Who do you think will win?

[HisArpy]

As an objective thinker why would Russia be propping Trump up? Despite constant threat there was no real conflicts during his term. His perceived unpredictability and arrogance appear to be a bit of a deterrent. Despite the Biden Administration warning them not to invade Ukraine they still did so and continue to do so all this time later with no real consequence. On the surface it doesn't really make much sense that Russia would prefer Trump

The Leftist thinking spawned by Hillary to manipulate the gullible, requires that there be a bogeyman in view. "Russia" is sufficiently in view, has a history of not being liked in the West, and is sufficiently secretive and clandestine enough to absorb all the accusations thrown against it because few can refute those accusations with proof of anything.

In a word, Russia is a perfect bogeyman for the leftist brained of our society.

Meanwhile back in reality, during Trump's first term we saw what really happened with Russia. Russia, along with China, lost power globally. Trump ended the conflict in Syria with ISIS-K. North Korea stopped being an asshole because we stopped giving it appeasement money.

When Biden came into office, all of that went out the window. Now that there's a risk that Kamala won't make the cut; Russia, Russia, Russia is back in the headlines.

Because the gullible left needs a bogeyman.

 

[coati]

People who campaign and register voters IRL don't hang out on the porn board all day speculating about who is going to win.

 

[HisArpy]

People who campaign and register voters IRL don't hang out on the porn board all day speculating about who is going to win.

Then why are you here?

Personally, I think you're wrong. This board is composed of people who do all kinds of things that your narrow mind isn't capable of understanding. And yet they're here too.

Just like you are.

 

[RobDownSouth]

As an objective thinker why would Russia be propping Trump up? Despite constant threat there was no real conflicts during his term. His perceived unpredictability and arrogance appear to be a bit of a deterrent. Despite the Biden Administration warning them not to invade Ukraine they still did so and continue to do so all this time later with no real consequence. On the surface it doesn't really make much sense that Russia would prefer Trump

Russia supports Trump insofar as he is a weak, easily manipulated agent of chaos. His policy of "policy by tweet" basically threw well-established civilian and military processes awry during his failed term of office. "Cancel the new aircraft carriers, I want to return to the old familiar steam-powered ones. Trump is a boomer stuck with a 1980s mindset.

Russia, specifically Putin, recognizes him as an easily malleable dunce.

And if you think Russia suffered "no real consequence" as a result of their invasion of Ukraine, I suggest you look at the casualty figures for the Russian army. We have seriously blunted the "tip of the Russian spear" by sending weapon systems to Ukraine, without a single loss of American life. Yes it's basically a "proxy war" at this point, but Russia has taken a beatdown that will take years to recover from.

 

[coati]

Then why are you here?

Personally, I think you're wrong. This board is composed of people who do all kinds of things that your narrow mind isn't capable of understanding. And yet they're here too.

Just like you are.

You sound a bit defensive about your posting word count on this speculation thread. Hope it wasn't caused by something I said.

 

[Lazaran]

As an objective thinker why would Russia be propping Trump up? Despite constant threat there was no real conflicts during his term. His perceived unpredictability and arrogance appear to be a bit of a deterrent. Despite the Biden Administration warning them not to invade Ukraine they still did so and continue to do so all this time later with no real consequence. On the surface it doesn't really make much sense that Russia would prefer Trump

This one is either feigning stupidity or they’re a traitorous Russian / Putin loving MAGAt.

 

[HisArpy]

You sound a bit defensive about your posting word count on this speculation thread. Hope it wasn't caused by something I said.

One of the first signs of insecurity is projecting that insecurity onto others.


You do it well.

 

[UWERETHINKINGIT]

I think the Jets will win.

 

[coati]

You do it well.

Yes, I am pretty damn good at pulling your chain. Thanks, Harpy.

 

[HisArpy]

I think the Jets will win.

^this is total insanity... Jets... winning...

 

[butters]

As an objective thinker why would Russia be propping Trump up? Despite constant threat there was no real conflicts during his term. His perceived unpredictability and arrogance appear to be a bit of a deterrent. Despite the Biden Administration warning them not to invade Ukraine they still did so and continue to do so all this time later with no real consequence. On the surface it doesn't really make much sense that Russia would prefer Trump

maybe because trump's already told putin that russia can do whatever the hell it wants to NATO allies if, according to trump, they're not paying their way... and because trump's ready to secure peace on day 1 by backing away from Ukraine and effectively telling Russia to have it.

 

[dmallord]

I get why Trumpers are salivating about President Trump’s time in office. He did oversee some key economic successes, particularly before the pandemic. His tax cuts and deregulation helped boost business investment, job creation, and wage growth. It didn’t hurt him that he inherited the hard work and gains of Obama’s economic successes. In fact, real wages were rising, and inflation was staying relatively low when Trump won the Presidency, which is something any president would want under their belt. However, he didn't pull off a miracle while in office by fixing O'Bama's economics or even portraying himself as Presidential.

While Trump had his wins, don’t shove the flip side under the rug to hide what he didn’t do so well at. His trade war and tariffs, for example, were a mixed bag. They were meant to protect American jobs but also raised costs for U.S. businesses that relied on imported goods. This led to higher prices for consumers and, in some cases, slowed down hiring. The tariffs hit industries like agriculture hard—farmers were left struggling as retaliatory tariffs from other countries cut into their export markets. Farmers were bailed out to the tune of more than $52 billion over his time in office. It made many farmers ‘welfare dependents.’

And then there’s the issue with the tax cuts. Sure, they gave a boost to the economy, but the lion’s share of the benefits went to corporations and the wealthy. This left income inequality untouched and, in some cases, made it worse. The middle class saw some gains, but not to the same extent. Trump bought the trickle-down hook, expecting the tax cuts for the billionaires to work their way down to the workers. Instead, the billionaires used the cuts to buy back stock, and no significant amount found its way into worker’s pockets. It enriched the rich and was stagnant for the middle-class workers.

The pandemic was another huge challenge that Trump faced. It hit the economy hard, and while emergency relief efforts were rolled out quickly, the long-term damage to employment and small businesses can’t be overlooked. Sure, you can say the pandemic doesn’t count as it was an anomaly in the economic realm, but it happened on his watch, and he owns it as a resident in the White House. Besides, he denied it existed and helped spread it much faster than if he had cooperated with the health officials from the start. Asshole got his shots while telling everyone else not to wear a mask.

Yeah, while Trump did see some solid economic outcomes, not all of his policies panned out as intended. Like any other, his presidency had its share of successes and far more setbacks. He will be the least popular president ever just for his J6 attempted coup without considering the fiasco of women's rights and bad business deals with foreign nations over trade goods and technology developments. Who does that as a President?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

The DEI changes are not impacting poll numbers

So it would seem...

Yes, Vice President Harris is in the lead in the polls, and as I said in prior posting, I expect her to win. President Biden would have won, but he’s out due to coup.

Confession: I am not a fan of polls, but was drawn in by the topic, made a comment and then polls were introduced, so this is why I say something that counters current polling. That is all, but it did get me to thinking about the sub-topic (somewhat less than topic) and generated a response (not a rebuttal or disputation of the polls, they could be 100% spot on, Ouija Board or the Butcher’s Thumb).

As an avid hobbyist and observer of chaotic systems, a programmer involved in modeling and a devotee of Hari Seldon, I’ll make some general comments about the nature of a group of people. I think we can all accept that, when it comes to ideas, one person is agreeable, two people can reach an understanding that is satisfactory to them (free market), and three people cannot agree on lunch (committee).

[Unless it’s a Democracy and two cannibals and Joe Biden’s uncle are deciding on lunch under a coconut tree.
Should I leave that in? I am the headliner…,]

First premise is then that we are a nation of disagreeable, but intelligent, people that have to agree to get things done, that is to compromise, accept the beneficial (or benign) and forgo the perfect, so we form groups, alliances, vehicles in which to enforce agreements and to resolve agreements gone bad, we are therefore compelled to form a government.
Second premise naturally follows: our government is the culmination of this system of alliances something all of us accept but rarely, if ever, are satisfied with.
Thirdly, our government evolved into a two-party system, one that used to represent a check and balance on one country united in it ideas so that voting for one party or the other didn’t really affect day-to-day life, so it was used to “throw the bum out.” In this, we were a little less passionate about government; not really part of day-to-day life or future planning.
Obviously and conclusively, we are no longer united by one vision. We are not throwing the bum out, we are fighting for power and largess and we are evenly divided between the individualists and the collectivists and the collectivists have been greatly helped by social media, the pop culture and BIG (from Pharma to Agri to the Military, Industrial and Educational Complexes, [not to mention all those Political Family Foundations and Trusts]) America giving lip service and paying protection money to the collectivists who are a very activist lot, have a lot of revolutionary ideas, and have been shifting the bifurcations of this chaotic system towards their cultural victory and feel it within immediate grasp (and even act like it at times). The unification and Califonication of the Nation.

But the other viewpoint doesn’t want the government there to guide them culturally (I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.) and certainly do not want revolution, I.e., fundamental transformation, With the Musk takeover of Twitter, the collectivists lost their monopoly on Social Media and their absolute control of hate speech, specifically, defining it, editing it, and censoring it, a parallel of the Lerner-ization of the government.
Along with this breaking of the information monopoly, we see the flight from the traditional mainstream media news cycle, centrist, one-party states and “woke” businesses. These businesses (and businesses are people on many levels) that paid their Dane’s Geld are now realizing that the social justice blackmail was never stop and it was bleeding them too dry to absorb the inflation of the government’s “free” money. People and the businesses they interact with on every level are reacting to their environment in ways that they see benefit them personally, their bottom line.

This is what prompted my earlier remarks, that when events, the million, billion events and interactions that go into the mob’s decision-making process, that the mind of the mob may be pulling back and swinging the other way in reaction, but that polling is not picking up on it.
However, given all of that, the pure emotion of the first black woman President overcomes any reasoning about borders, inflation, Ukraine, China or Gaza in the minds of most collectivist voters: Swifties for the Swift Boat Vote. This so handicaps Trump that it is pretty much insurmountable. The only emotion that might overcome that is their daughter being raped, pummeled in sports or passed over in the hierarchy of woke hiring by a man in drag.
And all of the other fucking nonsense like mostly peaceful riots and anti-semitism.

Trump could win.
Harris could win.
Flip a coin, just,
don’t take a poll.




Disclaimer (because the first reaction is always “You’re a [fill-in-the-blank]”): I have no horse in the race, just handicapping it out loud, so to speak. I vote third party and like the majority of you, I live in a predominantly one-party region and, like most of you, our elections are civilized, peaceful, respectful of everyone involved and and efficiently and honestly conducted, so I’m not politicking. This is the political junkie’s super “cup” (nobody uses the “B” word) and I realize the passion that goes into a fan, so I’m not trying to take personal shots or be an influencer. I’m wearing neutral colors.

Royal Purple Reign
​

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Just a reminder of what was posted

Up until the last week, I thought it was a toss-up leaning towards vice-President Harris.
[edited for highlight]

What is happening in Corporate America in the last two weeks as they one-by-one, falling like dominoes, forgo their diversity and inclusion program and positive-residual-image public relations, which were corporate America trying to prove how socially responsible they were and placate the angry, nasty, screaming, spoiled, pampered children that have decided to besiege all of our institutions thanks to the effort of the Department of Education (which needs, must, be abolished) and the insular, isolated, professorial class..., and avoid their social media blackmail because it cut into the bottom line, which they can do in good times, but under Bidenomics (Kamalanomics) they were forced to refocus on profit to stay solvent because, like the American family, they are hemorrhaging wealth awash in a sea of freshly printed money (because the Left fucking doesn't know the difference between the two).

Reality set in.

I think, that reality is beginning to put its flying fickle finger of fate onto the scales in favor of Trump and his economic policies (not to mention the border, Ukraine, Gaza and cross-dressing rapists in girls' bathrooms and impotent thugs beating the crap out of them in sports).



And this:

Polls are.

I grok.

Whimsical. I point to concrete reactions by the players that massage the polls, like the people who own social media.

The Left used to be against BIG everything. They they are in bed with the white-collar BIG and have eschewed the Blue Collar BIG and BIG had noticed and BIG will adjust and when it does, polling will change, could already be changing if one gazes into the chicken-bone, crystal-ball world of the internals of the questions as when the polls show landslide-like majorities favoring Trump policies, but yet so many still think that they are going to vote for Kamal due to the subtle pressure of peerage on-line...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Must be gettin' pretty close to presidential election time, ole AJ (now d/b/a "JoePepsiCo") is engagin' in his trademark quadrennial "divide 'n conquer" rhetoric against the Democrats.

Old, tired and stale talking points from the "glibertarian". Nothing new under the sun here, folks. Just a grumpy old man yelling at clouds.

 

[butters]

dejoy's incompetence STILL causing ballot issues

On Wednesday, the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors sent a letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to express their “ongoing concerns” about the USPS’s performance ahead of November 5. Among the issues raised are an increase in mail deemed “undeliverable” and long delivery times. The officials claim that some USPS staffers lack knowledge of election mail rules, that ballots sent to election offices have been returned to voters, and that postmarked ballots in multiple states have been received ten or more days after the noted date.

The officials write that, though they have raised the issues to USPS staff on both the state and local levels, they “have not seen improvement or concerted efforts” to tackle the problems. “We implore you to take immediate and tangible corrective action to address the ongoing performance issues with USPS election mail service. Failure to do so will risk limiting voter participation and trust in the election process,” they said.

Issues with mail service have plagued the agency as of late, with consumers complaining about higher shipping costs as well as consistent delays in mail and package deliveries throughout the country. NBC News notes that many of the highly affected regions, such as Atlanta, Richmond, and Houston, were part of the initial rollout of the postal service’s new hub-distribution system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...&cvid=12d262f63d7f407df7da9cd9adb8450f&ei=106

 

[SevMax2]

Honestly, it's anyone's race now. Harris took a slight bump from her replacement of Biden, then Trump began to resurge, and now the debate has probably given her a bounce of some kind, though how much is debatable. It's so up in the air now that neither side should get cocky, sloppy, or lazy. Watch out. Make your best case to swing voters. Right now, the negatives of both sides outweigh the positives of both. One wants nuclear brinkmanship and Cold War and the other can't stop lying about an election that he lost. One side has botched the economy for at least many of us little guys suffering from the bad energy and fiscal policy. The other side is flirting too much with right-wing think-tanks, to the extent that people are actively worried that said think-tanks will dictate public policy (I doubt it, as Trump tends to do be his own man, but the risk does exist). One side is basically run by a cabal or committee of lobbyists, lawyers, technocrats, bureaucrats, politicians, and political operatives. The other side panders to a bunch of preachers and their congregations way too much, though again, he does tend to be his own boss in the end. One side is headed by a slippery lush who is endorsed by all of the wrong people, mostly neoliberal grifters and neocon chicken hawks, and who never met a donation or bribe that she didn't like, who actually threatened poor people with jail time over truancy, who has absolutely no democratic or popular mandate to lead her party, having taken over in a palace coup reminiscent of the Kremlin one in 1964, and who waffled so many times on so many issues that it's hard to know what she really believes. The other side is headed by a man who did the bribing, who did the corrupting of other people, who even donated to the head of the opposing team more than once, who has broken repeated promises to his own base, who still won't release his own tax returns to the public, who has accepted emoluments in breach of the Constitution (the only clearly impeachable offense that he actually committed, for which he was ironically not impeached), who has bankrupted casinos multiple times, and has often violated contracts with other parties.

People who claim that there is a clear choice and that Kamala or Trump is unironically the best candidate, flawless, infallible, and always the right choice all along, or even the apparent lesser evil ignore the flaws with their own side so much that I must conclude that they are either delusional, arrogant, or masters of wishful thinking. It's not nearly as clear or obvious of a choice as they would have you believe, but God forbid that you should critique their chosen Messiah. It gives real personality cult vibes, in both cases, to be perfectly frank. If that makes me pedantic, to point out the issues with both Harris and Trump, so be it. I'll be pedantic, if it means that I am accurate and provide badly needed nuance, context, and detail to this whole, hysterical clusterfuck.

 

[SevMax2]

dejoy's incompetence STILL causing ballot issues








https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...&cvid=12d262f63d7f407df7da9cd9adb8450f&ei=106

He honestly should be sacked. I'll give you that one. He's inept, maybe purposely so in a Ron Swanson manner.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Honestly, it's anyone's race now. Harris took a slight bump from her replacement of Biden, then Trump began to resurge, and now the debate has probably given her a bounce of some kind, though how much is debatable. It's so up in the air now that neither side should get cocky, sloppy, or lazy. Watch out. Make your best case to swing voters. Right now, the negatives of both sides outweigh the positives of both. One wants nuclear brinkmanship and Cold War and the other can't stop lying about an election that he lost. One side has botched the economy for at least many of us little guys suffering from the bad energy and fiscal policy. The other side is flirting too much with right-wing think-tanks, to the extent that people are actively worried that said think-tanks will dictate public policy (I doubt it, as Trump tends to do be his own man, but the risk does exist). One side is basically run by a cabal or committee of lobbyists, lawyers, technocrats, bureaucrats, politicians, and political operatives. The other side panders to a bunch of preachers and their congregations way too much, though again, he does tend to be his own boss in the end. One side is headed by a slippery lush who is endorsed by all of the wrong people, mostly neoliberal grifters and neocon chicken hawks, and who never met a donation or bribe that she didn't like, who actually threatened poor people with jail time over truancy, who has absolutely no democratic or popular mandate to lead her party, having taken over in a palace coup reminiscent of the Kremlin one in 1964, and who waffled so many times on so many issues that it's hard to know what she really believes. The other side is headed by a man who did the bribing, who did the corrupting of other people, who even donated to the head of the opposing team more than once, who has broken repeated promises to his own base, who still won't release his own tax returns to the public, who has accepted emoluments in breach of the Constitution (the only clearly impeachable offense that he actually committed, for which he was ironically not impeached), who has bankrupted casinos multiple times, and has often violated contracts with other parties.

People who claim that there is a clear choice and that Kamala or Trump is unironically the best candidate, flawless, infallible, and always the right choice all along, or even the apparent lesser evil ignore the flaws with their own side so much that I must conclude that they are either delusional, arrogant, or masters of wishful thinking. It's not nearly as clear or obvious of a choice as they would have you believe, but God forbid that you should critique their chosen Messiah. It gives real personality cult vibes, in both cases, to be perfectly frank. If that makes me pedantic, to point out the issues with both Harris and Trump, so be it. I'll be pedantic, if it means that I am accurate and provide badly needed nuance, context, and detail to this whole, hysterical clusterfuck.

Listing imaginary flaws of Vice President Harris in the same paragraph as the real flaws of Donald Trump is disingenuous. It implies a false equivalence that doesn’t exist.

 

[SevMax2]

Listing imaginary flaws of Vice President Harris in the same paragraph as the real flaws of Donald Trump is disingenuous. It implies a false equivalence that doesn’t exist.

That you think that these are imaginary flaws genuinely disturbs me, but suit yourself. For instance, she absolutely did threaten poor people, many of them minorities, with jail time over their children's truancy, instead of trying to solve the truancy problem in a way that didn't make their already difficult lives worse. She is on tape boasting about that.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

That you think that these are imaginary flaws genuinely disturbs me, but suit yourself. For instance, she absolutely did threaten poor people, many of them minorities, with jail time over their children's truancy, instead of trying to solve the truancy problem in a way that didn't make their already difficult lives worse. She is on tape boasting about that.

Harris didn’t “threaten poor people with jail time over truancy”. The law provided for an escalating series of consequences if parents didn’t take truancy seriously, only culminating in jail time if all other efforts failed. You’re exaggerating to make it seem like your opposition to Harris is principled.

 

[SevMax2]

Harris didn’t “threaten poor people with jail time over truancy”. The law provided for an escalating series of consequences if parents didn’t take truancy seriously, only culminating in jail time if all other efforts failed. You’re exaggerating to make it seem like your opposition to Harris is principled.

She bragged about what she did. It was on tape. She even laughed about it. Suit yourself. Whatever.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

She bragged about what she did. It was on tape. She even laughed about it. Suit yourself. Whatever.

Yes, Kamala Harris did push for a law to that provided penalties for parents who were neglecting their children by allowing them to skip school. Some laws are good. This was a good law.

 

[SevMax2]

Yes, Kamala Harris did push for a law to that provided penalties for parents who were neglecting their children by allowing them to skip school. Some laws are good. This was a good law.

It was a horrible and misguided law. Impoverished families have enough to worry about without someone bringing in the threat of criminal penalties in the midst of absences that might even be caused by life-altering tragedies, emergencies, etc. Those tend to happen to impoverished families more than most. This is a woefully naïve position, to trust the authorities to known when or when not to pursue criminal prosecution in situations like this. She should not be applauded for this. She should be condemned for it.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It was a horrible and misguided law. Impoverished families have enough to worry about without someone bringing in the threat of criminal penalties in the midst of absences that might even be caused by life-altering tragedies, emergencies, etc. Those tend to happen to impoverished families more than most. This is a woefully naïve position, to trust the authorities to known when or when not to pursue criminal prosecution in situations like this. She should not be applauded for this. She should be condemned for it.

What should be done if a child repeatedly skips school and their parents refuse to address the issue?