Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
On this, you speak the truth.Zarathud wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:28 am I see that our former Republican friends rushed back to crow about Biden being weak, then snuck away when pwning the libs wasn’t easy anymore. I was raised with the view that if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it. Because mamma didn’t like hypocrites or crybabies.
Because "the Dems have not yet picked their nominee".Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:58 am Alright, time for some honest discourse. Care to explain why "any time anywhere" Trump has backed out of the debates?
The convention will be before September 10. Can't wait for the next excuse.
Well, to be fair - IF the candidate truly was "a mystery" - I could see the Trump team saying they would like some time to prepare for who they are going to be debating.Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:08 amThe convention will be before September 10. Can't wait for the next excuse.
With a normal candidate they would have said "I will commit to debating whoever the official Democrat nominee is". Trump being Trump can't possible do that. Instead he has to write a poorly written letter calling his opposition all kinds of names and making up fake excuses. This is the exact behavior John McCain warned us about when they started with the xenophobia on Obama. He would be so upset with the current state of the GOP.
Personally, I really don't know. She's not great behind a mic, IMO, and even worse in a live Q&A type situation, just from what I have seen. She's no Obama/Buttigieg/Klobuchar in that respect. But I need to see more from current Kamala to see if that impression is still valid or not.Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:58 am Alright, time for some honest discourse. Care to explain why "any time anywhere" Trump has backed out of the debates?
It's not even remotely the same party of John McCain's GOP, they really should consider changing it to the MAGA party. Totally serious here.Scraper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:13 amWith a normal candidate they would have said "I will commit to debating whoever the official Democrat nominee is". Trump being Trump can't possible do that. Instead he has to write a poorly written letter calling his opposition all kinds of names and making up fake excuses. This is the exact behavior John McCain warned us about when they started with the xenophobia on Obama. He would be so upset with the current state of the GOP.
Yeah, fuck McCain. I used to like him - then he handed to world Palin and the Shark was fucking Jumped.Scraper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:13 amWith a normal candidate they would have said "I will commit to debating whoever the official Democrat nominee is". Trump being Trump can't possible do that. Instead he has to write a poorly written letter calling his opposition all kinds of names and making up fake excuses. This is the exact behavior John McCain warned us about when they started with the xenophobia on Obama. He would be so upset with the current state of the GOP.
They absolutely should, and I agree. McCain wouldn't know what the fuck happened.Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:15 amIt's not even remotely the same party of John McCain's GOP, they really should consider changing it to the MAGA party. Totally serious here.Scraper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:13 amWith a normal candidate they would have said "I will commit to debating whoever the official Democrat nominee is". Trump being Trump can't possible do that. Instead he has to write a poorly written letter calling his opposition all kinds of names and making up fake excuses. This is the exact behavior John McCain warned us about when they started with the xenophobia on Obama. He would be so upset with the current state of the GOP.
The only example I have seen was her insistence not to be interrupted by Pence. But I have a feeling her prosecutorial instincts would perform well against DonOld.Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:14 amPersonally, I really don't know. She's not great behind a mic, IMO, and even worse in a live Q&A type situation, just from what I have seen. She's no Obama/Buttigieg/Klobuchar in that respect. But I need to see more from current Kamala to see if that impression is still valid or not.Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:58 am Alright, time for some honest discourse. Care to explain why "any time anywhere" Trump has backed out of the debates?
Not sure what you are saying there exactly, but McCain's picking Palin as a runningmate was but a TINY pebble in a landslide of what we are dealing with now, if that is what you are suggesting.
But does she have pointy elbows?em2nought wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2024 7:01 pmAfter passing Joe Biden off as competent ever since he left the bunker it was finally acknowledged that he isn't after the debate. Since then I think I've noticed an uptick in people wondering if so many sources promoted that lie for so long what else might be a lie.Jaymann wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 2:50 pm
Also I have to believe there will be public fatigue with voter fraud nonsense.
Whatever beauty routine VP Kamala Harris is using has her face looking nice and smooth, but then you look at her neck. She should go with turtlenecks. She needs a tongue scraper too.
Yeah, I thought the same.Unagi wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:54 am I'm a little ~cringe~ from the video of the call, but - oh well.
Yeah, but the thing is, I think most agree here that Trump's massive, fucked up ego drives everything he does and every decision. Do we really think HE thinks that he couldn't trounce her on stage? If you think that, you are suggesting that his ego thing is just a show, but internally he lacks confidence. I don't agree that at all, from what I have seen. I don't believe that bravado is false...the dude TRULY believes he is invincible, the best, etc etc.Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:18 amThe only example I have seen was her insistence not to be interrupted by Pence. But I have a feeling her prosecutorial instincts would perform well against DonOld.Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:14 amPersonally, I really don't know. She's not great behind a mic, IMO, and even worse in a live Q&A type situation, just from what I have seen. She's no Obama/Buttigieg/Klobuchar in that respect. But I need to see more from current Kamala to see if that impression is still valid or not.Jaymann wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:58 am Alright, time for some honest discourse. Care to explain why "any time anywhere" Trump has backed out of the debates?
typo - but yeah, you figured it out.Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:19 amNot sure what you are saying there exactly, but McCain's picking Palin as a runningmate was but a TINY pebble in a landslide of what we are dealing with now, if that is what you are suggesting.
Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:38 amYeah, I hate to potentially insult the same people I am trying to bring back in, but IIRC, a lot of it was again, very similar behavior to my Dad. When presented with facts in the face of the so many lies they constantly hear from Tucker, Trump and Co, the typical reaction is...anger. I have probed this so many times with my Dad, begging him to respond with ANY kind of back up, and all he says (in a very childish, pouting tone I might add) is "Go look it up!!!" Basically bowing out of the discussion.hepcat wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:31 am I still firmly believe that those who left are overwhelmingly people who framed their opinions as insults to others (dems) and were pissed off when they received a response in the same tone. Of course there are people here on the dem side who have trolled too, but that’s going to happen when the ratio is that far off. But I don’t think that’s the majority in the least.
The pattern, as I perceive it is:
1. Dad gets CONSTANT bombardment of lies by Fox News and worse (local hyper "conservative" radio shows that are all OVER the dial where he lives)
2. He agrees with much of that because he "feels" it's right and/or aligns with a world the way he wants it to be
3. He will occasionally bring "info" heard from these sources up with me, and I will counter with either facts, or ask him to present ANY kind of facts that back up his assertion.
4. He blows up and pouts and tells me to "go look it up, it's true, you are being lied to".
It's a bit cringey, but I also think it's effective at showing that this was a full on endorsement and not just the Obamas reluctantly going with the flow. There were starting to be some (legit, IMO) questions about why Obama was the one major D power player who hadn't yet endorsed, and i think this helps to quell that.
That was 29 days ago.LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:36 am What is her golf handicap? I hear that's an important debate closer.
A growing number of Americans say "no thanks" to kidsZarathud wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:33 am The open secret is that illegal immigrants paying into but not drawing from Social Security is critical to keeping retiree benefits. The “replacement” by citizen births is necessary to partially offset (at best) any immigration reduction. MAGA policy mostly fixes problems it creates — including denying immigration reform.
I think both sides can agree that we need immigration reform. Converting a large number of illegals to legals is the most humane approach, and immigration is also a practical matter of necessity. Let's hope we don't see what happens if we slam the doors shut and deport a few million productive residents.a growing number of American adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.
When asked why children were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other interests, such as their career; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.
The results echo a 2023 Pew study that found that only 26 percent of adults said having children was extremely or very important to live a fulfilling life. The US fertility rate has been falling over the last decade, dipping to about 1.6 births per woman in 2023. This is the lowest number on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it is less than what would be required for the population to replace itself from one generation to the next.
My only worry going into a Harris - Trump debate is that the media often judges debate results based on whether a given candidate "exceeded expectations". The media would have low expectations for Trump and relatively high ones for Harris. So if Trump strings a few sentences together and doesn't sound completely insane the media might generate positive headlines for him.YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:30 am Remember when Trump "stalked" around Hillary Clinton in the debates? I don't think Trump could help but come across as condescending, angry, and threatening around a female debate opponent. It would not be a good look.
I don't think Harris would have to be a great debater. She could just let Trump be Trump.
That said, Harris can certainly hold her own in cross-examination scenarios. She would need to frame it in such a way that instead of just talking about her question, she's fact-checking Trump to his face. Essentially putting him on the witness stand.
I kinda read truth in to this. Though TFG should still be chomping at the bit to debate any Dem nominee and especially Harris whom he has been attacking for years. So rather than stepping back and being coy about the prospects, he should be saying "get your shit together so we can move this forward."
I think we need to accept that no matter what, the media is going to try very very hard to give us a Trump Presidency. Again.El Guapo wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:44 amMy only worry going into a Harris - Trump debate is that the media often judges debate results based on whether a given candidate "exceeded expectations". The media would have low expectations for Trump and relatively high ones for Harris. So if Trump strings a few sentences together and doesn't sound completely insane the media might generate positive headlines for him.YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:30 am Remember when Trump "stalked" around Hillary Clinton in the debates? I don't think Trump could help but come across as condescending, angry, and threatening around a female debate opponent. It would not be a good look.
I don't think Harris would have to be a great debater. She could just let Trump be Trump.
That said, Harris can certainly hold her own in cross-examination scenarios. She would need to frame it in such a way that instead of just talking about her question, she's fact-checking Trump to his face. Essentially putting him on the witness stand.
FWIW - not sure if you're saying this exactly - but I don't think "the media" or anyone notable in it (outside of the conservative mediasphere) actively wants Trump. But at the same time I think Trump and his allies are pretty savvy about how to exploit the media's natural tendencies and incentives, in a way that it's hard for media institutions to shake.Unagi wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 12:00 pmI think we need to accept that no matter what, the media is going to try very very hard to give us a Trump Presidency. Again.El Guapo wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:44 amMy only worry going into a Harris - Trump debate is that the media often judges debate results based on whether a given candidate "exceeded expectations". The media would have low expectations for Trump and relatively high ones for Harris. So if Trump strings a few sentences together and doesn't sound completely insane the media might generate positive headlines for him.YellowKing wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:30 am Remember when Trump "stalked" around Hillary Clinton in the debates? I don't think Trump could help but come across as condescending, angry, and threatening around a female debate opponent. It would not be a good look.
I don't think Harris would have to be a great debater. She could just let Trump be Trump.
That said, Harris can certainly hold her own in cross-examination scenarios. She would need to frame it in such a way that instead of just talking about her question, she's fact-checking Trump to his face. Essentially putting him on the witness stand.
I would be interested to see if the decline in desire to raise children is influenced by the restrictions on abortion should something go wrong. I mean, if I were a young woman in an anti-abortion state I would absolutely not get pregnant for fear of suffering and dying should I get an ectopic pregnancy.Kraken wrote:A growing number of Americans say "no thanks" to kids
a growing number of American adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.
When asked why children were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other interests, such as their career; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.
The results echo a 2023 Pew study that found that only 26 percent of adults said having children was extremely or very important to live a fulfilling life. The US fertility rate has been falling over the last decade, dipping to about 1.6 births per woman in 2023. This is the lowest number on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it is less than what would be required for the population to replace itself from one generation to the next.
And remember, kids! Rapists get parental rights!raydude wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 12:39 pmI would be interested to see if the decline in desire to raise children is influenced by the restrictions on abortion should something go wrong. I mean, if I were a young woman in an anti-abortion state I would absolutely not get pregnant for fear of suffering and dying should I get an ectopic pregnancy.Kraken wrote:A growing number of Americans say "no thanks" to kids
a growing number of American adults say they are unlikely to raise children, according to a study released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. When the survey was conducted in 2023, 47 percent of those younger than 50 without children said they were unlikely ever to have children, an increase of 10 percentage points since 2018.
When asked why children were not in their future, 57 percent said they simply didn’t want to have them. Women were more likely to respond this way than men (64 percent vs. 50 percent). Further reasons included the desire to focus on other interests, such as their career; concerns about the state of the world; worries about the costs involved in raising a child; concerns about the environment, including climate change; and not having found the right partner.
The results echo a 2023 Pew study that found that only 26 percent of adults said having children was extremely or very important to live a fulfilling life. The US fertility rate has been falling over the last decade, dipping to about 1.6 births per woman in 2023. This is the lowest number on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it is less than what would be required for the population to replace itself from one generation to the next.
Conversely, taking away women's right to choose is a way to drive up the birth rate. It isn't working -- last year, abortion restrictions only drove about 44,000 forced births -- but that only goes to show that abortion needs to be banned nationwide, along with birth control.raydude wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 12:39 pm I would be interested to see if the decline in desire to raise children is influenced by the restrictions on abortion should something go wrong. I mean, if I were a young woman in an anti-abortion state I would absolutely not get pregnant for fear of suffering and dying should I get an ectopic pregnancy.
If you accept that perpetual economic growth is desirable, then population growth is necessary to drive that. Increased productivity alone isn't enough, especially in an aging society. Without immigration, our population would be shrinking.
I would say this doesn't fit as it's not biological growth - the people already exist. Immigration is just a redistribution of where they exist.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
?Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 3:04 pm Perpetual economic growth has never been demonstrated. And perpetual biological growth is called cancer.
It's got "cool aunt" energy to it too, which I think is part of her appeal.ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 10:41 amIt's a bit cringey, but I also think it's effective at showing that this was a full on endorsement and not just the Obamas reluctantly going with the flow. There were starting to be some (legit, IMO) questions about why Obama was the one major D power player who hadn't yet endorsed, and i think this helps to quell that.
Also, most Americans like to eat food but are unwilling to do the work involved in making food happen.Kraken wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 3:00 pmIf you accept that perpetual economic growth is desirable, then population growth is necessary to drive that. Increased productivity alone isn't enough, especially in an aging society. Without immigration, our population would be shrinking.
(I'm not unsympathetic to the contrarian view that perpetual growth is unsustainable, but that opinion lies outside of economic policy.)
[Sorry. I deleted my "give us a selfie" post because I decided it personalized things too much.]