If the tweeter thinks that makes the panel dude an insignificant Michigan Arab/Muslim minority with this opinion and discredits his concern, then I guess I don't know what to say. Hillary Clinton dismissal chapter 2, maybe? Again, I don't have a solution but dismissal is definitely not it.
The point is not that he's "insignificant". It's the opposite - Face the Nation is effectively presenting him as a random voter in a focus group when he's someone of significance with a known view (and a bias, given that the Biden campaign removed CAIR from its position).
This may veer into "4th estate deathwatch" territory but it's an aggravating media practice that keeps recurring. Like NYT and other outlets will periodically quote someone as an "Alabama voter" or the like, only for it to turn out that they're chair of the local GOP or something like that.
The tweet made it sound (to me) like he was chosen not to be representative of a demographic but that he was stand alone with an axe to grind. I guess I am misreading the context. It's the praise of Hamas part that throws me off, I guess.
LordMortis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 12:44 pm
The tweet made it sound (to me) like he was chosen not to be representative of a demographic but that he was stand alone with an axe to grind. I guess I am misreading the context. It's the praise of Hamas part that throws me off, I guess.
Right, the issue is that the guy has an axe to grind which was not disclosed.
I think this very possibly overstates the relationship though. He appears to be an adviser for the *Michigan* chapter of CAIR according to his bio. There are CAIR chapters in 50+ cities and tens of thousands of members. The comments that led to the break with the White House were by leadership of the whole organization and they are in dispute. Though in the available context look quite bad.
This seems to be more like comparing the views of a local ACLU chapter community organizer with the same brush as the President of the ACLU. That's disparate to say the least. We have no way of knowing if he has an axe to grind or whether he truly is representative of the community but it definitely would have been better to have someone unattached to any political/advocacy group all the same.
Side note: Searching on his name reveals many posts across different platforms with the exact same text. In other words, there is a possible misinformation campaign under way pushing this potentially misleading narrative - with labels such as "adviser", "senior leadership", and "board member" attached to his name which certainly doesn't line up with his bio. Maybe people know more but I'd be careful here.
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2024 4:29 pm
I think this very possibly overstates the relationship though. He appears to be an adviser for the *Michigan* chapter of CAIR according to his bio. There are CAIR chapters in 50+ cities and tens of thousands of members. The comments that led to the break with the White House were by leadership of the whole organization and they are in dispute. Though in the available context look quite bad.
This seems to be more like comparing the views of a local ACLU chapter community organizer with the same brush as the President of the ACLU. That's disparate to say the least. We have no way of knowing if he has an axe to grind or whether he truly is representative of the community but it definitely would have been better to have someone unattached to any political/advocacy group all the same.
Side note: Searching on his name reveals many posts across different platforms with the exact same text. In other words, there is a possible misinformation campaign under way pushing this potentially misleading narrative - with labels such as "adviser", "senior leadership", and "board member" attached to his name which certainly doesn't line up with his bio. Maybe people know more but I'd be careful here.
I don't mean to make too big a deal of this (it's not like a major scandal or anything), but it's enough that they should've either used someone else or just disclosed it briefly. And like I said, this is something I've noticed repeatedly across different media outlets - quoting someone with some clear bias and then just describing them generically as a "voter".
President Biden has approved a shake-up of the leadership of his campaign, and will dispatch two top White House aides to take over functional control of his re-election effort just as former President Donald J. Trump appears to be seizing control of the Republican primary contest to oppose him.
Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who was the campaign manager for Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign and has served as a deputy chief of staff in the White House since he became president, will move to the Biden 2024 headquarters in Wilmington, Del., and direct the campaign’s efforts, according to five people familiar with the discussions.
Mike Donilon, a senior adviser who has worked for Mr. Biden for decades, will also move to Wilmington and become the campaign’s chief strategist.
...
Julie Chávez Rodríguez, the campaign’s manager since shortly after it began in April, is expected to retain that title.
The moves formalize a setup in which Ms. O’Malley Dillon has for months overseen the campaign’s direction from Washington and Mr. Donilon has helped shape its strategy.
When the Biden campaign held a December retreat for staff members at its headquarters, it was Ms. O’Malley Dillon who led the proceedings — not Ms. Chávez Rodríguez, according to two people who attended the session but were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
Donors, operatives, elected officials and other Democrats supportive of Mr. Biden have been increasingly worried about a campaign structure that had major and even minor decisions being made by White House aides and carried out by campaign personnel in Delaware.
In recent months, former President Barack Obama met with Mr. Biden at the White House and raised concerns about the bifurcated arrangement, according to an account of their discussion reported by The Washington Post.
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a key figure in getting bills passed through Congress, says she will not endorse former President Trump, even if he becomes the Republican Party’s nominee for president.
Asked if she could see herself endorsing Trump if he wins the nomination, Collins replied: “I do not at this point.”
Furthermore:
“I’m glad to hear last night that Nikki Haley is determined to stay in [the race.] I think the more people see of her, particularly since she appears to be the only alternative to Donald Trump right now, the more impressed they will be,” she said.
Oh, the same Nikki Haley that is saying she's "fine" with a national abortion ban? You support that now? Amazing.
If you look closely, you can see Scott TRY to get his tongue near Trump's ass when he leans in, but Trump has already had enough up there by that point in the day.
Someone turn Vivek's teeth down. I'm surprised Trump hasn't asked him to do something about those teeth, since they are the brightest thing on the stage.
I’d say this is going to be an interesting election if so much were not at stake. Both candidates are showing weaknesses in key constituencies. Polls are showing that young voters are just not excited about another Biden term, that Trump appears to be making inroads with African American voters and Hispanics, and Arab American voters are turning on Biden due to the Gaza war. Meanwhile the New Hampshire vote revealed that a not insignificant number of non-MAGA Republicans are opposed to Trump and and will not vote for him, and Trump has a real problem with independents. Now I do believe that NH is not the strongest MAGA state which is why Hailey ran so strong, but the trend among non-MAGA’s and independents should be worrying for the Trump campaign. How this will all will play out in the end is anyone’s guess.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
I'm not sure I'd use the word "interesting" to describe what's happening.
We already knew this was happening but it's still gross to read.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is reviewing a draft resolution that, if approved, would declare Donald Trump the party’s presumptive 2024 presidential nominee even as Nikki Haley continues to wage a vigorous campaign against the former president and frontrunner.
The draft resolution, obtained by The Dispatch Thursday morning, was proposed by David Bossie, an RNC committeeman from Maryland and close Trump ally.
...
“RESOLVED that the Republican National Committee hereby declares President Trump as our presumptive 2024 nominee for the office of President of the United States and from this moment forward moves into full general election mode welcoming supporters of all candidates as valued members of Team Trump 2024,” reads a key portion of the draft resolution.
Under current RNC rules, Trump still has to win the requisite number of nominating convention delegates—1,215—to become the party’s unchallenged presumptive nominee. After the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Trump leads Haley in the race for delegates 32 to 17.
But passage of this resolution, possibly next week at the RNC winter meeting in Las Vegas, could begin a preemptive process of the national party working with the former president as if he had already done so. And under RNC rules, that is permissible. This resolution, even in draft form, also functions as another sign that the GOP establishment is anxious to coalesce behind Trump and put an end to a presidential primary that, after his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, the former president looks poised to win.
Once again, I don't know how anyone votes for any person that is part of the GOP at this point; they're the party of Trump.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 3:53 pm
I'm not sure I'd use the word "interesting" to describe what's happening.
We already knew this was happening but it's still gross to read.
It seems like a real misstep.
Hillary Clinton spent the latter part of the primary season--even after it was clear that she would be the nominee--trying to woo Bernie Sanders voters who felt that that the DNC had stacked the deck for her. Even so, failure to do enough of that helped cost her the election.
This move is the RNC basically telling Nikki Haley voters "Yeah, we're stacking the deck. Fuck you."
Given trump's less-than-stellar results in IA and NH, I can see why they want to downplay further voting. They're planning to make it irrelevant anyway.
CNBC is reporting TFG as saying the market is doing so well because he is going to win the election. Does this go here? In the Immigration thread? The MAGA thread? The TFG thread? The Bidenomics thread? The Viral Economy thread? The what's keeping Bank Execs out of jail thread? Do I make a new one?
Much of the Swift paranoia has lurked on the MAGA fringes, with people like Ms. Loomer, the conspiracy theorist from Florida who declared in December that “2024 will be MAGA vs Swifties” and Mr. Kirk, who declared in November that Ms. Swift would “come out for the presidential election” after Democrats had another strong showing in an election that demonstrated the issue of abortion motivated voters to the polls.
“All the Swifties want is swift abortion,” he said.
Then Swift-bashing reached Fox News in mid-January. The host Jesse Watters suggested the superstar was a Defense Department asset engaging in psychological warfare. He tied Ms. Swift’s political voice with her boyfriend’s Pfizer endorsement to the remarkable success of her Eras tour, which bolstered local economies and landed her on the cover of Time.
“Have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this?” Mr. Watters wondered on air. “Well, around four years ago, the Pentagon psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset during a NATO meeting.”
Also be sure to tune into the halftime show, as Taylor is 100% going to endorse Biden during it with Biden coming on stage. For sure!
...I had posted about this weird belief on Fox News that Taylor Swift is part of some Psyop initiative a while back. It's like Qanon...but with less adrenachrome.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 11:19 am
But she's white!?!?
...I had posted about this weird belief on Fox News that Taylor Swift is part of some Psyop initiative a while back. It's like Qanon...but with less adrenachrome.
Sure, she's white, but she's also a powerful woman who has endorsed democrats and who is coming for their football.
I do kind of enjoy the "swift abortion" line, though.
I thought they quit football when kneeling to the national anthem started. I mean Pence flew all the way to Indy so he could publicly and loudly be broadcast walking out of a game to protest players not knowing their place.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:16 pm
They're scared to death of Taylor Swift, as well they should be. As the father of a die-hard Swiftie, they are a group you do NOT want to piss off.
They're also representative of the youth and young woman's vote and future voters as well as an inroad in to young low information voters. All of whom she wants to self empower concurrent with a message that TFG (imply the party he dictates) doesn't.
Wiki says
in terms of pure sales, tallied 46.6 million in the United States
Her tenth original studio album, Midnights (2022), was her fifth to sell over a million US first-week copies.[21] It broke records including the largest streaming week for a US female album and the most single-day and single-week streams on Spotify.[22]
A bit more effort and effective than being followed on a social media site.
Trump has also privately claimed that he is “more popular” than Swift is and that he has more committed fans than she does, a person close to Trump and another source with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone.
I will bet on the Swifties. TFG is so insecure, he won’t be able to control the impulse to belittle Swift. Ask Scooter Braun what happens when you piss her off.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 12:16 pm
They're scared to death of Taylor Swift, as well they should be. As the father of a die-hard Swiftie, they are a group you do NOT want to piss off.
Seeing as how you're more plugged into Red America, I'd love to hear any updates from co-workers on Taylor Swift out of this.
hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:02 am
I have to wonder: if Trump loses, will we just see him back at it in 2028? Does he have THAT much power?
One caveat is that Trump losing means four more years of the justice system going to work on him. Plus four more years of Father Time. I wouldn't write Trump off by any means, but there's some uncertainty.
Except we've already (apparently) established that running for office (Presidential in particular) makes him immune from prosecution - or at least, delays and confuses the legal process. So if he ends up losing, I'd fully expect him to declare he's running again 0.1 seconds after the winner is confirmed. Even if he's in a bed and unable to travel, he's running.
I think further criminal and civil proceedings against Trump will only serve to strengthen his standing with his cult. And as we unfortunately have learned, that cult is strong enough to frighten even moderate republicans into submission.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:02 pm
Except we've already (apparently) established that running for office (Presidential in particular) makes him immune from prosecution - or at least, delays and confuses the legal process. So if he ends up losing, I'd fully expect him to declare he's running again 0.1 seconds after the winner is confirmed. Even if he's in a bed and unable to travel, he's running.
Sure, he'll keep throwing up delays, but the cases are still moving ahead. Who knows what will happen with the documents case in Cannon's hands, but otherwise...four years is a pretty long time given where things are now.
if this starts.