Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

Biden has, to semi-quote Discworld, all the charisma of a duck egg.

If Trump was smart he could have leveraged that. But he really didn't.

[StrawBarrel]

Four Star General Reports that Trump praises Hitler
https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1gak23j/four_star_general_reports_that_trump_praises/
A very good video of Kamala Harris 👍

Youtube Mirror: WATCH: Harris says 'unstable' Trump seeks unchecked power after report he praised Hitler's generals

Vice President Kamala Harris called out former President Donald Trump for saying he wanted U.S. military generals to behave like Nazi leader Adolph Hilter’s generals — who Trump believes demonstrated unquestioning loyalty to their leader.

“Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution. ... He wants a military who will be loyal to him, personally -- one that will obey his orders, even when he tells them to break the law or abandon to their oath to the Constitution of the United States,” she said Wednesday at her vice-presidential residence on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory. “It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. All of this is further evidence into who Donald Trump really is.”

Trump’s reported comments were shared by John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who served Trump as both Homeland Security secretary and White House chief of staff from 2017-2019, and published in The Atlantic magazine.

“He told me that when Trump raised the subject of ‘German generals,’ Kelly responded by asking, ‘Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’ He went on: ’I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, “Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals? And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler.' Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel,” Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic and the moderator of Washington Week with The Atlantic, reported.

Donald Trump sounds like he is really bad at history and also fascist.

[hector13]

But the polls are still tighter than a nun’s bum.

[Starver]

...Deepfaked AI-face-/body-/voics-swapped resurgent "Downfall" meme when?

(I could believe that all, almost too good to be true. But his actual core will not care, or be just as history-blind, or think the only think Hitler did wrong was lose[1], or try to "fact check" it as a dirty political untruth similar to the cats'n'dogs type of thing that they are happy to unfailingly accept as 'true'.)


[1] Which can easily boil down to "He didn't listen to them enough, and brow-beat them to do things his way, regardless", to over-simplify only a tad.

[McTraveller]

I wonder if the betting markets that are forecasting a Trump win are really people thinking it's going to go that way or if it's people manipulating the odds to make it look like people think it's going to go that way.

[Robot Parade Leader]

Four Star General Reports that Trump praises Hitler
https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1gak23j/four_star_general_reports_that_trump_praises/
A very good video of Kamala Harris 👍

Youtube Mirror: WATCH: Harris says 'unstable' Trump seeks unchecked power after report he praised Hitler's generals

Vice President Kamala Harris called out former President Donald Trump for saying he wanted U.S. military generals to behave like Nazi leader Adolph Hilter’s generals — who Trump believes demonstrated unquestioning loyalty to their leader.

“Donald Trump said that because he does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution. ... He wants a military who will be loyal to him, personally -- one that will obey his orders, even when he tells them to break the law or abandon to their oath to the Constitution of the United States,” she said Wednesday at her vice-presidential residence on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory. “It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. All of this is further evidence into who Donald Trump really is.”

Trump’s reported comments were shared by John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who served Trump as both Homeland Security secretary and White House chief of staff from 2017-2019, and published in The Atlantic magazine.

“He told me that when Trump raised the subject of ‘German generals,’ Kelly responded by asking, ‘Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’ He went on: ’I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, “Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals? And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler.' Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel,” Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic and the moderator of Washington Week with The Atlantic, reported.

Donald Trump sounds like he is really bad at history and also fascist.

Yeah, this is one of the problems with "the numbers" as a justification for anything. Look at the polls right now.

"The numbers" can be twisted. Trump says things were just a utopia under him. This is an obvious lie. Somehow it is believed?

"The numbers" don't mean what bean counters say they mean. So, the rest of us won't trust anything including legit science, which is sad. We don't feel we have an actual choice.

So here we are America. We have a former (and very possibly future?) President who is just outright supporting Hitler.
This information comes from a Marine General, and republican who was Trump's chief of staff.
(Not a "liberal Source") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kelly

Anyone who knows and works with him says he is terrible
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-book-criticizing-donald-170724638.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

45 years of cutting education funding, "but why should we pay for [insert education thing here]?"

We have a once (and very possibly future?) President supporting Hitler and half the country will vote for him.

[MonkeyHead]

Ugh, cant shake off the vibe that one of two things is going to happen.

Either, Harris is going to crush Trump as her popular vote leads to a straightforward 270 that the media somehow missed in among all the post truth bollocks...

Or Trump is going to romp to 270 despite losing the popular vote by squeaking a few swing states.

Hoping for the former, but suspect the latter.

[hector13]

Swing states are mostly tight, but I believe in the previous two elections in which Trump competed, the polling numbers suggested he would get fewer votes than he ultimately received.

[McTraveller]

It's so hard to say, because I know I have ignored every single cold-call and text that appears to be a poller, and there are probably thousands (if not millions) like me. Do the pre-vote statistics include how many people ignored the poll question? Is the polling a case of "statistics never lie, but they can say whatever you want?"

I mean if you try to cold call 100 people, 70 ignore you, 16 say they will vote A and 14 say they will vote B, you can't really claim anything can you?

I live in a swing state - and I can say that I see way more Harris yard signs than I saw Biden yard signs back in 2020, and my state went Biden in 2020 by less than 3% of the vote.

Basically I think there are a lot of people that are afraid to advertise which way they're going to vote, on both sides of aisle, and it's really going to come down to the actual vote, not any pre-poll.

[Random_Dragon]

Either, Harris is going to crush Trump as her popular vote leads to a straightforward 270 that the media somehow missed in among all the post truth bollocks...

I'm worried that even if we get this outcome he'll incite another fucking domestic terrorist attack and/or it openly leads to civil war, along with every fascist wannabe in office doing everything they can to try and forcibly prevent peaceful transfer of power.

[wobbly]

Trump's campaign seems non confidant. He always slews heavier into conspiratorial junk when he suspects he is going to lose. Are we placing bets yet, Mine is at 60% Harris, 40% Trump. 110% chance of nonsense happening whether he wins or loses.

[Frumple]

It's so hard to say, because I know I have ignored every single cold-call and text that appears to be a poller, and there are probably thousands (if not millions) like me. Do the pre-vote statistics include how many people ignored the poll question? Is the polling a case of "statistics never lie, but they can say whatever you want?"

I've seen it put (apparently originating from somewhere on reddit), "We'll find out in two weeks whether the polling is fucked, or every other metric is fucked." Polling is saying neck and neck, every other metric is saying Kamala's going to have a decent go at a blowout and things aren't looking rosy downballot for the GOP, either.

Not sure where I fall on that one, though. Like, the polls are pretty obviously fucked but maybe the other metrics are, too.

I'm worried that even if we get this outcome he'll incite another fucking domestic terrorist attack and/or it openly leads to civil war, along with every fascist wannabe in office doing everything they can to try and forcibly prevent peaceful transfer of power.

Though for what it's worth, this is actually something I'm pretty unworried about. Jan 6 was the dumpster fire it was because Trump was in power at the time, control of the fed hadn't been handed over yet. That's not true, this time, and there is precious little chance folks fucking around at the time of the transfer are going to get anything out of it but a great heaping of "find out".

There might be attempts (maybe; a great many of the folks stupid enough to try are currently in jail or probation, so...), but I wouldn't expect much to actually come of it.

[Lord Shonus]

Swing states are mostly tight, but I believe in the previous two elections in which Trump competed, the polling numbers suggested he would get fewer votes than he ultimately received.

2020 polls weren't actually that far off - the issue was that turnout on both sides was a lot higher than expected. This meant that a lot more of the "unlikely" voters showed up and skewed the results. These unlikely voters were skewing Trump in the polls, making the result narrower than expected but within polling.

That's not really relevant to the polls today. Right now we're not only getting a ton of very blatantly Republican-biased polls, but everybody's polls are extremely shaky because the response rate is incredibly low. Last I saw, it was taking multiple thousands of cold calls to get one actual response, because so many people don't answer the phone anymore if they don't recognize the number. This makes accurate polling very difficult. This is also likely skewing the results because the one demographic who does in fact reliably answer the phone every time it rings is elderly people - who also have a well-demonstrated R bias. There's a real chance that the only value most of these polls have is that you can, if you print them out, wipe your ass with them.

[Frumple]

I do kinda' suspect that unless there's some incredibly drastic changes to the ecosystem they're functioning in, polling in general and phone polling in specific just... isn't actually going to work going forward. You can't operate effective polling when your operators are fundamentally untrusted by the vast majority of the public. There's zero way to get a representative sample out of that, it's just flatly impossible. The people who do respond are not going to be representative of the population, flat out. Statistics can massage a lot but it's incredibly difficult to do anything worth a damn with a data set poisoned from one end to the other right at the root.

Unfortunately, there's also sod all the polling companies can do about it. The problem isn't what they're doing, it's what third parties are doing that renders their efforts functionally useless. Folks (that is, a representative sample of the population) have to be able to, largely, trust that whoever's on the other end of the line is legitimate and largely non-malicious, and right now you just... can't. You can't trust random phone calls, you broadly can't trust any call except ones you've previously vetted. You can't trust random websites aren't going to try to infest your system with malware or phish your private information. So on and so forth. Every venue polling can use, the only people that's going to respond to them are people who aren't representative of the general population.

And, like. You can try to guess what the rest of the population's acting like based on how those ones are. But that's not exactly reliable even by polling standards, might as well be ringing up cleo and seeing what the horoscopes are saying that week

Basically what they need is some way to strangle scam and robo calls (and websites, and emails) in the crib, put a cap in the fraud market's head and dump the body in a sump. Good friggin' luck with that one.

[MaxTheFox]

I don't think Trump has much of a chance but the fact that it's this close is sad.