris. I have seen many Dems come out and condemn tariffs and support them when they were put in place by Biden.
I do not think anyone is going to want to earn what a Chinese assembly worker earns, which is why the Chinese goods have to cost more. If that little 15 dollar trinket from Temu was 1500 dollars the US consumers would stop purchasing there and buy American. It is not like they are going to die because they are not able to have disposable clothing from Schein.
I saw recently that the latest tri-fold cell phone from Xiaomei was selling for 2500 dollars in the US. An iphone here in Brazil costs more than that and yet almost no one is without a cell phone these days. (There are more cell phones out there than there are Brazilians.) If the tariffs for an iphone produced in China and sold in the US were increased so that a cell phone sold for 3000 do you think the American consumers would lose out. NO, they would not. The consumers would be fine, find cheaper alternatives, and Apple would lose out, which is why they do not want Trump to be president of the US.
Liberals will enjoy this segment from Seth Myers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKXu702WMkUI expect there to be campaign ads about this statement...
Speaking to the press outside the heavily damaged brick facade of a warehouse in Valdosta, GA, Trump opined, “Nobody thought this would be happening, especially now it’s so late in the season for the hurricanes.”
Hurricane season typically runs from early June through late November, meaning that there are still two months to go. What’s more, forecasters with the National Hurricane Center not only knew of Helene’s coming, but accurately predicted its path and impact days before it hit.
The stable genius showing off his knowledge base yet again, folks.Got to give credit where credit is due. Vance is winning the VP debate.
I think he's doing a good job (they both are) but Id not say he's winning. I believe they are about even.
Walz is getting in some shots, but he should have called out Vance for thinking that Harris is president and putting all the policies he's claimed she enacted into place. Something like, 'if I were Trump I'd be worried because JD apparently thinks the Vice President runs the country.'
I thought the same thing, but also realize that the VP must accept the policies of the President, as Vance did over losing the election. Like you I would give the nod to Vance for winning, but that one item cost him, and badly. I think even I could have answered it better than Vance did.
Accept them, sure. But Vance did more than state she accepted them - he repeatedly stated she created the policies. Which is just straight up lying.
And Vance is definitely going to get ripped to shreds in ads about not accepting the outcome of the upcoming election. Election denialism was a failed policy in 2022 and will be again in 2024.I doubt he will be "ripped to shreds". I, and I believe millions of others, have sniggered every time that claim has been made. We are a nation that cannot go a single year with an election somewhere being recounted because of possible errors, and we are a nation that constantly tried to twist elections to come out the way we want them rather than the way the people voting want them. To then claim that there was NO fraud, even as we know there was, to claim that wanting an investigation is denying the results even as we recognize it happens every year, well, that is just the liberal philosophy in action. As long as the election goes their way it is fine, and we won't talk about the things they do to affect it or the times they want it checked.
It was nothing more than reinforcement of each sides strongest points.
Neither fumbled things, neither drastically harmed the other.
Walz did best reinforcing why women should vote Dem.
Vance hit home in most other areas.
Abortion will be why Harris wins and I said this over a month ago now.
Ultimately the reversal of Roe is why the election will go 60% women to Harris.
Otherwise the insane migration policies and economic concerns would give it to Trump.
Oh well...So if only half of the voters are women and 40 percent of them realize there are more important things in this world, that means she will have a guaranteed 30 percent.
Women make up 52% of the voters...
58% of those women voters voted for Biden.
42% of men voted for Biden.
Since that time... Roe was tossed by the Supreme Court making Abortion a HOT topic issue for 87% of women voters under the age of 40.
Harris will get 60% of the women vote.
Hence, Harris will win...
When they tossed Biden aside like the relic he is...
Look... they aren't going to let Trump into the Presidency again.
The deals and decisions have already been made as to the Nation's course.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/ … 425289.pdf
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154671
https://www.vox.com/2021/5/7/22423139/b … e-historic
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134157
The UN is being used to bypass the Constitution, the West is adopting a borderless EU type of authority superseding national authority.
So that they can create a future unburdened by what has been.
It most likely is going to cause us immense social and economic turmoil that will lead to a century (or couple decades worth at the minimum) of suffering (and this is the best case scenario, hundreds of millions dying from war and starvation is the worst case).
Obviously, the BRICS nations don't plan on going along with this, so they are creating their own trade agreements and new currency system to replace SWIFT.
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc. do not have any interest in allowing an International Order/Body have any real authority over them. They are not going to sacrifice their power, nor their nation's best interests, for the sake of a higher Institution.
ICE released over 435,000 migrants with criminal convictions, data shows
https://www.borderreport.com/immigratio … ata-shows/
Its not going to be pleasant... it never is when you are in a hurry to build a new world, unburdened by what has been.If Harris gets elected, the military draft will definitely be reinstated. That will infuriate a lot of people who have kids that would be likely to be drafted. There's been a lot of talk about it. I say that whoever votes for Harris has no right to complain about it.
I hope you are incorrect and less of those Biden voters are going to turn out as they have seen how your country has declined in the last few years. Even if Biden did get that large a percentage of live women voters (and not mail ins from dead people and those other mail in ballots filled out by angry postal workers) I think he will get less, but I guess we are not going to know for a while.
Did you see Mayorkas this morning admitting that FEMA did not have enough funds left to take care of the hurricane victims? It seems like the FEMA budget has been used to pay for illegal immigrants.'Declined?' Biden has been overseeing a recovery from a disastrous final term of a Trump presidency. And you do realize that Biden is no longer in the race, right?
'Even if Biden did get that large a percentage of live women voters (and not mail ins from dead people and those other mail in ballots filled out by angry postal workers) I think he will get less, but I guess we are not going to know for a while.' That statement makes it seem like you're unaware that Trump is running against Harris now.Did you read the post I was replying to? Ken was using Bidens reported vote numbers in 2020 to estimate Harris numbers in 2024.
I am sorry that you are not able to understand that.
I talk to people dealing with that daily...
If not for the efforts of private citizens, and the efforts of people like Trump and Musk, there would be hundreds more casualties from people who could get no help or communication any other way.
And our MSM (Main Stream Media) does nothing to hold the Biden Administration accountable... as they funnel a few billion more to Ukraine, some of which gets redirected back into the DNC coffers I am sure.
You want to see how Americans get crapped on by their government, wait until after Harris becomes President... then the kid gloves and efforts of deception are no longer needed, then there is no chance to reverse what has been done in the last 4 years to transform America.
I'm an old Army Vet, spent some time in places where social decency didn't exist, and the ease with which life was taken from others needed no more consideration than lighting up a cigarette...
America is well on its way to that reality... barring of course we don't drastically cause something worse to occur in our efforts to bring about WWIII.
Gotta wipe that 36 Trillion dollar debt off the books somehow.
I expect Harris to get 60% of women's votes. And at least that of the black vote.
But not because of abortion and not because the the massive good Democrats do for blacks. I think that because such a large proportion of our country is not rational about their vote and does not care what the nation needs - only what they (usually falsely) think will get them the most.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard "It's about time we had a woman for President!" as if that makes Harris a better President. THAT'S the thinking that prevails for so many people."But not because of abortion and not because the the massive good Democrats do for blacks. I think that because such a large proportion of our country is not rational about their vote and does not care what the nation needs - only what they (usually falsely) think will get them the most."
And you and your right wing Trumpers don't do that? What makes you so rational? Talk about arrogance.....I don't have any "right wing Trumpers"; that is your prerogative. And no, I don't vote based on sex or color.
If you tell me that you haven't heard that "It's time for a woman for President" it is my considered opinion that you are bald face lying. If it is arrogant to recognize truth and reality I plead guilty. You can live in your imaginary liberal utopia."I don't have any "right wing Trumpers"; that is your prerogative. And no, I don't vote based on sex or color."
Neither do I, wilderness, what is it about you that believes that your opposing side does?
"If you tell me that you haven't heard that "It's time for a woman for President" it is my considered opinion that you are bald face lying. If it is arrogant to recognize truth and reality I plead guilty. You can live in your imaginary liberal utopia."
Yes, I have heard it, so what? I believe most of you support Trump primarily because he is a white male and I have said as much before over several threads.
But, you want to know something? The first female as President is just one driving point among many. I would say the reasoning for me and many others, prominent or no, for supporting the Harris/Walz ticket is that we simply feel uncomfortable putting a CONVICTED felon, CONVICTED Sexual predator, a treasonous insurrectionist, a man with the temperament of a petulant toddler and a consummate liar at the helm of most powerful office in the world. You know, that could be a reason too?
Your truth and reality is soiled in crimson red and is subscribed to only by your own. Your truth and reality is not that of many others. So you can come down from Mt. Olympus and recognize that your opinion and judgement is hardly the last word regarding anything....
Vance looked confident about everything he said and spoke with spontaneity in his responses, whereas Walz always had a dead serious look on his face whenever he spoke. I would have to say that neither side won, but rather it was a tie. It was somewhat hilarious that they would both compliment each other and then turn around and say that they distrusted each other's presidential candidate.
If you can access this New York Times fact check on both candidates it may bring in perspective and clarity
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/01 … walz-vance
Vance complained about being fact checked, surely he did not think that he could lie or provide clearly erroneous information without being called on itI imagine that he thought the rules were no live fact checking. And he was right.
Brian Tyler Cohen summed up the debates when he noted the clear messages near the end of each debate from the candidates that the American people heard.
For Trump, 'migrants are eating your pets.'
For Vance, a refusal to acknowledge the objective reality that Trump lost the 2020 election.
Delusion from top to bottom was the message.Does anyone think the VP debates changed any voter's minds?
I don't think it did. It was entertaining, but I think that was about it.Hands down, Kamala Harris won the debate. Trump lied to everyone stating he won. If he is correct in his assumption, then why is he refusing to engage in a second presidential debate with her? Something to ponder, indeed.
Just curious, did you note that they constantly interrupted and fact checked Trump, but never Harris?
The neat thing about that, is people went back and fact checked those fact checks and found most of them to be false or misleading.... interesting, isn't it?
Did you notice that Harris never gave one solid and substantive answer... I would say she had less substance in all that she said than Trump did, and considering Trump was more concerned about arguing whether people left his rallies early or not than promoting things that really matter, that is saying something.
But hey, the media has been there to put lipstick on this pig of an Administration for the last four years, they can do it for another 4 years just fine... obviously many Americans still believe what they are peddling.'The neat thing about that, is people went back and fact checked those fact checks and found most of them to be false or misleading.... interesting, isn't it?'
The migrants eating pets was debunked before Trump brought it to a national debate stage, which then ended up with numerous domestic terror acts against the children of Springfield, OH.
Trump claimed that Harris met with Putin and the moderators gave her a chance to rebut that, which she did.
The moderators stated Trump had admitted he lost in 2020 in recent weeks, which he then denied and said he was just being sarcastic.
The claim that Democrats are willing to kill babies after birth is just plain false. The example Trump used was a major distortion to try and make that point.
So, the things he was fact-checked on were things that were extremely radical and clearly falsehoods.
None of this silly back and forth stuff matters.
"We the People Only have We the People" and the southeast is suffering, we need to focus on aiding those in need. The Gov has made their choice as to whom they serve, and it ain't us! We the people must come through and have each other's back.'The Gov has made their choice as to whom they serve...'
Right now, there's another MAGA disinformation campaign to try and convince people in the South that FEMA is not helping. We've seen this from day one when Trump said that Governors were not hearing from Biden about their needs. Like election fraud, it's all invention. But the MAGA faithful is so gullible that they'll believe this crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOxcEP3cgIU
I am sorry. A lot going on!
Great comic relief, Ken~
