Saw this comment re the Debate and laughed out loud. Y'all she is kicking the shit out of him? Does he have a safe word?
If you are interested in a future President who can handle a high-tension moment and perform effectively, I think there was a clear winner tonight. I’ll leave it at that. Ultimately, regardless of politics that is what you actually need in a leader. Only one person started ranting about eating pets tonight… I don’t think that’s a good look.
Lumpy says he was told he won 92-6. Guessing the other 2% was a kickback for the Saudis or something.
Smart move of the night and why debate prep pays off: The conventional wisdom is that immigration is a strong suit for Lumpy and a weak one for Harris. Maybe, maybe not, but that’s the perception and perception rules. When asked about immigration policy, Harris spoke about the immigration bill that Lumpy had killed and about how the border was more under control now, since Biden’s executive order (essentially the immigration bill itself) had taken root. Largely true. But in baseball terms, a single. Now this should be Lumpy’s strong suit upcoming on the rebut. Except as she was finishing, Harris spoke about how boring Lumpy’s rallies were, that they weren’t attracting as big crowds as he claimed and overall were a damp squib. Oooooooh! Like a coke junkie finding 3 kilos buried in the wall of an abandoned building, Lumpy just couldn’t resist. His question on immigration/rebuttal went off on his rallies, number of people, worthiness and on and on. When he eventually returned from his 30 mile tangent to talk about immigration? Haitian immigrants eating ducks, cats and dogs in Ohio. And then next question. Superb baiting, man management and psychological profiling. He may have had some blistering points on immigration to swamp Harris, but now? We’re talking about those Haitian pet eating immigrants.
A follow up thought. This baiting was no accident as I’ve said, but it was also sometime in the making. It didn’t start at the debate, it started at the DNC. Obama got under his skin during his speech when he also baited Lumpy on his obsession with crowd (and other) sizes. The long con (to quote The Sting) started with Obama’s speech, keeping Lumpy’s size obsession in the public mind. Walz and Harris herself have mentioned it a few times on the stump, all to set him up for last night. This was no accident, it was a long term strategy which came together last night. My guess is that going into the debate, the Democrats looked at their internal polling and found themselves weakest on immigration, so deployed that weapon on the immigration question. Had the internal polling shown, say, inflation as the weakest spot, the crowd size obsession quip from Harris would have happened on that question. Nice when a plan comes together.
She repeatedly dug traps for him to fall into, but he didn't fall - he jumped. Harris, and her campaign advisors, are knocking it out of the park. Interesting and telling that they aren't doing any victory laps today. Excellent discipline.
The fact that a former president and current candidate for president would tell the entire country that immigrants are eating their pets .... that should disqualify you outright. but apparently not in cult-land.
An actual tweet from the House Judiciary Committee, aka Gym Jordan. (Do you think they noticed that they photoshopped a goose in? Then again, the GOP noted avian racists so all gooses and ducks look the same to them).
VP Harris goaded him into going off on unhinged rants thus showing the entire world what an unhinged lunatic and utter buffoon Trump is. Transgender surgeries for illegal immigrants, post-birth abortion, Haitian immigrants eating cats, an Orban lovefest, the Big Lie, and a reprisal of "she turned Black," all showed just how incredibly unfit DJT is for public office.
To be fair - all the letters in Abdul are also found in the other name. So - because all of them look alike anyway - it's reasonable to go with Abdul. Right?
Unfit for being doorman or janitor at one of his resorts.... I learned nothing new about the blasted idiot .... but hopefully enough other people did learn some stuff, and see some of the danger attached in this ridiculous mess.... Well done Madam VP and advisors....
There’s A LOT of chatter (all off the record, no names mentioned) that a major Republican(s?) will endorse Harris in the coming days or a week. The obvious one is W, but I’m not sure what heft he holds these days in the GOP. May come to nothing, but the chatter is coming from multiple sources. Apparently.
if it's Dubya -- he has done everything he can to stay out of politics since the Tw@t showed up. a few days ago he said he wasn't going to endorse anyone. but I guess he could say "the debate was the final straw". apart from him .... would be very interesting to see, but I wouldn't know who to guess about. as I type that - MSNBC saying Alberto Gonzales endorses Harris. nice, but not a huge name by any means.
coincidentally I just came across this from Gonzales. is he fukking mad!!?? The court’s decision on presidential immunity has been especially targeted for criticism. Critics fear this decision will allow a president to direct the Justice Department to prosecute rivals for political reasons without fear of prosecution. While this may be possible, one should remember that the attorney general and other confirmed DOJ employees take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Every appointee’s allegiance is to the Constitution first, not to the president. The fact that a president may direct an institution or prosecutor to prosecute someone for political reasons does not override that official’s oath to the Constitution. If an appointee is ordered to do something that they feel is illegal, they should quit or refuse to carry out the order. They can go to the agency’s inspector general, the Congress and the media. There still remain these guardrails. .... oh ok Senor Gonzales, I guess we have nothing to worry about. I'm sure the Tw@t wouldn't put stooges in those positions who'd do whatever he wanted. good to know, amigo. gracias.
there are many, many young US citizens who are eligible to vote for the first time this year, and it seems a big % of them are motivated to do so (even before the TS endorsement). seeing clips of the the Tw@t's debate performance will (surely to God!) scare the crap out of them. but I think the H-W campaign would be well advised to run ads showing his "greatest hits" that they may not be familiar with - to reinforce just how bad he has always been, and make it clear that Tuesday wasn't just a poor night for him. it wouldn't hurt to remind people of all ages, actually. there's so much to choose from - mocking a disabled man, "inject with bleach", "good people on both sides". "losers in the military" etc etc. he's on the ground - start kicking!
Maybe none - but if a former Republican president did that - I think it would still carry a lot of weight among the general populace.
https://www.axios.com/2024/09/12/leonard-leo-conservative-groups-funding Leonard Leo, the conservative activist with an estimated $1 billion at his disposal, is threatening to withhold money from the dozens of groups he supports unless they develop plans to "weaponize" their ideas. Why it matters: Leo's call for conservative groups to get more aggressive will send shockwaves through the right-wing ecosystem he helped create. Leo wants less conversation and more action — fewer seminars and more campaigns — as part of a plan to "crush liberal dominance at the choke points of influence and power in our society," he told the groups in a letter obtained by Axios. The goal should be to direct "funding to operationalize or weaponize the conservative vision," Leo wrote. Zoom in: Leo, 59, is telling organizations backed by his 85 Fund that he's undertaking a "comprehensive review" of his grant-making process. His letter doesn't mention any specific groups by name, but they know who they are. Groups such as Teneo, Honest Elections Project, Consumers's Research and Do No Harm are examples of organizations that have adopted the kind of aggressive tactics Leo encourages, according to a source close to the 85 Fund. Those groups have run campaigns that have achieved measurable results, such as Consumers' Research's work on ESG investing, which has been featured in congressional hearings. Decisions about future funding will be shared with the groups by the end of November, Leo's letter said. Zoom out: Leo helped build the Federalist Society, an organization for conservative law students, into an incubator for lawyers and judges that reshape the federal judiciary and American society. He helped former President Trump select three conservative jurists for the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. They've transformed federal law on issues ranging from abortion rights (overturning Roe v. Wade) to federal rule-making. In 2022, the New York Times revealed how a nonprofit Leo controls, the Marble Freedom Trust, received a $1.6 billion contribution from a conservative donor, Barre Seid, who gifted the shares of the company he founded before they were sold. Leo has an estimated $1 billion left to spend, according to the Financial Times. Leo, who is credited with the initial $1.6 billion windfall to Marble Freedom Trust, has been responsible for raising donations and support for the 85 Fund. Between the lines: Behind Leo's new push is his admiration for what he views as successes of progressive nonprofit groups such as The Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund, supported by Hansjörg Wyss. He is also convinced that liberal organizations and ideas have captured most influential institutions in government, media, entertainment and academia. "They invested in talent pipelines to populate the power centers inside government, where policy would be implemented," Leo writes. "They incubated litigation as a means of leveraging the law to produce change." The other side: As Leo's prominence and influence have increased, his methods and his conservative network have drawn scrutiny — and provoked outrage — in progressive circles.
Absolutes and absolute guarantees, indeed, Senor Albie..... Should I remember this as a standalone theorem, Alberto? Or alongside, or in tandem with, say, good ole Ted Cruz's thoughts and prayers for the blasted open head of a little child in a school every time one happens to be found lying on a floor while Ted lies on another august (not the month - the once used to be revered/admired- US Senate) floor about it? Here's just one illustrative bit of trickery which Albie has seemingly failed to notice (among the dozens of garbage sleight of hand dealings from the so-called defenders of the spirit of the Constitution in high places) The bill of Rights of the US Constitution gives Alberto G the right to an assault weapon, assuming he can pass a background check - ostensibly to be free to uphold that same constitution's needs and merits by protecting his citizenship from the freedom stifling tyrannical overreach of the government if it reaches the point that this ever needs to be done. Yet, it would not give me the choice of necessity for the same purposes - myself having some prior military training and who ( alongside every other unbiased ex-military person ) could and would state hand on heart, just the exact same need and requirement of grenades and machine guns and bazookas and hand-held rocket launchers to effect any such defence. (Not to mention tanks and fighter jets, etc, but let's just stick to the obvious things that can be carried about by a human.) This is a pretty lied about fact. Nonetheless a fact it is. And thus is the sanctity of the constitution spoken and lied about by a human. Whether speaking about constitutional sacredness or not really speaking about it when speaking. Granted, my argument does rather fall apart upon any attempt to prove that Ted Cruz is a human.. but nonetheless....... Sure, we are in august, non-reprobate hands and all will be well..... Good one, Albie....
Particularly if he did it about a week or ten days before the election (which is when I would do it) and made a statement of warning to the country. Doubt that will happen, but if that's what he feels, in a free society that is what he should speak.... IMO....