General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (10 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 11 (members: 2, guests: 9)
    SamAndreas

    SamAndreas

    It's Not my Fault
    Joined
    Dec 2, 2021
    Messages
    2,146
    Reaction score
    2,013
    Age
    65
    Location
    California
    Offline
    Today it begins, Kamala has reached the point that she's the Democratic Party nominee:

    There's video from today. this link has video from her first public appearance since Biden endorsed her:


    She spent yesterday on the telephone for most of the day. I read that yesterday that she called the party leaders in all 50 states. That would take me three days.

    She's renamed her YouTube channel, that's the where to go for video: https://www.youtube.com/@kamalaharris

    This is her video on her channel from two hours ago:



    To play it, start it, and then move it up to 5:47. This was one of those live videos which don't start at zero.

    I've named this thread General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump

    Trump needs an introduction post as well, a MAGA suporter ought to write it: @Farb, @SaintForLife , @Others, calling for someone to please introduce your GOP candidate for this 2024 general election thread.
     
    Last edited:
    GrandAdmiral said:
    They are about to fight on CNN. This dude with the 1776 Project PAC is about to get forked up.
    Click to expand...
    I saw that. I forgot their names, but one of the panelists was named Meddi. He said something in support of Palestine, and the 1776 Project PAC guy said something about his pager going off. It implied he wanted Israel to blow him up. The PAC guy then said he thought Meddi said something in favor of Hamas, which is a common mis-association. The PAC guy gave a half-hearted apology, but that comment was too low to condone, and the apology was too insincere. It was a disgusting remark among a group that is supposed to be having a civil conversation, and I was very impressed with the way Abby Phillips handled the situation. They went to break, and both Meddi and the PAC guy were gone when they returned. I was a tad disappointed that Meddi left the panel, but under the circumstances, he was probably too emotional to continue. I've been very impressed with Abby Phillips for a while, because she deftly calls out obvious distortions and misleading statements. Last night it was about crossing a civil line that she won't accept on her panel, so she solidified my very good impression of her last night.
     
    Bezos response to the non endorsement
    =======================

    In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress.

    But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

    Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately.

    The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

    Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement.

    Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion.

    It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help.

    Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

    Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None.

    What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.

    Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right.

    By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction.

    I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

    I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.

    Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision.

    But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false…….

     
    Last edited:
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    If Harris wins the election, I hope her first order of business is to FIRE this nation's Top Cop!!!! Garland has been asleep on the job from DAY ONE! I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on because I knew that his main concern was to restore DoJ's credibility, but he has completely neutered the DoJ by his inaction.
    Click to expand...
    I agree that Garland has been slow to act on Trump, but like you said, there was justification to restore credibility. Nevertheless, I don't understand why you would blame Garland for ballot box attacks. I suspect the attackers are targeting boxes that are more likely to lean Democratic, but for the moment, I think it is probably a local jurisdiction matter. The FBI could get involved, but I think it is too soon for the DoJ to be involved.
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    What I like is that Abbey Phillips removed the guy from the show even though he "apologized." She stood up to him and issued consequences on national TV. In the clip above, the anchor, and I love everything I've seen from that guy, calls out the viewers comment for what it was, a lame attempt to defend racist people they like or racist things they like topped off with the closing line of, "that's not very Colorado."

    News outlets are starting to push back and they're not doing it too late. Trump will lose early voting ballots, he needs to have a big win in election day ballots. Seeing this push back of "enough is enough" from news outlets will be fresh on a lot of voters minds on election day.
    Click to expand...
    Yeah I really like Clark. I saw vids of him moderating a debate. He didn't let bs slide, and I instantly appreciate that. I respect Phillips. Unfortunately, ever since their fox news lite venture, I've lost trust and respect for CNN, and refused to tune to them. Phillips is an innocent bystander. Anderson Cooper prominently is my protest. Charlamange da god may have been a jon Stewart on cnn's crossfire moment.

    You know, I'm gonna go on a small rant here about these types of format. A discussion table is legitimately a good form of debate. PBS has historically done a really good job of it, inviting rational guests. But here, CNN wants every issue to have a counter point. Have they not learned from Stewart's crossfire appearance? Some issues cannot be defended. Calling Puerto Rico trash cannot be excused nor defended. Similarly, you cannot have flat earthers come on discussing a solar eclipse. Sfl will call the following censorship, and he will never understand the topic. Media companies/newspapers have editors moderate their content to ensure proper discussions, vetting, or correct facts. Otherwise, the noise in itself will be a censorship to that issue. CNN and the likes have discarded this idea and believes every view is legitimate when clearly they are not. Now proper time for useful discussion is wasted on crap like above.
     
    As pointed out - party affiliations of early voting are less meaningful this year. In previous elections Rs were told to only vote on Election Day - this time they have been encouraged to vote early. I saw an analysis of voting numbers that said it appears early R voters are the same voters that used to vote on Election Day - not new voters. Musk is so narcissistic he has no clue what he doesn’t know.

    And Dem party early voters still outnumber R early voters by a substantial margin, so comparing only the number of early R voters in 2024 to early R voters in 2020 is meaningless as all get out. The last figure I read was that about 388k more democrats than R had voted/returned ballots at this point.

     
    Last edited:
    MT15 said:
    As pointed out - party affiliations of early voting are less meaningful this year. In previous elections Rs were told to only vote on Election Day - this time they have been encouraged to vote early. I saw an analysis of voting numbers that said it appears early R voters are the same voters that used to vote on Election Day - not new voters. Musk is so narcissistic he has no clue what he doesn’t know.

    And Dem party early voters still outnumber R early voters by a substantial margin, so comparing only the number of early R voters in 2024 to early R voters in 2020 is meaningless as all get out.

    Click to expand...


    Musk doesnt understand that if you tell some Rs that they are "crushing" it early, they wont vote on Election day.

    The 2024 early vote tally is siphoning from the existing number of Rs registered to vote in PA.

    He is purposefully misleading to create a narrative that coincides with "polls show us up big/we cant lose" for the subsequent election fraud claims post Nov 5.
     
    AUSTIN (KXAN) — The San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) said Saturday it’s investigating threatening flyers found throughout San Marcos that target supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a social media post.

    SMPD chief Stan Standridge said his department has found at least five flyers, with reports about the flyers starting on Friday.

    “We’re trying to identify the scope of how many flyers have been disseminated across San Marcos,” Standridge said. “We have already notified the FBI, and that we’ve also notified the regional fusion centers—both Southwest [Texas] Fusion center and the Austin Regional Intelligence Center.”...........


    1730216090851.png
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    AUSTIN (KXAN) — The San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) said Saturday it’s investigating threatening flyers found throughout San Marcos that target supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a social media post.

    SMPD chief Stan Standridge said his department has found at least five flyers, with reports about the flyers starting on Friday.

    “We’re trying to identify the scope of how many flyers have been disseminated across San Marcos,” Standridge said. “We have already notified the FBI, and that we’ve also notified the regional fusion centers—both Southwest [Texas] Fusion center and the Austin Regional Intelligence Center.”...........


    1730216090851.png
    Click to expand...
    You read this leaflet and the first thing you imagine is some fat slob sitting in his moms basement, trying to come up with big words to scare his target audience, and every time he gets stuck on a word or phrase. He screams up to his mom, so she can correct the spelling.”MOM! How do you spell magnificent?? And is lunch ready?”
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom