Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Image

Cracking Up Lol GIF

 

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

This isn't that crazy of a number from an impressions perspective. 

Yeah, that motherfucker is counting every impression, every comment, every slight view. We'd be better off if a billion people on this planet had listened to that shit. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-murdochs-wall-street-journal-about-to-dump-trump?ref=home

  Reveal hidden contents

When combined, the pieces seemingly represent Murdoch’s frustration with how the Trump campaign has floundered recent weeks, from its pick of Sen. JD Vance as his running mate against his wishes to Trump’s continued belligerent complaints to his inability to land on a clear message to combat against her ascendant campaign.

As Trump has spent weeks defining Harris’ presidential candidacy through racist attacks and baseless crowd conspiracies, it has been left to the two newspapers to vocalize what Murdoch and his editors see as the policy and personality contrasts between the two that the billionaire media mogul would dearly love Trump to major on beyond his relentless, vicious, mad-sounding attacks. If Fox News has, for now at least, stayed fully signed up to the Trump train, the two leading Murdoch newspaper titles in the U.S. are sounding their own passenger alarms.

“Trump Meets Half the Moment in His RNC Speech,” read the headline on a Journal editorial board piece hours after the speech.

Since then, The Journal’s editorial board has published almost daily pieces on various policy positions of Harris’, almost crafting talking point memos for the GOP to seize on. One on Sunday attacked her reversal on single-payer healthcare, while a Thursday editorial questioned her bona fides as a potential commander-in-chief. Others have also targeted her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“Donald Trump often shoots from the hip on these subjects, and his favorable comments about dictators are witless,” read Thursday’s Harris piece. “But his first-term record, especially on Iran and the Middle East, is far stronger than the Biden-Harris performance. Americans shouldn’t have to read tea leaves to figure out if Ms. Harris would keep the country safe in a treacherous world.” (The Daily Beast has reached out to the Journal and New York Post for comment.)

The Journal maintains on its masthead page that its opinion page operates independently from its news division, and its opinion editor Paul Gigot reports to Dow Jones CEO Almar Latour.

At the Post, editor-in-chief Keith Poole is responsible for both op-eds and news coverage. He was a guest at Murdoch’s most recent wedding, the 93-year-old’s fifth.

The commentary in both papers reflects how Murdoch has operated his papers and exercised his political muscle in the past, both in the U.S. and abroad. Murdoch is infamous for calling his editors almost daily, and when he vehemently opposed Trump’s pick of Vance last month, he reportedlydispatched Post columnists and executives to meet with Trump and urge him to consider someone else. But Trump stood firm, and Vance got the job.

Murdoch’s U.K. tabloid The Sun was also notorious for making or breaking British governments, for years a staunch supporter of Margaret Thatcher, even gleefully admitting in a front-page headline it aided in the 1992 election victory of the Tories. (Murdoch later claimed he found the headline “tasteless.”) The paper's backing of Labour leader Tony Blair in 1997 after a 20-year streak of supporting the Tories was therefore seen as hugely significant; the paper endorsed him through the 2005 election before reverting back to the Conservative Party. 

The paper eventually, and perhaps not surprisingly given the widespread unpopularity of Rishi Sunak's Tories, endorsed Labour's Keir Starmer in last month’s election, which Starmer won—as with Blair, Murdoch likes to be on side with the winning team.

The conservative-leaning Journal editorial board has never appeared eager to anoint Trump, with its November 2022 editorial titled “Trump Is the Republican Party’s Biggest Loser,” following Republicans’ razor-thin midterm wins that cycle, serving as a prime example of its frustration toward his temperament. Yet the paper has still oscillated between defending (and advising) Trump and attacking President Joe Biden.

It’s a reflection of Murdoch’s own views on the former president, a man he regarded in emails revealed by the Fox-Dominion case as going “increasingly mad” over his 2020 election loss and who Murdoch predicted would become “irrelevant” following the 2020 election. The Fox-Dominion case only ever arose because Murdoch’s TV mouthpiece, Fox News, regurgitated the former president’s claims of a stolen election, costing the network $787 million.

Author Michael Wolff reported in his book last year, The Fall: The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty, that Murdoch even and often wished Trump were dead.

“Trump’s death became a Murdoch theme: ‘We would all be better off …?’ ‘This would all be solved if …’ ‘How could he still be alive, how could he?’ ‘Have you seen him? Have you seen what he looks like? What he eats?’” according to the book.

Still, the two appeared to have mended their post-election hostilities. Trump told podcast hosts Clay Travis and Buck Sexton that he and Murdoch speak “a lot,” and Murdoch made a rare appearance at the Republican National Convention last month.

“He’s 100 percent sharp—he’s as sharp as a tack,” Trump told the hosts.

Murdoch likely hopes Trump means those words, if the advice his Journal editorial board has offered Trump and Republicans is any indication: “The former President will have to make a case on policy, rather than personal insults, and that isn’t his strength,” read a July 24 editorial. “The economic and security fundamentals still favor Mr. Trump, but this is now a competitive race.”

Whether Trump heeds it, however, is another matter. On Saturday, new New York Times polls showed Harris leading Trump in multiple swing states. On Saturday, Trump called Harris a “RADICAL LEFT LUNATIC.”

If Trump carries on like this, who knows—Murdoch may feel, as the campaign enters its dying days, to do what he did in Britain, and turn his back on the leading right-wing candidate and support Harris. That stated support written in either or both outlets—one totemic for the business community, the other for New York—would not only represent an emphatic rejection of Trump by two communities whose approval Trump so desires, it would be from a mogul whose audiences he has courted so ferociously and effectively. 

Perhaps Trump—in his pick of Vance, despite Murdoch’s antipathy—has made his own calculations about what he does and does not need from Murdoch. Certainly Murdoch’s influence in British politics, while still undoubtedly strong, has waned in recent years as people source their media from less-traditional sources. Regardless, this presidential election is not just the battle of Harris and Trump, but a reckoning for two powerful men who find themselves yoked together—the best of frenemies.

 

image.png.646385554e2eede995cece45b669868b.png

and how does the Drumpf of today sound to medical professionals, you might wonder. This article was published just a few days ago by STAT News, an online publication for medical professionals owned by the Boston Globe. I don't know that any of it was picked up by any of the major news publications, unless you count New Republic.

 

image.png.ea048128a00504c8bf7a5eef72ae3271.png

image.thumb.png.2747dae31b0462d0a3487b8fb46c6be4.png

image.thumb.png.4b673872ccb191b9ef3ddf3b5b8570f0.png

image.png.3e3871ae2fa1a129383d58d99d7640cf.png

 

here's the full article, paywall avoided https://archive.ph/dX2YK  one of the experts is Social Psychologist prof at UT

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Seriously, all the proof you need is that he's insane is portrait in the background.

 

 

Is that one of the paintings he purchased with money from his “charity?”

Posted
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I listened to about 10 seconds just to hear his voice. WTF was that? He doesn't normally talk like that. 

 

Yes he does. That's exactly how he talks. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I listened to about 10 seconds just to hear his voice. WTF was that? He doesn't normally talk like that. 

 

#DonnyDentures

Sounded like he didn't have his teeth in.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

They have this zoom call arranged for Jewish women but I'm wondering if they should've explicitly included older gay gentlemen. 

image.thumb.png.c0ce604936f989cd3692324ea6a12bbb.png

(It's a Streisand joke if you don't get it.)

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, immamac said:

Yes he does. That's exactly how he talks. 

You are bizarrely argumentative at times. No, I don't normally hear whatever that was when he talks.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, immamac said:

Yes he does. That's exactly how he talks. 

The content of what he was saying is consistent, but no, he doesn't sound like that usually. Whether it was the microphone, loose dentures, or whatever, he had a heavy, heavy lisp last night.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I listened to about 10 seconds just to hear his voice. WTF was that? He doesn't normally talk like that. 

 

When I close me eyes and listen this is what I see

 

220px-Peter_Griffin.png

Posted
1 minute ago, TexasHooch said:

The content of what he was saying is consistent, but no, he doesn't sound like that usually. Whether it was the microphone, loose dentures, or whatever, he had a heavy, heavy lisp last night.

weird, I didn't notice it, but I may have been too high to care he sounded the same as usual to me, but maybe I also have him half tuned out.

Posted

I know that Vance isn't a great replacement, but just from a procedural standpoint, can the GOP remove Trump from the ticket after he's been nominated?

IE if he is deemed to have severe cognitive decline since the convention?

Not asking if it would, or should happen, just trying to understand if it's even possible.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Well they're gonna try to argue that Harris isn't eligible. It would be funny to watch them make that argument, pre-convention, and then replace Trump post-convention.

"No no that's totally cool though, because reasons."

Posted

My conspiracy theory is that they are riding Trump's pull with MAGA to get the win then they'll use the 25th amendment to replace him with Vance after the inauguration. 

Then Vance can implement Project 2025.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I know that Vance isn't a great replacement, but just from a procedural standpoint, can the GOP remove Trump from the ticket after he's been nominated?

IE if he is deemed to have severe cognitive decline since the convention?

Not asking if it would, or should happen, just trying to understand if it's even possible.

It's complicated.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_laws_and_party_rules_on_replacing_a_presidential_nominee,_2024

Quote

Democratic Party rules governing vacancies

 

Under Article 2 of The Bylaws of the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has the responsibility to fill vacancies in presidential and vice presidential nominations between national conventions.[8]

In the event of a vacancy on the national ticket, the chairperson would call a special meeting. Under Article 2 § 8(d), questions before the DNC, with some exceptions otherwise outlined in the charter and bylaws, are determined by a majority vote of the DNC members who are present and voting by proxy. The bylaws also state that voting to fill a vacancy on the national ticket must proceed in accordance with procedural rules adopted by the Rules and Bylaws Committee and approved by the DNC.[8]

Republican Party rules governing vacancies

 

Rule 9 of The Rules of the Republican Party provides guidance on how to fill presidential and vice presidential vacancies.[9]

It says that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is authorized to select a new candidate by majority vote or by reconvening the national convention to fill the vacancy. In the former process, the three RNC members from each state—comprised of a state chair, a national committeeman, and a national committeewoman—would be able to cast the same number of votes as the entire delegation from that state to the convention.[9] Under Rule 9(c), if the three RNC members did not all support the same candidate, their votes would be proportionately distributed.[9] For example, each RNC member would cast 13 of Kansas' 39 delegate votes.

Ballot access and vacancies for presidential candidates

 

States require political parties to submit names of presidential and vice presidential nominees and presidential electors in order to certify them for the general election ballot. Deadlines vary by state and are dependent on the election calendar, including early voting, voting by mail, and absentee voting considerations.

Nearly half of the states have a deadline in August, and most require certification or identification of a candidate to fill a vacancy no later than September 6. Replacing a candidate's name on the ballot in September, therefore, becomes increasingly difficult as many states will have already printed ballots or begun to allow voters to cast ballots.

It is possible for parties and election authorities to change or work around these deadlines. For instance, in 2020, the Republican National Convention took place after the deadlines in Alabama and Ohio. In Ohio, the state legislature passed a law to change the deadline that cycle so it took place after the Republican National Convention, and in Alabama, the state's election authority accepted a placeholder letter from the RNC that said the party would certify a nominee once the official nomination took place.[10]

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Who is gonna stop them from doing it?

MAGA.  They would see it as a sign of The Deep State.  If they show up to vote at all, it’ll be for RFK, or possibly even Harris as a fuck you to the GOP.

Hell, they will just write him in.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Who is gonna stop them from doing it?

It's mainly a question of getting on the ballot in 50+ different voting authorities.  

I think the cleanest path would be to ask people to vote for Trump/Vance with the understanding that Trump would step down the day after the inauguration.  Which he would never agree to.  There is no way to force Trump out now.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Well they're gonna try to argue that Harris isn't eligible. It would be funny to watch them make that argument, pre-convention, and then replace Trump post-convention.

"No no that's totally cool though, because reasons."

image.gif.b5f51770237cad1c7ffe2063892867db.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

You must have been a special kind of high. Congrats!

 

dude maybe there's something wrong with me but that's just how I think spaces sound on twitter. The audio processing is just different it's why musks voice sounds strange too.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, immamac said:

dude maybe there's something wrong with me but that's just how I think spaces sound on twitter. The audio processing is just different it's why musks voice sounds strange too.

there was a separate audio from someone in the room with trump and he sounded like that. so it wasn't xitter spaces.

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

dude maybe there's something wrong with me but that's just how I think spaces sound on twitter. The audio processing is just different it's why musks voice sounds strange too.

It definitely has an effect, I noticed the pitch of his voice was higher. I don't know if that goes for the lisp too though.  And even if that is the explanation, the fact remains that he sounded different from what we are accustomed too.  But here's video of him in the room.  Judge for yourself.  

I hear "tho many millions of people"

  • Haha 1
Posted

there's something not clicking in my brain. I just don't hear a difference from his normal talking, maybe he's always had a lisp to me? anyway done with my derail it's me it's not you.

Posted
16 minutes ago, The Dog said:

My conspiracy theory is that they are riding Trump's pull with MAGA to get the win then they'll use the 25th amendment to replace him with Vance after the inauguration. 

Then Vance can implement Project 2025.

I don't think this will work.  Vance will probably play along, but his cabinet will be filled with Trump yes men who won't invoke it.

If by some chance they do, Trump will refuse and return to office for 4 days.  The cabinet can invoke it again and the House and Senate will need to vote 2/3rd's each to permanently remove him.  While not impossible, I don't see that as particularly possible.  There will be enough Trumpists in the House that even with full Democratic support (unknown) it will fail.  The Senate, maybe, but they'd need both.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I know that Vance isn't a great replacement, but just from a procedural standpoint, can the GOP remove Trump from the ticket after he's been nominated?

IE if he is deemed to have severe cognitive decline since the convention?

Not asking if it would, or should happen, just trying to understand if it's even possible.

I'm pretty confident that Trump could voluntarily step down if he wanted to. But I don't think there is a way for the party to make him do that at this point.

Posted
1 minute ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

I don't think this will work.  Vance will probably play along, but his cabinet will be filled with Trump yes men who won't invoke it.

If by some chance they do, Trump will refuse and return to office for 4 days.  The cabinet can invoke it again and the House and Senate will need to vote 2/3rd's each to permanently remove him.  While not impossible, I don't see that as particularly possible.  There will be enough Trumpists in the House that even with full Democratic support (unknown) it will fail.  The Senate, maybe, but they'd need both.


Trump yes men see Trump as a means to an end. They're not wedded to him personally. If they see Vance as a much younger, more focused, more energetic way to get what they want. they'll dump Trump in a heartbeat.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Trump yes men see Trump as a means to an end. They're not wedded to him personally. If they see Vance as a much younger, more focused, more energetic way to get what they want. they'll dump Trump in a heartbeat.

Yeah, but Trump voters see him as Dear Leader. If the party removes him, they will lose the only people still voting for them.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, Old Freak Nasty said:

I don't think this will work.  Vance will probably play along, but his cabinet will be filled with Trump yes men who won't invoke it.

If by some chance they do, Trump will refuse and return to office for 4 days.  The cabinet can invoke it again and the House and Senate will need to vote 2/3rd's each to permanently remove him.  While not impossible, I don't see that as particularly possible.  There will be enough Trumpists in the House that even with full Democratic support (unknown) it will fail.  The Senate, maybe, but they'd need both.

He's not picking his cabinet - Theil and Musk will. They already forced him to pick Vance via Eric and Junior. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Tuco said:

It's mainly a question of getting on the ballot in 50+ different voting authorities.  

They can completely ignore dozens of States. There's no point in trying to change the ballot in California, for example.

But I agree it isn't happening. 

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

They can completely ignore dozens of States. There's no point in trying to change the ballot in California, for example.

But I agree it isn't happening. 

Ohio is one of them with a tight schedule.  Here is an old article talking about doing a roll-call vote ahead of the convention to avoid any issue with getting on the ballot in Ohio.  They needed to get it in by Aug 7 to avoid having to force it in the courts.  Fun fact: Walz headed up the convention rules committee which pushed up the roll call vote.  

Edit: I assume the GOP has already sent out the ballot information to Ohio and other states.  Changing it now would be much more difficult.  

Edited by Tuco
Posted
17 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Trump yes men see Trump as a means to an end. They're not wedded to him personally. If they see Vance as a much younger, more focused, more energetic way to get what they want. they'll dump Trump in a heartbeat.

This would require significant, if not total, Democratic cooperation for removal.  They cannot do it alone.  And if I'm a Democratic rep or Senator, there's a pretty good case to be made to leave Trump in office as opposed to elevating Vance.  Two absolutely horrid choices, but one would result in a spectacular GQP civil war, the other a focused, systemic dismantling of American democracy.



×
×
  • Create New...