Tell her not to fear, Freedom cities are on the way!

IN Sen. Braun comes out against Loving v. Virginia (legalizing interracial marriage)

Ah yes, the beauty of the system should be open racism.

Trump just going full on Nazi at this point

reuters.com

If some of this stuff actually happens, it definitely feels like we're heading towards a "united states" where red and blue states have pacts between themselves (red-red and blue-blue) on a bunch of issues, but otherwise, we each live under a bunch of separate and incongruous laws, each penalizing/criminalizing activities that are otherwise legal under the laws of the other, and we'll be left with a fragmented system in which we have to show our driver's license to travel from through red and blue states depending on where you're from, and if you want to visit Disney World or go to a sporting event in certain states, they're be an extra tax layered on for non-red or non-blue state residents as a privilege of "traitors" using their amenities. I haven't spent much time since law school reading up on the jurisprudence around the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I'm sure there's a way to strip it down to the point of meaninglessness.

It's like we're moving toward a (mostly) non-violent civil war in which we're essentially divided into 2 countries because the US is too big to actually take apart and the majority of people are too lazy to do anything about it (me included). The "problem" of blue cities in red states is taken care of by just making it suck so bad to live there with laws targeting and adversely impacting those people that they drive most of them out to live/settle in "their own" states.

Now, money rules all, right, so if Florida outlaws interracial marriage down the line after the SC overrules Loving, are they going to bar those people from living in and spending money in their state? Doubtful. But what other reason would their be to go through with this, if it's just a charade? Abortion seems like it's just the tip of the iceberg.

I think that’s probably the sunny and optimistic version of what happens, yes. Probably more likely with a Trump win than a Harris win, at least the non-violent piece.

Bob Woodward is reporting that Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone up to seven times since Trump left office.

We are not divided by blue states and red states. We are divided by urban and rural areas.

How is this not a violation of the Logan act?

Trump has shown that most politicians are supposed to just be on the honor system. The laws we've had in place were there to politely ask them not to do these things. There are no actual consequences.

We simply don't enforce those kinds of laws.

Elon's PAC legally can't coordinate with Trump, but they both brag about working together.

SCOTUS would just rule that all this is really fine anyway.

If these were permanent positions as opposed what I think are thoughts given in a moment in time I might be inclined to agree with you. If women were rushing out to have their uterus removed and guys were rushing out to be sterilized because they just don't want to have children, I might agree with you. Since neither of those things are happening, I am going to assume that the double digits percentage points difference between the two groups imply that people can and do change their minds between those ages on this topic. I will concede that I have to take to heart the 13%/15% who said that infertility and other medical reasons was their reason. That seems pretty permanent. Finally having spoken to enough 18-25 year olds, "Just don't want to" sounds like a catch all for everything from all of the above, some of the above and I don't have to explain myself to you.

That being said, if the things above remove the affordability barrier and allows that 36% to have the children they evidently want to have, isn't that a good thing for birth rates? If these are permanent positions, we are not convincing people who just don't want to and/or want to focus on other interests. It might be beneficial for us to remove the affordability barrier for those that actually want to have children.

One thing I can say for sure, young people who were raised in homes with a solid financial footing throughout their childhood aren't really here for the broke parent beginnings many of us had with our kids. For them, If it means having those broke parent beginnings more permanently because they don't see themselves reaching that sort of financial footing, then yes, they don't want to have children. However that desire is wrapped up in whether they are or are not able to provide at the same rate for their children as what their parents could for them or what they thought their parents should have be able to provide for them. My oldest son and his girlfriend are going through the adoption process right now in Switzerland. She is the reason for my "remove their uterus" comment as she made that decision a few years ago for family medical history reasons. They both refuse to even consider becoming parents until such time as they were on pretty secure financial footing. My oldest likes to politely jab my wife and I that he will not be serving his children fried bologna sandwiches like I did and as he says my wife allowed me to do. Needless to say, I have been forbidden from making fried bologna sandwiches for my youngest. :D

Yes, but in terms of governance, the party in power makes a state red or blue. And the ability to enact/enforce laws is what is most important.

Yeah, but there are more Trump voters in California than in Texas.

There are more Biden voters in Texas than in Illinois.

The country is bright blue dots surrounded by ruby red land, and a state goes red or blue based on what shade of purple the suburbs feel like being that year.

Not sure how you divide that in half.

He who wins the state, decides the rules. In my post above, I didn't suggest dividing the states. I believe the solution would be to make it difficult for "the other side" to want to continue living in your state. You create a truly red or blue state by making it unlivable for the others. Then they move to a red or blue state where they are with people more like themselves.

Whether it's Biden sending COVID tests to American families or Trump sending COVID tests to Vladimir Putin, both presidents tried to help the people they care about the most.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) October 8, 2024

So it looks like Eric Trump is now a "Special Deputy Sheriff" in Florida since he's out of his day job with Trump Org.


x.com

I'm not saying it won't help some. What I am saying is I do not believe financial constraints are the root cause (as a whole) of women not wanting more babies and our < 1.6 replacement rate. There are many western (and like) countries that have tried more X, Y, Z and it hasn't work (that I know of).

Below summarizes it well from my POV.

How can countries deal with falling birth rates?

Bottom line. I don't think there is a "fix" using financial incentives. It's a cultural (?) thing and the genie is out of the bottle. IMO the best way is to increase legal immigration, and ideally with specific skillsets to help the US maintain its competitive edge.

Hah. My kids are out of the house now but when they show up whenever, I still cook them my "world famous" X and Y. And I can honestly say they still enjoy my dishes.

Just listened to most of the Howard interview with Harris. It’s comical how those on the right are trying to paint her as a bumbling moron filled with word salad. Have to imagine a lot of his fans are Trump guys. Hopefully this goes a long way to changing the narrative.

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

100%

Yes, in the year 2024 many women want to have careers but many of those would very likely like to have families as well. It's just not financially doable for most people in their 20s right now.

Housing costs are insane and are far out of the reach of younger couples. Cars, groceries, school, child care, and so on add to those financial problems. If that couple has college debt then families are entirely off the table plus you're then looking down the line at potentially paying for your child's education.

First time buyer incentives, student loan forgiveness, tax credits, paid maternity leave, and so on are all part of a systematic issue that makes having and raising a family nearly impossible for most. Vance is trying to get republicans on board the make babies train but his party is against nearly every single thing that would make life easier on families.

Here's some very simple numbers that shows how unrealistic having a family is int his country right now. The average cost of child care is about $1,000 per month. The average mortgage is about $2,500 per month. The average car payment for a used vehicle is about 525 per month. The median household income is about $80k per year or $6,600. You're already at $4k of that with just those 3 items. Add in groceries, bills, potential student loans, and you're not left with much wiggle room, if any at all.

How many people are going to sign up for that struggle in order to raise a child or multiple children for 18+ years? We've had too many older generations rigging the system to benefit themselves and now we're in a situation where we're blaming the younger generation for not taking advantage of a system that we broke.

Why are you using average costs and median income? It's a little disingenuous IMO.

Average household income as of 2022 was 74k. It's difficult to find median numbers for the same year on everything.

Elon Musk is a good guy. He's offering everyone suffering from Hurricane Helene a free month of Starlink internet.

So for the price of the equipment ($400) they get a free month of satellite internet.

$120 a month isn't terrible. $50 more a month than I pay.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Cards on the table, I did not see or listen to the entire interview. I am only reacting the clip. Was this part of a broader discussion on the nation's declining birth rate or was this just a discussion about the cost of raising children in the U.S. If it was the former and if these things were proposed as overarching solutions to the nation's declining birth rate, I agree, it won't work.

I don't think I have heard anyone argue that those things are about increasing the national birth rate or convincing women to have more kids. Those proposals just seem like answers to a political question from a part of the population who say they aren't having children because raising kids on expensive. Will it work for those people? Probably but as we always say the devil is in the details. I do know that the U.S. government has provided people with financial incentives including some associated with housing that led to what we now know as The Baby Boom after a period where the child birthrate dropped to its lowest point prior to the 1980s.

BTW, when did we starting caring about the declining birthrate? Don't think I forgot how we all talked about THOSE women who had a house full of THOSE kids that they could not afford to take care of. What happened to telling women specifically "Don't have kids you can't or won't take care of."

Now they have taken that advice, it's a problem? GTFOH

Funny thing about the declining birth rate, almost all of the births that have disappeared are among the under 25 population. Even more extreme when you look at under 20. 61.64 per 1K in 1990 vs. 16.82 in 2019 for ages 15.19.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...der-women.html

I was just talking about how common teen pregnancy was when I was in high school. Our high school (2,400 students) had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the state, and the state had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. There was times when I felt like there was a pregnant girl in every class.
One time, I was in the lunch room and started talking to this girl I thought was cute. We were hitting it off pretty well, but then she just casually slipped something about her son. Ended up, she had two kids already. She was 15.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Vance tonight:


Yes, JD there is something wrong with conducting a private foreign policy.

The girl named Friendliest in my senior class got pregnant the summer after we graduated.

I'll never stop laughing about that.

MI GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers appears to live in FL and uses a home that is incomplete and unoccupied as his MI address.

Maybe voter fraud is real.

I didn't listen to all of it either, I was going off the blurb from GD's link. The question posed to Kamala is below.

Quote:

Almost 1 in 4 Gen Z and millennials say they don't want to have kids because it's too damn expensive. How are you going to help young people not feel left behind.

I can see the first sentence applying to your former, and the second applying to the latter.

Declining US birth rate has been in the news some (e.g. social security is in a mess because not enough younger workers etc.). However, there's not enough awareness, will, concern, alarm etc. to address the issue.

Not a social scientist but I thought the Millennials bump (born in the 80's) was because of the Baby Boomers having babies. I did not think it was an outcome of financial/tax incentives but could well be wrong.

Missed your chance for a ready-made family.

What went through your mind then?

IMO the magic bullet is legal immigration. The US has it relatively easier than other countries with replacement rate issues. People want to immigrate to the US and we can pick and choose.

Don't disagree.

Run. No, what really hit me was I was 16, and that close to like real adult responsibility. I had the self knowledge to know I wasn't ready to date someone who had children, and it was a real slap in the face that I had to make that decision at that age.

It's amazing that nothing is going to be done about Elon buying votes.

If the concern is over things like Social Security, the concerned people should probably be more focused on the fertility rate. We used to laugh about the description of the husband, the wife and the 2.2 kids. Well, we have gone from women having 3 kids or more throughout the 50s and half of the 60s to 2 kids being the absolute highwater mark. We've gone from 42 workers per retiree in 1940 to 3 to 1 today. More people having one child ain't fixing that. Making it more affordable for people to want to have and be able to provide for multiple children might.


Well...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...h-age-gap.html

The Baby Boomer generation were born anywhere from 1946-1964 as far as I can tell. That would put them in the 16-26 to 34-44 age range during the 80's. So, yes you are correct it was about Baby Boomers having babies. Once again though, just looking at that graphic and being alive during that time, society was not overjoyed for or being very supportive of the women represented by those dark pink columns. I can't speak intelligently on whether or not financial incentives were in place then encouraged but I don't remember encouragement of any kind for the folks in the dark pink.

Sell your sole for the low, low price of just $47.

These guys really have this grifting thing down but don’t worry it will trickle back down to these pour souls in the end. Clearly men of integrity like Musk and Trump are going to make sure the little guy gets their fair share back.

Raising kids is hard, paying for them is expensive, and we a society have been on a long trend toward more downtime/relaxation/self-care, not less. I don't see any particular reason why people not otherwise inclined to have children would do so simply for economic reasons (if th govenment invested in making having/raising kids more affordable), or those who have 1 or 2 kids would want to "play zone defense" when their desire to have a family is fulfilled with the 1 or 2 kids they already have.

Add to that the number of women who want to have a career, and raising kids becomes even more complex than it was a couple of generations ago when women hardly worked (speaking strictly outside the home, of course). Even moreso if they are (or want to be) single parents.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see much of a reason for many couples to set a goal of > 2 kids, much less 1.

I don't see why this is really an issue to be "concerned" or "alarmed" about, unless you are worried specifically about white babies. There is plenty of world population, and plenty of people who want to go to rich countries (or who will need to migrate due to climate change). Our population level should be fine.

Now, could we make it easier to raise children? Yes. Yes we could. Does everybody really want to? Not so sure about that.

Trump's God Bless the USA Bibles were printed in China. You can't make this shit up.

MAGA will just talk about how smart a businessman he is.

And this is where I think the true opposition lies and I have no issues with anyone who want to make that case.

Access to more affordable housing, $25,000 for a first time home buyer and a $6,000 tax cut for the first year of a child's life seems like something that would have help me when we had our first kid and would help most young parents especially if they are interested in purchasing a home. Would my wife and I have been prepared deal with the costs of owning a home and losing the tax cut? Well, she definitely would have been prepared, me not so much. But those things would have worked if the goal was to make things easier for us as young parents. Was it going to make us shoot (HA!) for three or four more kids? No chance in hell. Would it have made things easier than not having it for the ones we had? Probably

After going back and looking at the clip one more time, the more precise questions IMO are:

1. Are young parents "falling behind"? I assume they mean falling behind their childless counterparts?

Maybe


2. If they are, in what ways?

Resources that have to be put towards child raising can be put to other ventures, investments, self improvement etc.

3. If they are, is that something that society has a role to play in helping them catch back up or is this something they should have to accept as a byproduct of the choice to have children?

I don't know.

Four weeks to go, and I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about Harris's chances. I see the last poll has her increasing her lead to less than 4 points. That's not good enough. The numbers look even worse when compared to 2020. I don't know. I can't completely write off the race yet, but it seems very likely Trump wins if things stay like this, or even if Harris continues to marginally improve.

Eh, the electoral college doesn't lean as heavily to the right now and pollsters have adjusted to right from 2020. It's rare to see 2 general elections in a row off toward the same party because those types of adjustments are made.

I dont think we're in the same situation where a 3 point lead or so is needed to win the electoral.

I am less pessimistic than I was when Biden was on the ballot, but I am far from comfortable.
I heard an interesting stat from the 538 crew. The average presidential election has been off the polling average by almost 4 points for last couple of decades. Considering where the polling is, a four point swing either way would put either Harris or Trump winning with about 320 electoral votes.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

The biggest shocker today are new Quinnipiac polls that have Trump +2 in Wisconsin and +4 in Michigan. Last month, they had Harris +1 in Wisconsin and Harris +5 in Michigan.

And for the first time since the debate, Trump has regained a slight lead in the betting markets.

https://electionbettingodds.com/

538's simulations have Harris winning 545 times and Trump winning 451 times out of 1000 sims. The missing 4 sims resulted in neither getting 270 or more EVs.

The most frequent outcomes were (tied) Harris winning 304 (EVs) to Trump 234 and Trump winning 311 to 227. To me, that suggests that one of them is more than likely going to win 5 or more of the swing states.

I keep hearing that the Dems have a much better ground game and infrastructure and that the GOP are targeting unlikely voters and relying on PACs for the GOTV, so that makes me feel that the Dems have an advantage, but it is very much a coin flip at this point and will likely remain so.

It really is nerve-wracking. I just want to get past the election and assure that democracy is saved. I feel like we have a good chance, but it is still far too close to feel comfortable at all.

I don't feel good in either scenario, because the biggest immediate test of our system will come if Harris wins in a non-blowout - which has to be the only way she wins. GOP states are setting up to contest results and hold up electors, etc. They've already started filing lawsuits in a numerous contested states as a result of the outcomes from the Trump 2020 lawsuits, some of which noted that the lawsuits were too late to contest alleged issues they already knew about before the election.

All of these things will happen, plus others. And that's not even factoring in the protest/mob issues we'll surely see. Hopefully they are about as successful as Trump in 2020, but they are better prepared this time, no doubt.

The other big thing I heard brought up today was we are in a situation where an October surprise couldn't definitely determine the outcome, and you have to think that could only mean a Harris loss. After everything that is out there about Trump, I can't even imagine any "surprise" about him that would affect his votes. War in the Middle East is the most obvious, but something like a major terror attack or a personal scandal that breaks could spell doom.

Kshama Sawant has been working for Jill Stein in Michigan. It's really the only state Stein is putting effort into because they feel if Stein keeps Kamala from winning Michigan then she doesn't have a path to the Presidency. That's from Sawant's mouth.

Sawant is a former Seattle City Council member that was a disaster. She had multiple corruption allegations, used city funds to advertise against ballot initiatives, then when caught complained that she had too many regulations to follow while corporations are free to spend as much as they want.

As a city council member she encouraged disruptive protests to shut down city services, said the state should seize Microsoft, Boeing, etc because they should be owned by the public. She pushed for the city to seize certain apartment complexes in the city because they're in beautiful areas and anything beautiful should be owned by the public.

Eventually, she barely survived a recall and then decided not to run again. Every group she ends up aligning with gets tired of her so she bounces around quite a bit. She's essentially the far left boogeyman that the right has made AOC and company out to be.

I don't at all believe there's been an 8 point swing in MI over the last three weeks. The Q poll's methodology allows for some big shifts from poll to poll. Throw it in the average, but I wouldn't take it as gospel.

What drives me nuts is the double standard. I hear a lot of people saying they need to know more about Harrises policies and how she is going to implement that. That the whole just not being Trump isn't good enough.

It is maddening because while she is actually discussing what she wants to do in a coherent manner Trump is literally repeating Nazi talking points word for word. We saw 4 years of Trump and the empty promises and total lack of any level of organization but god forbid Harris doesn't do a deep dive into the economic ramifications of her policies.

I still have to think at the end of the day the undecideds who hold these views break for her. I think people are just so tired of Trump and the never ending circus he brings. IF we elect his then we aren't the country I thought we were and i will fear for my daughter. and gay son

Allan Lichtman who does the 13 keys that have correctly predicted 9/10 elections the only loss being 2000 claims there is no such thing as an October surprise and doesn't factor them in to his method. He has Harris winning.

Another thing Trump said that would end the Harris campaign.

Yeah. I heard that and it makes me nuts because it is one of those things that should at the very least should call in to question if this is the person you want at the helm of a disaster, but instead it is just Trump being Trump. His insanity and downright stupidity have been completely normalized.

Tim Waltz is playing WOW on Twitch tonight.

Edit: Actually it was less cool. They broadcast a rally while a WOW player played and provided commentary.

Dems in NC filed a bill to give people in western NC a few more days to register and turn in absentee ballots. Every GOPer voted against it, killing the bill.

Then they'll complain like hell if NC goes blue.

Very anecdotal, but I was driving through rural Eastern NC yesterday, and I saw a fair amount of Harris/Walz signs. Of course, a lot of Trump signs, too, but I expected that. But in 2016 and 2020, there were only Trump signs out there. Now it was about 50/50.

That could mean nothing more than the fact that Harris decided to focus more on getting signs out to people. But the fact that people in rural NC are even willing to be public about supporting a Dem does seems like a bit of a shift.

Not entirely true.

There was a bipartisan bill to loosing voting restrictions in the western counties (all very pro-Trump but for Asheville) that passed (or maybe it was the board of elections and not the legislature, but it passed and was bipartisan).

The Dems wanted to expand that to the entire state on the theory that people in other parts of the state are still affected by going out west to help family, etc. And THAT was struck down by the GOP on party lines.

So bipartisan to help Trump counties. Partisan to help everyone else.

Kentucky is in the bag for trump, however this year, there are far, far fewer trump signs and many, many more Harris signs in NKY. My wife and I had the same conversation. Energy is way down for trump.

Only 1 Trump flag in my neighborhood and it is flying in the persons back yard, nothing at all on the front of peoples houses that I have seen, it's kinda nice. AZ is still gonna go down to the wire though.

Yeah, my neighborhood has about 7-10 Harris signs, no Trump signs. But if you go towards the suburbs you start seeing more Trump signs.

On a street we take to get to church, there's a house that put out a Trump sign. The house across the street then put out a Harris sign. The Trump house has since been accumulating tacky MAGA shit and draping it all over the house. I guess they have to overcompensate for their neighbor.

Getting really hard to see how Dems retain the Senate. Tester looks cooked.

Agree on the fewer number of Trump signs this year, although our city is bluer than most in KY. I still don't think it means that much though. The stigma of voting Dem in a national contest is too much to overcome. I just think it's a recognition that people don't want to be so outwardly associated with Trump anymore because it's embarrassing and they feel like people hold it against them. They might even be having second thoughts about another 4 years of Trump. But they can't or won't bring themselves to vote for Harris.

We drove up to rural north-central KY meet our daughter to do a pet drop-off (we watched their dog while they were in DC for the Browns game), and at exit 59 on I-75, there is a Shell gas station with dozens and dozens of pro-Trump signs all over the grass right on the road. I mean, overkill is too light a word for it. The biggest sign proclaims it to be a Trump supporting station. We didn't need gas but there's no way in hell I would have pulled in there. I would have paid 20 cents more a gallon to get gas across the street.

Horry County here is pretty red meat, and the Democratic Party doesn't seem to think they need to put signs up for Harris and any Dem in the last few elections.



I noticed the same houses in my neighborhood that had Trump signs in the last election have them up against and the fewer Harris/Dem signs in the same place too. I don't want to deal with any MAGA bullshit so we are not putting up signs.



Oh and I got my absentee ballot yesterday-woot!

We live in a conservative pocket of Washington. No way I'd out signs even though our neighbors are pretty nice. I joked with my wife about putting a Taylor Swift for president sign out but she wasn't going for it.

I didn't get her to go with getting a Roll for Inititive welcome matt so I'm calling that a win.

I'm debating on whether to take a job where my boss would be very MAGA, like conspiracy based on his Twitter. Like, it's impossible to not work for a Republican in SC, but I have my limits

Sounds like a "Nope!" to me.

I live in a very red section of Jersey and I’ve seen way more signs this time around for Trump. Very few for Harris and no way I’ll put one up. I live in a very nice area but it only takes one crazy person.

So I just had to drive to my in laws, about 15 minutes away. I take pretty much one road that is a county road with a lot of houses on it. I saw some Trump signs but what struck me was I saw a lot of houses with down ballot republicans but not Trump signs.

We live in literally the last neighborhood to the north and west of downtown that is still in the city limits--if you leave our neighborhood using either the north or west entrance, once you cross the street you're in another municipality. Culturally, those two streets to our north and west are as close to an absolute dividing line between "the suburbs" and "the country" as you could ever get. A half mile in one direction from our home, you're talking horses and cows eating grass 15 feet from the road. A couple miles in the other, and you're sitting in the Starbucks in a giant shopping area. Our precinct ends at the city limit, and in the past it has been light pink. It's heavily college-educated whites, so *this* year, my guess is that for POTUS it'll be super-light blue. (Last I checked, Harris had taken a tiny lead with college-educated whites and could be the first Dem in a long time to win with that group overall.) In NC you can register as R, D, or I, and last I checked, my street was like 50% R, 30% D, 20% I. But with the rise of Trumpism, the precinct votes much more blue than those numbers would indicate. (Heck, my wife is one of those still registered as a Republican but who is so irritated with them right now that she might vote a straight D ticket.) As has been the case in the past, in our neighborhood there are extremely few signs for either side, and more for downballot candidates than President. Based on the neighbors I know well and the turnout numbers I've looked at, this immediate area overall tilts heavily toward people who will definitely vote in the election, (IIRC the turnout numbers I saw for 2020 were close to 90%,) but who aren't enthusiastic enough about either POTUS candidate to put up a sign.


As far as signs elsewhere, a major difference for me personally between 2020 and 2024 is that I drive (and run) to the north and west almost infinitely more now than I did in 2020--as in I went in those directions like one or twice per year then, but am close to averaging 7 days a week now out there now. The "country" section is FAR more peppered with yard signage than our neighborhood. Heavily Trump, but more Harris than I'd expect. Even though I see more than a dozen Trump signs in the 8-minute drive to the gym, there's only ONE Robinson sign at any of those homes, even before Minisoldrgate. They have their limits, I guess. :lol: (Seriously, even out there in the "country" I see more Stein signs than Robinson ones.)

Apparently a tax credit for car loans is Trump's newest policy.

My county was close to 50-50 in 2020, with Trump winning by a few thousand. I will guess that Harris will win it this time by the slightest of margins and it will probably be the only blue county in the state. Around town, we see more signs for the (apparently highly contested) sheriff's race than anything else, but also far more down ballot signs than president/governor/US Senate.

Gotta wonder if the GOP has completely abandoned all principles or if they re just willing to lie as much as possible.

The maddening thing is no one will hold his feet to the fire about the logistics of this the way they would Harris.

In NE a law was supposed to go into effect in July that would have allowed past felons to vote. The GOP AG and Sec. of State decided it wouldn't be implemented. The case went to the NE Supreme Court, but they keep delaying the ruling and now they probably won't rule before the deadline for registration, making it impossible for these people to vote even if they win the case.

dola

More of Trump's brain running at peak efficiency.

He was asked a question about his parenting style, which he answered with an 8 minute meandering word salad that ended with him saying all drug dealers should be put to death.

Listen to the full Stern interview as well as the Call Me Daddy interview. Harris did a good job with both. The funny thing that really struck me was at the very beginning of the Stern interview, Howard started to tell a story about his mom, but then stopped himself and said "no, wait. We are here to talk about you" and she made him stop and tell the story. Just that little thing was just such a juxtaposition versus Trump, who there would be zero chance he would want to hear a story about anybodies mother more than talking about himself.

Listened to some clips from Obama’s speech tonight. He’s so damn good at this and I guarantee you a lot of it got under trumps skin.

lol

Guy who spends all day complaining about Dems replacing white people also wants to replace everyone with robot workers.

Saying if Kamala gets elected America will turn in to Detroit while giving a speech to the Detroit economic club is a choice.

It definitely did. Trump said during his appearance in PA that Obama was going to vote for him, because Obama can't stand Harris and thinks she is dumb as hell.

IMAX level

I noticed that one since I live in the metro Detroit. I mean ... WOW.

I also note a distinct difference in the tone of Trump commercials and Harris ones. There's a Trump commercial about Harris funding transgender inmate's sex-change operations (or something like that). The tag line is "Harris is for they/them. Trump is for us!" Deliberately fear-mongering, hate-filled, and divisive. Circling back to the yard sign conversation, there's a sign in our neighborhood that just says "Hope over hate". One of my favorites.

I can not even imagine the nauseating level of political ads you must get in Michigan.

Uh-oh! pic.twitter.com/1cGwmecBOI

— Ron (Fan)🇺🇸 (@Ronxyz00) October 11, 2024

umm, what?

What part of that didn't you get?

This could be a game show.

"Choosing between the quote in the post before this one and the quote below, which is from a former POTUS and current candidate and which is the intro to a 1987 Exodus song called Deranged?

inconceivable covfefe

You know I'm really looking forward to the "Dems/Biden/Clinton/Obama/Kamala" drove our President insane" memes that will come out as Republicans yet again fail to take any responsibility for Trump.

I wonder how much the "one easy trick" culture helps Trump.

Like tariffs. People sincerely and honestly think that there's this mechanism that you can enact that makes other countries just give your country money, and there's no negative effects to it.

But, somehow, every country is just choosing not to tariff each other to the max.

That there's just this free money out there, and only Trump is smart enough to see it.

Which is, of course, absurd on its face, but I can see how it resonates in a world where people are told that there's always "one simple trick" to weight loss or getting a job or getting laid or investing in the stock market or whatever.

Which is odd because for the bulk of his most fervent supporters, not a single one of those simple tricks works for any of those things for them.

Except maybe getting laid since Trump is probably a proponent of roofies.

Everything Trump does plays well for people that don't understand how anything works.

It’s why an overwhelming amount of his support comes from the uneducated and the rest from people who know they can take advange of the first group.

The GOP is working hard to set up the conditions to steal the election if needed. This week they released 26 different GOP internal polls compared to 1 Dem internal. Not surprisingly, those polls generally show Trump winning.

They're prepping the battleground.

dola

Trump is now saying he'll invoke the Alien Enemies Act. The last time that was used was to intern Japanese during WW2.

Wonder if Dutch still thinks I'm overreacting to be nervous about my Chinese daughter's future.