2024 Election - Biden vs Trump - The rematch

[BTF]

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Please enlighten us.  Were these supposed victories you were involved with as part of the prosecution or part of the defense?

 

First, enlighten me as to why that's even relevant.

[swordfish]

[Muda69]

6 minutes ago, BTF said:

First, enlighten me as to why that's even relevant.

You brought up your stellar courtroom record, not I.

 

 

[Muda69]

Vance's 'childless cat ladies' comment sparks uproar from Swift fans: 'Armageddon is coming': https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2024/07/24/taylor-swift-jd-vance-childless-cat-ladies/74525531007/

Quote

JD Vance ignited uproar from a particularly vocal fanbase on the internet this week, as some Taylor Swift fans say the Republican VP nominee might "need to calm down" after a video resurfaced of him slamming childless women who own cats.

"Hell hath no fury like a certain childless cat lady who has yet to endorse a presidential candidate," one X user posted in response to Vance's prior comments, which have recirculated after he and Vice President Kamala Harris have emerged as opponents on the 2024 presidential campaign trail.

Resurrected footage, shared Monday by the editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch Network, shows Vance on Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" in 2021, criticizing multiple Democratic figures as "childless cat ladies" and saying people without children don't have a "direct stake" in America's future. Vance made the TV appearance while he was running for the Ohio senate seat he eventually won.

The video had more than 25 million views on X as of Wednesday and Vance's "childless cat ladies" comments had sparked an uproar from Swiftie fans and beyond.

Swift, who endorsed now-President Joe Biden and Harris back in 2020, has not yet endorsed anyone for president in 2024.

Vance's office did not immediately respond to USA TODAY.

"When it hits you that Taylor Swift is childless and has cats... The armageddon is coming for him," one X user posted Tuesday night.

Another user posted: "Vance attacked childless women who love cats. Taylor Swift would probably like a word. Release the kraken (meowww)."

One fan suggested she use his comments "right back at him" if she were to endorse Harris, while another lobbied for Swift-inspired "Democratic fundraising merch."

....

Internet users drew the connection between Vance's comments and Swift because she has three cats and proudly posts about them on social media.

Swift, 34, is not married and does not have children.

Considered one of the most famous people on the planet, Swift is dating Kansas City Chief's player Travis Kelce. The pop superstar and NFL player took their romance public in October 2023.

Earlier this year, Time Magazine played into Swift's cat ownership pride when it named her Person of the Year.

Her one request for the 2024 photoshoot: "Can I bring my cat?

USA TODAY has reached out to Swift's team.

 

[temptation]

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Vance's 'childless cat ladies' comment sparks uproar from Swift fans: 'Armageddon is coming': https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2024/07/24/taylor-swift-jd-vance-childless-cat-ladies/74525531007/

 

I’ve never cared once what political stance anyone who is famous has had, yet here we are.

The “useful idiots” are always out in full force during the months leading up to the polls.

Edited July 24, 2024 by temptation

[Bobref]

On reflection, it was a mistake for me to accompany @temptation and @BTF down this particular rabbit hole. Mea culpa. No one has ever won an argument with a Trump advocate. Add to that the thorny issue of abortion (they brought it up, not me), and the discussion turns entirely unproductive. So, with apologies, I’m out. 

[temptation]

32 minutes ago, Bobref said:

On reflection, it was a mistake for me to accompany @temptation and @BTF down this particular rabbit hole. Mea culpa. No one has ever won an argument with a Trump advocate. Add to that the thorny issue of abortion (they brought it up, not me), and the discussion turns entirely unproductive. So, with apologies, I’m out. 

 

[BTF]

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

On reflection, it was a mistake for me to accompany @temptation and @BTF down this particular rabbit hole. Mea culpa. No one has ever won an argument with a Trump advocate. Add to that the thorny issue of abortion (they brought it up, not me), and the discussion turns entirely unproductive. So, with apologies, I’m out. 

I've always said that it's easy to win a debate when you're highly passionate about the subject. That's how Trump supporters feel about their president. It's not possible for a Biden supporter to show up with near as much passion. "Vote blue no matter who," versus a guy who is legitimately loved and respected by his voters. It's a no contest. It's Ben Davis vs Jeffersonville. 

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

You brought up your stellar courtroom record, not I.

 

 

2-0 is 2-0 regardless of whether it's on the prosecution side or the defense side, is it' not? What am I missing here?

[Muda69]

10 hours ago, BTF said:

I've always said that it's easy to win a debate when you're highly passionate about the subject. That's how Trump supporters feel about their president. It's not possible for a Biden supporter to show up with near as much passion. 

Thank goodness I'm not even remotely passionate about either current uni-party candidate.  Both are bad for the future of the United States of America.

 

10 hours ago, BTF said:

2-0 is 2-0 regardless of whether it's on the prosecution side or the defense side, is it' not? What am I missing here?

The devil is in the details.

[BTF]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Thank goodness I'm not even remotely passionate about either current uni-party candidate.  Both are bad for the future of the United States of America.

 

The devil is in the details.

I think one is fascinated by power and shady backdoor deals and the other just loves his country and isn't willing to watch it crash and burn in front of his children and grandchildren. I think you'll find that over 80 million voters will agree with me this November. And you don't need to like either one, but you'd be doing America a disservice by not choosing one or the other.

Please elaborate on "the devil is in the details" to better help me understand what I may have done wrong. 

[Muda69]

11 minutes ago, BTF said:

I think one is fascinated by power and shady backdoor deals and the other just loves his country and isn't willing to watch it crash and burn in front of his children and grandchildren.

I think either one will continue to drive up the federal deficit to even more ludicrous levels, refuse to really reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government, and leave this country in a worse state for our children and grandchildren.

14 minutes ago, BTF said:

And you don't need to like either one, but you'd be doing America a disservice by not choosing one or the other.

 So you believe 3rd party candidates are also doing a disservice to America by not falling in line with the corrupt, gerrymandered two party system we currently have?

16 minutes ago, BTF said:

Please elaborate on "the devil is in the details" to better help me understand what I may have done wrong. 

The details in my first question.  That you refused to answer. 

[Muda69]

The 'Pro-Worker' GOP Is Anti-Worker: https://reason.com/2024/07/25/the-pro-worker-gop-is-anti-worker/

Quote

Members of the new right wing of the Republican Party have proclaimed themselves the champions of the working class. I am sure they mean it, despite many of them being among the elite of the elite. And because so many are lawyers—including those like vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance who come from an elite Ivy League school—we can forgive them for failing to understand that their economic policies would hurt, not help, the working class.

Part of the shift is because Republicans don't believe they should continue as the so-called party of big business. They are correct. It's a sad fact that traditional Republican politicians have often confused being for free markets with propping up and protecting big banks and other companies with subsidies and other handouts. The fact that Democrats do the same doesn't excuse Republicans' behavior.

A first essential step to earning the moniker of the party of the people is ending all subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and other government-granted privileges to big corporations. That will undo much of the bias toward businesses while allowing markets to do their jobs and raise all economic boats.

I doubt the new populists will do it. Instead, expect more counterproductive "pro-worker" policies like raising the corporate income tax. Taxes are paid only by flesh-and-blood people, and corporations, well, are not people.

In other words, corporations don't really pay taxes. For instance, they pass the corporate income tax on to workers in the form of lower wages, to consumers in the form of higher prices, and to shareholders in the form of lower dividends and share valuations (which can mean reduced values of workers' pensions). It's like a game of hot potato, except the potato is on fire and always lands in the laps of those at the end of the line—the very people faux populists claim to be helping.

Imagine workers' surprise when they find wages stagnating faster than a politician's principles during election season. "At least we stuck it to the corporations!" the politicians will say as workers tighten their belts another notch.

Calls for industrial policy suffer from the same flaws. On the right, these arguments are usually about propping up industries said to be crucial for national security and a desire to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., particularly regions hit hard by deindustrialization.

Even ignoring the fact that America's industrial base is doing well—capacity is at an all-time high—industrial policy inevitably involves the government providing subsidies, tax credits, tariffs, and other special privileges to a few large, well-connected corporations. This cronyism is of no benefit to most ordinary workers; it's a boondoggle for the politically powerful. It will hurt working class taxpayers.

Just look at President Joe Biden's industrial policy. It was meant to ensure U.S. self-sufficiency in critical sectors like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced technologies. The cost has been between $1.2 and $2.1 trillion in domestic subsidies for preferred manufacturers. While the administration likes to claim the subsidies will ultimately benefit workers, companies, often big and rich ones, are reaping taxpayer dollars for projects they would have likely undertaken anyway. For instance, about half of all Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) projects were announced before the IRA was passed, and the private green market was booming even before the subsidies.

In Washington, D.C., apparently, nothing says "power to the people" quite like funneling taxpayer money to large corporations. But let's not forget the piece de resistance: tariffs. How better to help ordinary Americans than by raising their cost of living?

Watch as prices rise further on goods and services affected by tariffs. Reduced competition in the marketplace leads to a world where workers pay more for less. Unfortunately, these price hikes will hit lower-income families hardest. It's like a regressive tax but with a populist bow on top. Then, as other countries retaliate with their own tariffs on American products, we get to play everyone's favorite game of trade war. American exporters will struggle, and productivity and economic growth will slow.

By all means, make America great again—but what does that have to do with making everything more expensive for American producers, workers, and consumers alike? The New Right talks a good game about being the new workers' party, but its marquee policies would bring higher prices and cronyism under a misleading banner of populism.

All true.

 

[BTF]

10 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I think either one will continue to drive up the federal deficit to even more ludicrous levels, refuse to really reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government, and leave this country in a worse state for our children and grandchildren.

 So you believe 3rd party candidates are also doing a disservice to America by not falling in line with the corrupt, gerrymandered two party system we currently have?

The details in my first question.  That you refused to answer. 

One of each if you must know. 

I like 3rd party candidates. They just don't have any kind of a chance. No point in wasting a vote in my opinion. 

I think tapping into our own natural resources is a step in the right direction to put our economy in a better place and start paying down the debt. Wouldn't any right minded American agree with that? Some politicians like buying resources from other countries "for some reason." 

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, BTF said:

One of each if you must know. 

Thank you.  

 

3 minutes ago, BTF said:

I like 3rd party candidates. They just don't have any kind of a chance. No point in wasting a vote in my opinion. 

So to you the presidential election is like a horse race. Picking the winner is priority number one, with the quality of the actual candidate and whether or not they best align with your personal beliefs & morals a distant second.  

 

5 minutes ago, BTF said:

I think tapping into our own natural resources is a step in the right direction to put our economy in a better place and start paying down the debt. 

So you think we can mine and drill ourselves out of debt?  Really?  

What about federal spending?

 

 

[BTF]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So you think we can mine and drill ourselves out of debt?  Really? 

Lol, nothing can pull us out of this debt, but it's a start in the right direction. Trump has his own money, he doesn't need someone lining his bank accounts at the expense of average Americans. 

 

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So to you the presidential election is like a horse race. Picking the winner is priority number one, with the quality of the actual candidate and whether or not they best align with your personal beliefs & morals a distant second.  

I voted 3rd party on a few occasions. It's a waste of time. Who was the last 3rd party president? Might as well make your vote count if you're going to stand in line to do it. 

[Muda69]

6 minutes ago, BTF said:

Lol, nothing can pull us out of this debt, but it's a start in the right direction. 

You laugh out loud now, but think about what the uni-party is doing to the future of our children and grandchildren.

Reducing federal spending will help pull the country out of it's astronomical debt more than building more coal mines and oil wells will.

9 minutes ago, BTF said:

I voted 3rd party on a few occasions. It's a waste of time. Who was the last 3rd party president? Might as well make your vote count if you're going to stand in line to do it. 

I usually do early voting at my county courthouse, little to no standing in line. 

And I contend voting for a uni-party candidate is also waste of time, if you view things like small government,  free minds and free markets as important.  Not big government waste, corruption, and a president beholden to the military-industrial complex.

I believe Millard Fillmore was the last non-uniparty POTUS.    

 

[BTF]

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I usually do early voting at my county courthouse, little to no standing in line. 

And I contend voting for a uni-party candidate is also waste of time, if you view things like small government,  free minds and free markets as important.  Not big government waste, corruption, and a president beholden to the military-industrial complex.

I believe Millard Fillmore was the last non-uniparty POTUS.    

 

I'm sure you're aware that Trump originally wanted to run 3rd party. He felt that his chances were better if he picked a side. If you remember, even Republicans didn't like him very much, he wasn't part of the club, he wasn't a 'good ol boy.' Democrats were neither here nor there because they believed the media when they laughed, poked fun, and said he had no chance. I'm starting to believe that he could have been our first 3rd party president in a really really really long time. 

[BTF]

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

You laugh out loud now, but think about what the uni-party is doing to the future of our children and grandchildren.

Reducing federal spending will help pull the country out of it's astronomical debt more than building more coal mines and oil wells will. 

 

So you agree that sending billions of dollars overseas to pad one's own bank account is wrong? See, we don't disagree on everything. 

[Muda69]

5 minutes ago, BTF said:

I'm sure you're aware that Trump originally wanted to run 3rd party. He felt that his chances were better if he picked a side. If you remember, even Republicans didn't like him very much, he wasn't part of the club, he wasn't a 'good ol boy.' Democrats were neither here nor there because they believed the media when they laughed, poked fun, and said he had no chance. I'm starting to believe that he could have been our first 3rd party president in a really really really long time. 

He obviously lacked the courage of his supposed convictions.  And he never did anything as POTUS to convince me he wasn't just another big government, big spending, establishment politician.  He never drained any swamp, not really.

1 minute ago, BTF said:

So you agree that sending billions of dollars overseas to pad one's own bank account is wrong? 

So Trump is doing that?

I have nothing against free trade between nations.  Do you?

 

 

[Muda69]

FBI Director Says There's 'Some Question' Over What Struck Trump's Ear: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-director-says-theres-over-145624332.html

Quote

FBI Director Christopher Wray suggested that investigators aren’t sure if former President Donald Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel during his attempted assassination earlier this month.

Wray testified before Congress on Wednesday about the July 13 attempt on Trump’s life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. One rally attendee was killed in the shooting, while two others were injured; Trump said he was struck at the top of his ear.

“There’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” Wray said in response to a question about whether all the bullets fired by the shooter had been accounted for.

 

“It’s conceivable, although as I sit here right now, I don’t know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else. But I believe we’ve accounted for all of the shots in the cartridges.”

Wray said that authorities had conducted over 400 interviews in their investigation and planned to hold “many more.”

....

Trump on Saturday released a note signed by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) — a political ally and medical doctor whose actions during his time as a White House physician have been called into question — describing the former president’s injury and the treatment he received.

Jackson said the “bullet track produced a 2cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear.” He said no sutures were necessary, but “there is still intermittent bleeding requiring a dressing to be in place.”

It was the most detail that had been shared to date about Trump’s condition and followed calls for more transparency about his injury and medical care.

 

[BTF]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So Trump is doing that?

C'mon.

[Muda69]

40 minutes ago, BTF said:

C'mon.

Just asking questions.  

[BTF]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Just asking questions.  

Anyone with a morsal of common sense knows that two of our last three presidents became rich somehow over night. The other one already had money to the point where he considered the White House a dump. 

[Muda69]

18 minutes ago, BTF said:

Anyone with a morsal of common sense knows that two of our last three presidents became rich somehow over night. 

Boy, you really don't know how things work in Washington, D.C. do you?

[BTF]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Boy, you really don't know how things work in Washington, D.C. do you?

Enlighten me Einstein.