Election 2024 & Presidential Cage Match: Dark Brandon 46 vs Felonious Farty 45

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, hail2skins said:

All the naysayers were predicting from Jan 2017 that Biden would not finish his term. I did not believe that.

Ugh, I had to listen to my Dad and his friends talk about how Biden was going to immediately step down to put Kamala Harris in power who would then enact reparations.

[PleaseBlitz]

Gotta admire the argument "Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it? Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates?" when the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly nominate a rapist. 

. 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Folks are starting give Biden his flowers on the economy and Trump is potentially left campaigning on illegal immigration despite bragging about torpedoing a bipartisan bill to address it.

About 2 months ago the headlines were something like “economists reluctantly admit their negative outlooks were wrong”

 

so it makes sense that sentiment is starting to trickle down. 
 

but bogus negative forecasts from people that are supposed to be believe by the public, despite never really having reality line up, going on for a while now, definitely helped sow negative feelings about the economy 

 

I know everyone wants to credit Fox News for the whole price of eggs thing but other people did the real work there, Fox News just tried to sweep in and take credit at the end is all 

Edited February 21 by tshile

[China]

Trump's Michigan speech: What he got right, wrong about EVs, China and the auto industry

 

• "Nobody wants to buy" electric vehicles. False. There is no dip in demand. There is a slowing of growth in demand. All car companies, including Tesla, see that increased competition is reducing EV prices. People are buying EVs but the demand is not growing as fast as the supply.
• "They (Electric vehicles) don't go far" before needing to be charged. Half true. Most EVs on the road today travel 200 to 300 miles, with some going well over 300, before needing a charge. Many EVs now can go nearly as far as ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles before needing to refuel.
• "They (Electric vehicles) are very expensive." Mostly false, depending on the vehicle. The average price of an EV is about 10% more than a traditional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle. But federal incentives take down the purchase cost, plus costs over the lifetime of an EV are less.
• "They require far fewer jobs to make. Michigan you're going to get so screwed." Mostly true. The claim of fewer jobs to build electric vehicles is believed to be true, but has not been proven yet.
• "They ordered a hit job on Michigan manufacturing with this insane electric vehicle mandate." Mostly false. In fact, the global auto market is moving to electric vehicles and will be a majority of vehicles sold in the next 20 years or so. The problem with backing away from pressuring the auto industry today to develop EV technology is that America will lose the overall manufacturing lead. China will win. China is prepared to take over the world with electric vehicles. If North American and European companies don't focus on pushing forward, other countries will come in and eat their lunch. There will be no coming back from that. The Detroit Three could be out of business. In addition, automakers have invested billions in Michigan and other parts of the U.S. to lay the groundwork for local electric vehicle production.
• "If we build all the charging booths that are necessary, the country would go bankrupt. It costs, like, $3 trillion." False. The $3 trillion price tag proposed by President Joe Biden, with bipartisan support, pays for overhauling the country's infrastructure, like roads and bridges, electric and water systems, and high-speed internet; as well as funding education, climate and social programs.
• "They want to make our Army tanks into all electric..." In fact, electric vehicles have a lower heat signature, which makes them safer for soldiers. Adversaries can see a tank location because it puts out a lot of heat. Exhaust on a tank can literally melt the paint off a car. EV vehicles also are silent, which is considered a safety issue for the military.
• "Your biggest threat to your unions is millions of people coming across the border. They’ll have someone else take it for one-third the price." False. The UAW already negotiates national labor contracts with the Detroit Three and currently is organizing foreign-based automakers. After the UAW contract ratification, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai and Tesla all announced worker pay raises.
• "We want to bring manufacturing back." Mostly false. U.S. and foreign companies currently are investing billions of dollars in U.S. auto manufacturing, like battery and production plants. Since the early 1990s, when Japanese manufacturers Toyota and Honda were given a limit on how many vehicles they could import into the U.S., they've set up shop in America. In recent years, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai all have established a large U.S. manufacturing presence.
• "You're getting nice wages for a short period of time, but you're going to be out of jobs in two years." False. The Inflation Reduction Act requires vehicles and parts to be built in North America and specifically in the U.S. for some parts. Otherwise, companies lose access to money.

Click on the link for more

[skinsmarydu]

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Gotta admire the argument "Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it? Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates?" when the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly nominate a rapist. 

. 

And that's why I don't post much anymore.  Everyone knows my stance, what I watch, read, etc. 

No, there aren't any better candidates.  Kamala's cool, but she can't run the nation like Joe can (he's right up there with Hillary for knowing stuff none of us do). 

 

Just sayin'. 

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Gotta admire the argument "Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it? Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates?" when the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly nominate a rapist. 

. 

This is why it’s all depressing

[Skins24]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Gotta admire the argument "Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it? Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates?" when the Republicans are going to overwhelmingly nominate a rapist. 

. 

That was exactly my point...

I'm willing to bet cash money we'll go to bed Tuesday night, still wondering if the worse nightmare, for the majority of this blue Earth, is still a possibility.

 

You're telling me there was/is no one who could widened that gap more comfortably?

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, Skins24 said:

I don't get it....

 

Can someone on the Dem side, please explain why the risk is worth it?

Are there seriously no other viable Democrat candidates? If they lose, and Trump becomes President, it will be 100% their fault.

And for what? You're not putting up another candidate out of tradition?? I need help understanding the why...

 

 

Not that it matters much

Me searching for a way the U.S. survives any of this (a narcissistic delinquent child in an old man's body vs. a man who's as mentally sharp as a plushie in an old man's body) intact:

 

 

 

This is easy.

 

The election stopped being "Biden vs. Trump" on Jan. 7th, 2021. The election choice is now "democracy vs. authoritarianism." It's an election about what type of government the country will have moving forward. And any argument that says "The democrats don't have a good enough candidate to make people choose democracy over authoritarianism" misses the point completely.

 

So why isn't Biden steamrolling the authoritarianism candidate? That's easy, too: because the majority of Trump supporters don't see Trump winning as authoritarianism winning. Or rather, they don't call it "authoritarianism" even if they know it is. In fact, one of the more recent talking points being tossed out is that authoritarianism wouldn't be so bad if Trump's the one in charge. Rationalization levels are at 10,000 for that group.

 

Not to mention, whatever the percentage of Democratic voters is who don't quite understand the very real dangers that authoritarianism poses (or even how to spot it) and just concentrate on how much a dozen eggs costs now compared to 5 years ago.

 

Hate to break it to you, but a younger Democratic candidate isn't going to break through all of that and suddenly make anyone go "Oh! Crap!! Now I get it!!" lol...the good news, though, is that the more Trump talks the stronger the choice of democracy vs. authoritarianism is emphasized and spotlighted. And the dude loves to hear himself talk.

 

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

I wonder what Nates gambling debt looks like these days. 🤣

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Skins24 said:

That was exactly my point...

I'm willing to bet cash money we'll go to bed Tuesday night, still wondering if the worse nightmare, for the majority of this blue Earth, is still a possibility.

 

You're telling me there was/is no one who could widened that gap more comfortably?

 

There is no one guaranteed to widen the gap.  You talk about what a gamble it is to go with the guy who's a proven winner having already gone though the political character-assassination wringer and defeated Trump, and then propose we should bring in somebody (not much in the way of suggestions) who will be better than Biden to reduce the gamble.  But that somebody will be an even bigger unknown how they will pull through such character assassination as happens in a national political campaign, thus introduce huge uncertainties... you know, gambling.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[The Evil Genius]

Only the best people. 😆

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[hail2skins]

7 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

In fact, one of the more recent talking points being tossed out is that authoritarianism wouldn't be so bad if Trump's the one in charge. Rationalization levels are at 10,000 for that group.

 

Not to mention, whatever the percentage of Democratic voters is who don't quite understand the very real dangers that authoritarianism poses (or even how to spot it) and just concentrate on how much a dozen eggs costs now compared to 5 years ago.

Ding!

[PleaseBlitz]

9 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

In fact, one of the more recent talking points being tossed out is that authoritarianism wouldn't be so bad if Trump's the one in charge. Rationalization levels are at 10,000 for that group.

 

Last week, a judge called Trump "pathological" in an official court ruling. Authoritarianism is bad in all flavors, but authoritarianism with a mentally defective person at the top is especially bad.

 

And not for nothing, why did a prosecutor calling Biden old become a ****ing huge deal, but a judge calling Trump pathological barely register? 

[LD0506]

13 hours ago, tshile said:

About 2 months ago the headlines were something like “economists reluctantly admit their negative outlooks were wrong”

 

so it makes sense that sentiment is starting to trickle down. 
 

but bogus negative forecasts from people that are supposed to be believe by the public, despite never really having reality line up, going on for a while now, definitely helped sow negative feelings about the economy 

 

I know everyone wants to credit Fox News for the whole price of eggs thing but other people did the real work there, Fox News just tried to sweep in and take credit at the end is all 

 

This and other points made here have the same basis, the people writing their checks tell them what narrative they want pushed.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And not for nothing, why did a prosecutor calling Biden old become a ****ing huge deal, but a judge calling Trump pathological barely register? 

 

Because one got intentionally echoed. 

Then intentionally lied about. ("Biden isn't in jail because the prosecutor proved that he's too mentally incompetent to be prosecuted").  

Then the lies got echoed. 

[China]

Donald Trump’s Cash Crunch Just Got Much, Much Worse

 

As Donald Trump’s legal troubles consume more and more of his time, they’re also consuming more of his donors’ money—and there’s a huge hole in the bucket.

 

On Tuesday, Trump’s “Save America” leadership political action committee reported raising just $8,508 from donors in the entire month of January, while spending about $3.9 million, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission.

 

Nearly $3 million of that overall spending total was used for one purpose: to pay lawyers.

 

At the same time, the Trump campaign itself reported a net loss of more than $2.6 million for the month of January. It raised about $8.8 million while spending around $11.5 million, according to a separate filing made public on Tuesday.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

Edited February 21 by China

[China]

Nominating Trump would be 'political suicide' for GOP: National Review conservative

 

Despite his legal and financial problems, Donald Trump appears to be well on his way to winning the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

 

Trump leads former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley by 63 percent among Republican primary voters in a Morning Consult poll conducted February 17-19. Emerson College finds Trump ahead of Haley by 64 percent in a poll released on February 16.

 

Trump's financial state grew even worse on Friday, February 16 when Justice Arthur Engoron ordered him to pay nearly $355 million in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case. And that $355 million increases to $450 million when interest is factored in.

 

Engoron's verdict comes after the damages jurors ordered the former president to pay in writer E. Jean Carroll's two civil defamation lawsuits: $5 million in the first case, and $83.3 million in the second.

 

In a February 20 column, the National Review's Andrew C. McCarthy warns fellow conservatives that nominating Trump would be "political suicide" for the GOP in light of his many legal and financial problems.

 

The conservative journalist points out that Forbes has estimated Trump's net worth to be roughly $2.6 billion, adding that he "claims to have over $400 million in liquid assets" — a figure that, if it is accurate, is "now markedly outstripped by civil judgments and debt, to say nothing of exorbitant, accumulating legal fees."

 

"If you're asking me whether Trump can weather this financial storm," McCarthy argues, "I'd say: I don't know his true condition well enough to give a confident answer. But I have my doubts. If you're asking me whether it makes sense for Republicans to nominate Trump for president in these circumstances, my much more confident answer is that it would be political suicide — which, naturally, won't stop them from doing it."

 

Click on the link for the rest

[China]

Donald Trump branded 'disgrace' by his own father in AI attack ad

 

Donald Trump has been branded a "disgrace" by an artificial intelligence (AI) version of his own father.

 

The Lincoln Project, a group of Republicans opposed to the former President, produced the video featuring Donald's father Fred.

 

The AI Fred says: "Donny, I always knew you'd blow it. You were always a fool - a joke, low rent".

 

Fred was a real estate developer like his son would become. He died in 1999.

 

Lincoln Project co-founder, Rick Wilson, said in a press release: "Fred may not be with us now, but in this spot we imagined just how Fred Trump would react to Donald's record of decades of fraud catching up to him at long last.

"Trump frequently accuses his critics of using AI to make him look bad. We've always said it doesn't take AI to make Trump look bad; Trump does that all by himself."

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

The video:

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

"You were born trash and you'd be lucky if you grew up to be garbage." 🤣

 

The porn music in that attack ad is marvelous. 

 

 

[Skins24]

16 hours ago, Larry said:

...

This is the team that successfully got the GOP to take cutting Medicare and SS off of the fiscal cliff negotiating table.  

 

The team which has successfully wiped out probably 1/3 of the Russian military, without using a single American combat troop.  And only costing us some Army Surplus gear.  (And a lot of intel.  

 

A team which has strengthened NATO.  (To the point where Putin is ordering the GOP to attack it.  And the GOP is carrying out the order.)  

 

A team which passed an economic stimulus package that is so goot that numerous Republicans who voted against it are trying to take credit for it.  (Insert campaign commercial footage here.)  

 

A team which successfully negotiated a bipartisan bill to fund Israel, Ukraine, and help the border crisis.  (Until Donald Trump ordered them not to pass it, because it would make the Dems look good.)  

 

A team which has successfully maneuvered the GOP into not intentionally harming the economy by shutting down the government.  Twice.  Despite elements in the GOP attempting to blackmail the entire Party into doing exactly that.  

 

Starting to see the pattern? 

I'll even add - when Biden was VP, if we had listened to him then, and trusted his foresight, there's a good chance things may have played out different. He was the one, even back then, pushing for arming and strengthening Ukraine.

 

All the rest, all good stuff. Nevertheless, perception is everything.

I'll reiterate. We've been down this road before. Not in 2020, but in 2016. And I'm seeing signs of history repeating itself.

 

'all you have are these polls, that we can ignore, because it's too early'

Ok, you keep doing that.....again.

 

 

9 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

There is no one guaranteed to widen the gap.  You talk about what a gamble it is to go with the guy who's a proven winner having already gone though the political character-assassination wringer and defeated Trump, and then propose we should bring in somebody (not much in the way of suggestions) who will be better than Biden to reduce the gamble.  But that somebody will be an even bigger unknown how they will pull through such character assassination as happens in a national political campaign, thus introduce huge uncertainties... you know, gambling.

I'm not proposing anything.

But this is one of the biggest flaws of our system. The only reason why that somebody would be an unknown and not have gone through the political character assassination wringer is because it was already decided (for us) four years ago that no one will do that. Out of tradition.

'oh, but one party, one voice'

I get that. But if you fresh ideas. Different perspectives. A better way of handling things. You're going to sit on that for 8 years, just hoping for the best during those 8 years?

Who does that serve? The party or the people?

 

[Jumbo]

 

1 hour ago, Skins24 said:

I'll even add - when Biden was VP, if we had listened to him then, and trusted his foresight, there's a good chance things may have played out different. He was the one, even back then, pushing for arming and strengthening Ukraine.

 

All the rest, all good stuff. Nevertheless, perception is everything.

I'll reiterate. We've been down this road before. Not in 2020, but in 2016. And I'm seeing signs of history repeating itself.

 

'all you have are these polls, that we can ignore, because it's too early'

Ok, you keep doing that.....again.

 

 

I'm not proposing anything.

But this is one of the biggest flaws of our system. The only reason why that somebody would be an unknown and not have gone through the political character assassination wringer is because it was already decided (for us) four years ago that no one will do that. Out of tradition.

'oh, but one party, one voice'

I get that. But if you fresh ideas. Different perspectives. A better way of handling things. You're going to sit on that for 8 years, just hoping for the best during those 8 years?

Who does that serve? The party or the people?

 

 I would say that your thoughts here are pretty mainstream when framed as ideals and goals to shoot for and they've been a common theme since I voted in 72. 🙂

 

And things sometime bring those ideals to life. Before my first vote, JFK fit your premise. Bill Clinton too. Al Gore was a pretty decent realization of the dynamics you mentioned though he had the establishment component having served as VP for Bill. Certainly Obama was a huge representation of the process and the voters turning to the kind of candidate you describe. 

 

So the suggestion I get from your posts that this finding a younger forward thinking dem nominee is some constantly neglected event over recent decades isn't accurate.

 

I'm seeing appealing but "fuzzy" thinking more than informed critical analysis in your comments.

 

Furthermore, Biden as a legislative force and world leader, despite being old, is factually and easily argued as having had a substantial, very productive, run serving the dem party overall and most Americans in general, including many gopers though few will acknowledge it.

 

That doesn't mean that under his admin to date there haven't been important issues not handled or handled poorly but you can't name any POTUS off the "top twenty", or whatever, where that's not the case.

 

The facts are he's had a very strong and productive presidency, though not perfect (which would be a silly standard,) for a very diverse constituency that presented him with factions that run from the squad to the john tester and Joe manchin people, and that's before we even get to independents and moderate gopers.

 

I look at the best of fresher faces in the Dems and see a lot I like, but no one I think would be able to better in legislation than what Biden has actually done so far in fact. Not even close.

 

It's really true that this election is about the voters. If a number of Dems can't find motivation to go work for and vote for Biden's election because he's old and not "fresh" (and people who use that word as some standard to meet should give policy details on what that means) or because he's not exciting or charismatic enough to energize them, then it's an indictment of a shallow and immature mindset that's ignoring a lot of relevant factual information and bereft of appropriate critical analysis.

 

I don't dismiss or insult the ideals or wishes of people like you or ix or others who desire "better" and "fresher" (younger) faces among candidates and I assume you do want them to also be smart and capable (which to be accurate are traits also found in not so fresh faces).

 

I'm a guy who likes to set high standards. I'm also a guy ready to deal with the reality of the moment even while being idealistic in general.

 

The parties as a whole and the system that supports them makes it hard for new, and even very worthy, blood to get in but it has happened and will again.

 

The best answer is to get into the process as much as you can and fight for your ideals but be ready to work for, and get in that booth for, the better of whatever two choices you actually end up with when voting day comes.

 

It just so happens that this time and the last two times will be the most significant choices I've had in my 69 years. I hope you all feel the same.