2024 Presidential Election thread

[1776]

43 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Ever entertain the possibility that the accusations could be true? That there’s a life-long pattern?  

 

Over three decades after the alleged accusation? Less than two weeks before elections? In this case, no I don’t see this as a credible accusation without some shred of evidence. 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Of course they aren't.  They both have different groups of people they court and thus different issues that they pretend to care about.  Most of the Blacks I know don't think either party respects them, but they know they at least have a chance at status quo with the Democrats.   

You said blacks know that neither side gives a **** about them. I provided you ample proof that Democrats do, and you called me a fanatic Cecil, whatever the hell that means. I provided examples where they don't have the status quo with Democrats. 

[1776]

45 minutes ago, Kacie said:

I literally can't think of anything that would change any Trump cult members' minds at this point.  They could have him on tape raping a 10 year old boy, calling his supporters stupid, pooping his pants, screaming Glory to Allah.  It wouldn't change a thing.  

Whether it’s Trump or anybody else, where do you draw the line on allegations without any evidence? 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, 1776 said:

Whether it’s Trump or anybody else, where do you draw the line on allegations without any evidence? 

I believe this is number 28 or 29 to accuse Trump. I draw the line at Tara Reid, who made an accusation against a near 80 year old who had no accusations prior or since. This woman is going to get nothing but death threats now. 

[CMRivdogs]

47 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I have no problem with the Washington Post not allowing the endorsement.  That is not the job of newspapers.  Their job should be to report unbiased news.  A stupid endorsement is not going to change anything anyway.  

I like Amazon Prime and will continue to use it.  

Newspapers have been issuing editorials since before the printing press was invented. A discerning reader can tell the difference between the news section and the opinion pages. 
The fact that the owner of the paper overruled his editorial board should be News. Bezos capitulated to Trump. That is news.

 

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Newspapers have been issuing editorials since before the printing press was invented. A discerning reader can tell the difference between the news section and the opinion pages. 
The fact that the owner of the paper overruled his editorial board should be News. Bezos capitulated to Trump. That is news.

 

Swampy

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

Newspapers have been issuing editorials since before the printing press was invented. A discerning reader can tell the difference between the news section and the opinion pages. 
The fact that the owner of the paper overruled his editorial board should be News. Bezos capitulated to Trump. That is news.

 

An editorial written by an individual giving a nuanced view on a paticular issue is educational.  An editorial saying that the entire newspaper is supporting Harris just makes the newspaper look unbiased.  I'd prefer not to see it even if I agree with it.    

[Kacie]

37 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Whether it’s Trump or anybody else, where do you draw the line on allegations without any evidence? 

When he said on tape he liked to grab them by the pussy.  You?

[mtutiger]

Always funny when people call Trump the candidate for the workin' man... especially when you see how the bulk of his campaign has been funded by elites and billionaires, and how much sucking up to him by billionaires is occurring in this cycle.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

An editorial written by an individual giving a nuanced view on a paticular issue is educational.  An editorial saying that the entire newspaper is supporting Harris just makes the newspaper look unbiased.  I'd prefer not to see it even if I agree with it.    

I agree with you in principle, but they could have made this decision in March of 2023 to little fanfare... instead, they did it 10 days before the 2024 Presidential Election.

[Dan Gilmore]

2 minutes ago, Kacie said:

When he said on tape he liked to grab them by the pussy.  You?

This.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

An editorial written by an individual giving a nuanced view on a paticular issue is educational.  An editorial saying that the entire newspaper is supporting Harris just makes the newspaper look unbiased.  I'd prefer not to see it even if I agree with it.    

If a newspaper doesn't want to do endorsement, that's fine. The problem is that WaPo has already made endorsements in all the other VA and MD federal office elections so instead of a principled decision to change a policy before an electoral cycle stared, you have an obvious putsch by ownership to overrule his own staff and cut off a process that had already run nearly to completion for this election cycle. So instead of being a expression of principle, it's simply an admission of that Bezos is willing to prioritize his other business interests over the editorial integrity of his newspaper. A guy like that should probably sell to someone else - unfortunately for the public, newspapers don't make enough money for anyone likely to be editorially independent to be interested.

Edited October 25 by gehringer_2

[1776]

9 minutes ago, Kacie said:

When he said on tape he liked to grab them by the pussy.  You?

So that’s a crime? That’s just vulgarity and stupidity. 

Edited October 25 by 1776

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, 1776 said:

So that’s a crime? Evidence?

Well he has been found liable for sexual assault if you are looking for a crime. It add to his pattern of behavior. 

Edited October 25 by Motown Bombers

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

This cannot be real. It has to be a fake. 

 

Fantastic. I’m becoming a big fan of Jake Tapper.

[Edman85]

Outrage machines can often drown out context.

https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

[Kacie]

10 minutes ago, 1776 said:

So that’s a crime? That’s just vulgarity and stupidity. 

I will assume that means if a strange man approached your wife, daughter or mother and grabbed her pussy and forcibly kissed her against her will, you would shrug that off as stupid and vulgar and be totally cool with it?  Am I understanding that correctly?

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Outrage machines can often drown out context.

https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

I understand the context just fine.

[CMRivdogs]

34 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If a newspaper doesn't want to do endorsement, that's fine. The problem is that WaPo has already made endorsements in all the other VA and MD federal office elections so instead of a principled decision to change a policy before an electoral cycle stared, you have an obvious putsch by ownership to overrule his own staff and cut off a process that had already run nearly to completion for this election cycle. So instead of being an expression of principle, it's simply an admission of that Bezos is willing to prioritize his other business interests over the editorial integrity of his newspaper. A guy like that should probably sell to someone else - unfortunately for the public, newspapers don't make enough money for anyone likely to be editorially independent to be interested.

It's also a slippery slope. As I've pointed out newspapers in the past have judiciously separated what is printed on its editorial pages from what appears in the rest of the publications. When a publisher or owner decides to quash a decision of his/her editorial staff in favor of his/her other business interests or out of fear of retribution from a political candidate or group goes against the assumed principles of freedom of the press. Especially if that publication's masthead is Democracy Dies in Darkness.

I've seen it on the broadcast side with the death of the Fairness Doctrine and takeover of the airwaves by giant companies who only care about the bottom line. Just add today's WP saga to the obituary of the printed media.

[1776]

6 minutes ago, Kacie said:

I will assume that means if a strange man approached your wife, daughter or mother and grabbed her pussy and forcibly kissed her against her will, you would shrug that off as stupid and vulgar and be totally cool with it?  Am I understanding that correctly?

Without evidence of wrongdoing, allegations are just that, allegations. 
The production that Ford/Feinstein put on in the Kavanaugh hearings was pathetic. It turned out to be a TV series based on nothing more than an attempted takedown of a conservative judge. If there was a crime committed it was the prefabricated charade the Democrats introduced and promoted. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has been presented regarding Ford’s claims. The sole purpose of the production was to destroy his reputation. 
Now we have another brave soul coming forward a handful of days before a major election day claiming that 31 years ago Trump “groped” her. Bull****!

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Without evidence of wrongdoing, allegations are just that, allegations. 
The production that Ford/Feinstein put on in the Kavanaugh hearings was pathetic. It turned out to be a TV series based on nothing more than an attempted takedown of a conservative judge. If there was a crime committed it was the prefabricated charade the Democrats introduced and promoted. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has been presented regarding Ford’s claims. The sole purpose of the production was to destroy his reputation. 
Now we have another brave soul coming forward a handful of days before a major election day claiming that 31 years ago Trump “groped” her. Bull****!

Trump himself bragged about forcibly kissing women and grabbing their pussies. It sounds to me like he was admitting to crimes even though he doesn't think such crimes pertain to him. 

Just this week, there was a video of him trying to kiss a teenage girl on the lips and then seemingly pulling her hand into his crotch area.  She pulled away from him. 

 

 

[Tigermojo]

3 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Without evidence of wrongdoing, allegations are just that, allegations. 
The production that Ford/Feinstein put on in the Kavanaugh hearings was pathetic. It turned out to be a TV series based on nothing more than an attempted takedown of a conservative judge. If there was a crime committed it was the prefabricated charade the Democrats introduced and promoted. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has been presented regarding Ford’s claims. The sole purpose of the production was to destroy his reputation. 
Now we have another brave soul coming forward a handful of days before a major election day claiming that 31 years ago Trump “groped” her. Bull****!

I don't understand this mindset. What evidence could there possibly be? A woman alone in a room with two men and one of the men is dead. It's he said she said. Why is the man always innocent?

There are men who are predators and we should stop them.

[mtutiger]

I don't know if the allegations are true or not, and the evidence is thin. The story will go nowhere as always.

But if I'm being honest with myself, knowing what I know about the guy, there's zero chance he hasn't done some really bad stuff with women over the years. And with Access Hollywood, he's been on tape admitting it. And he's currently paying out to EJ Carroll because of one incident as well.

Edited October 25 by mtutiger

[Kacie]

14 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Without evidence of wrongdoing, allegations are just that, allegations. 
The production that Ford/Feinstein put on in the Kavanaugh hearings was pathetic. It turned out to be a TV series based on nothing more than an attempted takedown of a conservative judge. If there was a crime committed it was the prefabricated charade the Democrats introduced and promoted. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has been presented regarding Ford’s claims. The sole purpose of the production was to destroy his reputation. 
Now we have another brave soul coming forward a handful of days before a major election day claiming that 31 years ago Trump “groped” her. Bull****!

This doesn't answer the question.  But nice attempt at distraction.  

[1776]

8 minutes ago, Tigermojo said:

I don't understand this mindset. What evidence could there possibly be? A woman alone in a room with two men and one of the men is dead. It's he said she said. Why is the man always innocent?

There are men who are predators and we should stop them.

So I ask you, do we arrest and jail ANYONE with zero evidence based on an unproven allegation? I’m ready to listen when and if this woman can produce some evidence that this actually happened. Thirty one years since, likely no evidence. My point isn’t intended to be political. Change the names and I’m still where I am on this.