14 million elephants in the room

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Does America have enough natural gas to support all the Democrat gaslighting? Joe became the presumptive nominee because of gaslighting about him being lucid. He dropped out because he was <40% and becoming irrelevant. This “new generation” stuff is more gaslighting.

Now the Democrats are gaslighting Kamala’ border assignment by denying it and gaslighting her being the most left wing loon senator by taking down ratings data.

And the media and the democrats are Just warming up with bloodbath and Project 2025 gaslighting.

The gaslighting the media is already doing in trying to clean up Kamala’s image is pretty insane. It really deserves its own thread. The craven disregard for truth is really quite striking.

Axios tweeted out that “border czar” was a title bestowed on her by right wingers and she never actually had that title.

Someone added a community note showing Axios itself calling her that in multiple articles. 😂

It’s really very striking to see how much the MSM has become the advocacy arm of the democrat party.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I’ll start here:

Said by you….“A person votes for their candidate”

Hmmm….name me one Democrat who voted for KH in the Democratic Nomination process. Just one?

Yes, you pull the lever for the candidate you want. But the delegates at the convention CHOOSE THE CANDIDATE. IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY FOR A LONG TIME. It isn't rocket science. The delegates choose. So anyone that voted for Biden was only voting for the delegates. I've seen battles over this, in 1984 we Hart backers tried hard to peel off Mondale delegates. It is just like the Electoral College, you pull the lever for Trump but if the Electors choose to vote Harris there is crap you can do about it (they won't, those people are vetted REALLY hard for that reason).

Suppose, God forbid, that round hit Trump in the head. Are you saying the GOP would have ran primaries in all 50 states before the convention started just days later? No way, and no way the states want the cost of holding another primary election. You wouldn't stand for paying extra taxes for a primary now.

The official Democratic and the official Republican nominee is not made until the delegates vote. I am sure you watched the GOP convention, they had a roll call. Until that happened, Trump was the "presumptive nominee".

If you want to pay for an emergency primary we can start a Kickstarter and you can chip in.

 

[larsIU]

IAW

In Alignment With?
In Accordance With?
In Agreement With?

Whatever. I'm using this going forward

 

[Marvin the Martian]

@stollcpa @UncleMark mods. Please.

Just returning fire, he said "Speaking of Stupidity ☝️☝️☝️" about my post. He wants to play hardball we can play.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Just returning fire, he said "Speaking of Stupidity ☝️☝️☝️" about my post. He wants to play hardball we can play.

 

[TDHoosier]

Nope. ANYTHING goes wrong is a boon for Trump, whether Harris’ fault or not. It’s very unlikely she’d be able to do anything substantial enough to help her cause unless she slings some Executive Orders Sleepy Joe style, only to have them curb stomped.

Right, they are going to ride old Joe out to the end. Nothing like driving a car until the transmission blows. The amount of people who would vote for KH is obsured and only because she is not Trump. I just keep thinking back to the Iowa primary where hardly a soul voted for her. I mean she has done zero in four years to change anyone perception of her except not be Donald Trump.

We are becoming a very weak minded country really not thinking much through when it comes to decisions this important. I mean January 6 was almost 4 years ago, and the only reason it still lives on peoples tongues is because it can hurt Trump. Abortion has never been something Trump denounced yet it lives daily in this election because the media thinks it can hurt Trump.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The gaslighting the media is already doing in trying to clean up Kamala’s image is pretty insane. It really deserves its own thread. The craven disregard for truth is really quite striking.

Axios tweeted out that “border czar” was a title bestowed on her by right wingers and she never actually had that title.

Someone added a community note showing Axios itself calling her that in multiple articles. 😂

It’s really very striking to see how much the MSM has become the advocacy arm of the democrat party.

Yeah, I commented on this yesterday. I forget where. It's all coming so fast and furious right now.

FTR, there isn't any federal job that officially has the word "Czar" in the job title. And there never has been. It's a colloquial term, used to describe an executive portfolio. We used to hear a lot about "Drug Czar" and other such things. In the great film "Traffic", Michael Douglas played the president's Drug Czar (while his daughter was busy getting strung out on drugs).

But what Axios did here was remarkable. They had used the term to describe Harris' well-publicized assignment themselves in 2021, wrote a piece objecting to Republicans also using the term today, and then promptly deleted it from their own 2021 story was somebody pointed out they had used it.

And their apparent objection is that her specific charge was to make diplomatic overtures to Central American countries regarding the rush of immigrants....not that she was overseeing border security in lieu of the DHS/CBP. Of course, that didn't stop them from having used the term in 2021 -- when they figured (I would assume) that it was a flattering thing for Kamala Harris.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

@stollcpa @UncleMark mods. Please.

Puhlease. They can't even agree on whether or not it's okay to talk about the VPOTUS being a whore.

 

[cosmickid]

Democrat primary voters/votes. Just tossed away? If Joe is unable to perform the duties, which he is, and is why Kamala sits on the nomination, then why is the 25th Amendment not being invoked? Isn’t that its purpose? Section 3, is for this exact situation. If he can’t be President, then why is he President?

Not one vote has been cast for Harris. Not one. Yet, she’s the candidate? A One-percenter? How does that work? So, political parties can now just choose who they want? Screw the people, as long as Nancy and Chuck are happy. Bernie has to be saying WTF.

Did I hear someone say ‘threat to Democracy’??

Perfect timing. I just started a thread yesterday dispelling the notion that decing not to run for-re-election somehow equates (falsely) to resigning the Presidency. I pointed out it was a MAGA talking point spread by ignorant dupes, and warned people not to fall for it. And here you are only 5 months after I started the thread showing your ignorance...

I keep thinking you're old and would be aware of LBJ deciding not to run in 1968 and still deciding to keep his lame duck status. But maybe you are younger than I believe, and you didn't live thru that particular moment in time and the 1968 campaign. At any rate I posted LBJ's announcement (and CBS analysis) in the thread which is entitled "Some lessons well learned"

I don't care if you read it or not. But it's frustrating for me to go to all of the trouble on educating people, in order to prevent them from showing their ignorance, only to have someone exxpose their lack of knowledge not 5 hours later...

Btw MAGA is getting their panties in a wad over what a private entity (Dem and GOP party) does in their nominating process. Since primaries only date back to around 1972 (NOT 1872) there is no constitutional or stauatory issue at play here. FDR was likely aware he wouldn't survive his 4th term, but he still retained the Presidency till his death.

There are likely other examples as well. But what is highly unlikely is that you'll find another instance of a major party nominating a convicted felon. Any moral "high ground" the MAGA world wants to try and claim here is sinking in a pit of quicksand...

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

In Alignment With?
In Accordance With?
In Agreement With?

Whatever. I'm using this going forward

Second one.

 

[Harry Hondo]

Democrat primary voters/votes. Just tossed away? If Joe is unable to perform the duties, which he is, and is why Kamala sits on the nomination, then why is the 25th Amendment not being invoked? Isn’t that its purpose? Section 3, is for this exact situation. If he can’t be President, then why is he President?

Not one vote has been cast for Harris. Not one. Yet, she’s the candidate? A One-percenter? How does that work? So, political parties can now just choose who they want? Screw the people, as long as Nancy and Chuck are happy. Bernie has to be saying WTF.

Did I hear someone say ‘threat to Democracy’??

Vice President Humphrey became the democratic nominee without ever receiving primary votes in 1968 by getting enough delegates on the convention floor. Johnson dropping out is akin to Biden dropping out. Please stop pretending this has never happened before.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Vice President Humphrey became the democratic nominee without ever receiving primary votes in 1968 by getting enough delegates on the convention floor. Johnson dropping out is akin to Biden dropping out. Please stop pretending this has never happened before.

All this talk about Biden dropping out somehow ruining democracy has to give us hope. They wouldn't be spreading this bullshit if Harris didn't scare them for some reason.

 

[Indyhorn]

I don't think Donald Trump opposes abortion. In fact, it would be interesting to know how many of them he's paid for throughout his life.

As a pol, I doubt he even wants to go near the issue. Saying "let the states deal with it" is both politically smart for him and also likely to be the state of law and policy on the issue going forward, anyway.

That said...you can't blame Democrats for running on it. Political sentiment is on their side on it. It's the same reason Trump wants to run on illegal immigration and Democrats want to have it sidelined.

A well-reasoned post on the Water Cooler- be still my heart!

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Perfect timing. I just started a thread yesterday dispelling the notion that decing not to run for-re-election somehow equates (falsely) to resigning the Presidency. I pointed out it was a MAGA talking point spread by ignorant dupes, and warned people not to fall for it. And here you are only 5 months after I started the thread showing your ignorance...

I keep thinking you're old and would be aware of LBJ deciding not to run in 1968 and still deciding to keep his lame duck status. But maybe you are younger than I believe, and you didn't live thru that particular moment in time and the 1968 campaign. At any rate I posted LBJ's announcement (and CBS analysis) in the thread which is entitled "Some lessons well learned"

I don't care if you read it or not. But it's frustrating for me to go to all of the trouble on educating people, in order to prevent them from showing their ignorance, only to have someone exxpose their lack of knowledge not 5 hours later...

Btw MAGA is getting their panties in a wad over what a private entity (Dem and GOP party) does in their nominating process. Since primaries only date back to around 1972 (NOT 1872) there is no constitutional or stauatory issue at play here. FDR was likely aware he wouldn't survive his 4th term, but he still retained the Presidency till his death.

There are likely other examples as well. But what is highly unlikely is that you'll find another instance of a major party nominating a convicted felon. Any moral "high ground" the MAGA world wants to try and claim here is sinking in a pit of quicksand...

Don’t pretend like Biden being defiantly “in” and then suddenly “out” doesn’t smell a little bit

 

[mohoosier]

Vice President Humphrey became the democratic nominee without ever receiving primary votes in 1968 by getting enough delegates on the convention floor. Johnson dropping out is akin to Biden dropping out. Please stop pretending this has never happened before.

BLM disagrees 😂

https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-...nough-delegates-to-become-democratic-nominee/

 

[UncleMark]

A well-reasoned post on the Water Cooler- be still my heart!

They're not that unusual, but you have to wade through a bunch of shit to find them.

 

[twenty02]

There is no constitutional requirement for a party to have a single primary vote. I could start a political party tomorrow in my living room and nominate @Lucy01 to be my Presidential nominee. That and maybe $500m for ballot access efforts....we could all be pulling the lever for him/her this Nov.

 

[stollcpa]

@stollcpa @UncleMark mods. Please.

Marvin is untouchable. Especially if he’s insulting a conservative.

 

[stollcpa]

Just returning fire, he said "Speaking of Stupidity ☝️☝️☝️" about my post. He wants to play hardball we can play.

You’re safe. You’re untouchable.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Marvin is untouchable. Especially if he’s insulting a conservative.

and in the meantime we have to just sit here and take it. we have to live with marv's abuse. it's not right

 

[stollcpa]

and in the meantime we have to just sit here and take it. we have to live with marv's abuse. it's not right

Yup

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

and in the meantime we have to just sit here and take it. we have to live with marv's abuse. it's not right

You telling me this is the first time you’ve had to bend over ??

 

[IUCrazy2]

Perfect timing. I just started a thread yesterday dispelling the notion that decing not to run for-re-election somehow equates (falsely) to resigning the Presidency. I pointed out it was a MAGA talking point spread by ignorant dupes, and warned people not to fall for it. And here you are only 5 months after I started the thread showing your ignorance...

I keep thinking you're old and would be aware of LBJ deciding not to run in 1968 and still deciding to keep his lame duck status. But maybe you are younger than I believe, and you didn't live thru that particular moment in time and the 1968 campaign. At any rate I posted LBJ's announcement (and CBS analysis) in the thread which is entitled "Some lessons well learned"

I don't care if you read it or not. But it's frustrating for me to go to all of the trouble on educating people, in order to prevent them from showing their ignorance, only to have someone exxpose their lack of knowledge not 5 hours later...

Btw MAGA is getting their panties in a wad over what a private entity (Dem and GOP party) does in their nominating process. Since primaries only date back to around 1972 (NOT 1872) there is no constitutional or stauatory issue at play here. FDR was likely aware he wouldn't survive his 4th term, but he still retained the Presidency till his death.

There are likely other examples as well. But what is highly unlikely is that you'll find another instance of a major party nominating a convicted felon. Any moral "high ground" the MAGA world wants to try and claim here is sinking in a pit of quicksand...

Biden isn't cognitively at the same level as Johnson was when he resigned. The MAGA people questioning whether Joe still has the chops to do the job have a legitimate leg to stand on. Trying to compare this to LBJ is a false equivalence.

 

[All4You]

NSFW

 

[IUCrazy2]

The gaslighting the media is already doing in trying to clean up Kamala’s image is pretty insane. It really deserves its own thread. The craven disregard for truth is really quite striking.

Axios tweeted out that “border czar” was a title bestowed on her by right wingers and she never actually had that title.

Someone added a community note showing Axios itself calling her that in multiple articles. 😂

It’s really very striking to see how much the MSM has become the advocacy arm of the democrat party.

You mean stuff like this? Nah, they wouldn't line up in lock step to blatantly lie for a Democrat...

(But, but, she didn't donate money....nah, she did something far more useful than kicking them $25.)

 

[mohoosier]

View embedded media

You mean stuff like this? Nah, they wouldn't line up in lock step to blatantly lie for a Democrat...

(But, but, she didn't donate money....nah, she did something far more useful than kicking them $25.)

The front running cover for her is fully aligned. You see it everywhere blossoming overnight and we’re to believe it’s an organic groundswell.

I seem to remember something similar back in 2019?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

There is no constitutional requirement for a party to have a single primary vote. I could start a political party tomorrow in my living room and nominate @Lucy01 to be my Presidential nominee. That and maybe $500m for ballot access efforts....we could all be pulling the lever for him/her this Nov.

The other parties, such as Green, Libertarian, Reform (Ross Perot), choose candidates without them. The GOP and Democrats decided they wanted primaries. They aren’t binding and their processes aren’t identical.

 

[Bloom.]

Democrat primary voters/votes. Just tossed away? If Joe is unable to perform the duties, which he is, and is why Kamala sits on the nomination, then why is the 25th Amendment not being invoked? Isn’t that its purpose? Section 3, is for this exact situation. If he can’t be President, then why is he President?

Opting to not seek re-election isn't declaring he can't be President. It's declaring he's not wanting to be President for another four years. You graduated with honors from the famed IU business school. Try not to act this stupid.

Not one vote has been cast for Harris. Not one. Yet, she’s the candidate? A One-percenter? How does that work? So, political parties can now just choose who they want? Screw the people, as long as Nancy and Chuck are happy. Bernie has to be saying WTF.

Did I hear someone say ‘threat to Democracy’??

Yeah, the people are happy.

 

[Bloom.]

You alpha bros calling for Joe to step down now, pretending pulling out of the race means he can't govern for another six months, you realize if that happens a black woman will be President, right?

 

[Bloom.]

Re: abortion...

I think people need consider the likelihood that any sweeping federal statute that would either restrict/prohibit abortions nationwide or preclude states from restricting/prohibiting abortions would be struck down by the courts.

I seriously doubt the former would ever make its way into law, anyway. The latter could. But while the courts haven't yet declared that Congress lacks the authority to do either one, it's really not that hard to guess that they will.

The issue has been remanded to the states for the time being. And I think it's very likely that it will remain there for the foreseeable future.

At this point, I don't trust the Justices with this. The three Justices Trump nominated each testified Roe v Wade was decided with no need to revisit. Yet here are.

I don't think Donald Trump opposes abortion. In fact, it would be interesting to know how many of them he's paid for throughout his life.

As a pol, I doubt he even wants to go near the issue. Saying "let the states deal with it" is both politically smart for him and also likely to be the state of law and policy on the issue going forward, anyway.

That said...you can't blame Democrats for running on it. Political sentiment is on their side on it. It's the same reason Trump wants to run on illegal immigration and Democrats want to have it sidelined.

Running on the issue and how it's handled as President are two entirely different things.

The issue with Trump and fringe conservative agendas like abortion and many of items tucked way in Project 2025, isn't whether or not Trump is for it, it's whether or not Trump will do anything to stop legislation. There is no credible will to ban abortion at any level of this country other than it's an issue that motivates voters. Referendums are proving that, but as long as fringe conservatives can stoke their base over it, they will continue to vote for abortion restrictions and bans.

 

[IUCrazy2]

At this point, I don't trust the Justices with this. The three Justices Trump nominated each testified Roe v Wade was decided with no need to revisit. Yet here are.


Running on the issue and how it's handled as President are two entirely different things.

The issue with Trump and fringe conservative agendas like abortion and many of items tucked way in Project 2025, isn't whether or not Trump is for it, it's whether or not Trump will do anything to stop legislation. There is no credible will to ban abortion at any level of this country other than it's an issue that motivates voters. Referendums are proving that, but as long as fringe conservatives can stoke their base over it, they will continue to vote for abortion restrictions and bans.

Most people support restrictions.

 

[Bloom.]

Most people support restrictions.

We have restrictions. We've had restrictions. That's not what's being pushed. A total ban bill in Indiana was walked back before presented.

Most people support restrictions. Hardly anyone is suggesting unfettered abortions, and we know the pro-life people aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Most people support restrictions. Hardly anyone is suggesting unfettered abortions,

Well.......

but as long as fringe conservatives can stoke their base over it, they will continue to vote for abortion restrictions and bans.

If restrictions are something most everyone supports, why did you include it in your post as problematic? This also seems to indicate that you have a problem with them voting for restrictions which would lead one to believe that you are in fact suggesting unfettered abortions.

ETA: So now that we agree there should be restrictions, all you are arguing is semantics. Also, as an abortion supporter, why do you feel there should be restrictions? I mean it is a medical procedure right? Would you restrict a tonsillectomy? What morally or ethically about this procedure makes it one where you believe "most people" think it needs to be restricted?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

At this point, I don't trust the Justices with this. The three Justices Trump nominated each testified Roe v Wade was decided with no need to revisit. Yet here are.

The notion that Js Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett pledged to leave Roe v. Wade alone during their confirmation hearings just simply isn't true.

Making a false charge over and over again doesn't turn it into a true charge.

Running on the issue and how it's handled as President are two entirely different things.

I agree with that. But it really is beside the three basic points I made -- which are:

1) The chances of a bill outlawing abortion nationwide making its way into federal law are remote.

2) That doesn't negate the political value of the mere prospect.

3) Such a law would likely be struck down by the courts -- because there's nothing in Article 1 which would indicate Congress has the power to pass such a law. There's a reason the 10th amendment exists.

There is no credible will to ban abortion at any level of this country other than it's an issue that motivates voters. Referendums are proving that, but as long as fringe conservatives can stoke their base over it, they will continue to vote for abortion restrictions and bans.

True. But they aren't going to have much success with it, outside a handful of states where public sentiment is against the legality of abortion.

My guess is that, when all the dust settles (which will take some time), abortion will be legal in the vast majority of states up to some kind of time limitation. That's where most abortion law around the world has settled and I don't know why we should expect to end up anywhere else.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

At this point, I don't trust the Justices with this. The three Justices Trump nominated each testified Roe v Wade was decided with no need to revisit. Yet here are.


Running on the issue and how it's handled as President are two entirely different things.

The issue with Trump and fringe conservative agendas like abortion and many of items tucked way in Project 2025, isn't whether or not Trump is for it, it's whether or not Trump will do anything to stop legislation. There is no credible will to ban abortion at any level of this country other than it's an issue that motivates voters. Referendums are proving that, but as long as fringe conservatives can stoke their base over it, they will continue to vote for abortion restrictions and bans.

I've been beating up on the Harris campaign a lot. So let me turn my punches to the Trump campaign for a minute.

The below audio features JD Vance promoting a federal response to people facilitating transportation from states which restrict or prohibit abortion to states which do not.

And this is preposterous. Some states have even looked into legislation along these lines. Different states have different laws and Americans have always enjoyed the freedom to travel between the states for pretty much whatever reason they want to. If I was interested in engaging a prostitute and I travel to Nevada to visit a legal brothel, should Indiana have any say? Should the feds?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I've been beating up on the Harris campaign a lot. So let me turn my punches to the Trump campaign for a minute.

The below audio features JD Vance promoting a federal response to people facilitating transportation from states which restrict or prohibit abortion to states which do not.

And this is preposterous. Some states have even looked into legislation along these lines. Different states have different laws and Americans have always enjoyed the freedom to travel between the states for pretty much whatever reason they want to. If I was interested in engaging a prostitute and I travel to Nevada to visit a legal brothel, should Indiana have any say? Should the feds?

View embedded media

Terrible terrible pick

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Terrible terrible pick

Yeah, as time goes on and we see more of Vance and learn more about him, it makes less and less sense to me.

I'm tempted to say that it's just another situation where Trump didn't have any better options of people willing to hitch their wagon to his runaway train. I think that was true in 2016 -- when he (correctly) felt like he needed an establishment runningmate. Those people weren't exactly stepping on each others' feet for the spot. But Pence fit the bill because he was milquetoast and harmless enough, wasn't likely to have any major skeletons in his closet, and needed the political lifeline it offered.

But Trump had some clearly better options who would've taken the gig -- Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, maybe even Nikki Haley.

 

[twenty02]

Yeah, as time goes on and we see more of Vance and learn more about him, it makes less and less sense to me.

I'm tempted to say that it's just another situation where Trump didn't have any better options of people willing to hitch their wagon to his runaway train. I think that was true in 2016 -- when he (correctly) felt like he needed an establishment runningmate. Those people weren't exactly stepping on each others' feet for the spot. But Pence fit the bill because he was milquetoast and harmless enough, wasn't likely to have any major skeletons in his closet, and needed the political lifeline it offered.

But Trump had some clearly better options who would've taken the gig -- Tim Scott, Doug Burgum, maybe even Nikki Haley.

Should have picked Rubio or Scott. Would have placated the anti Trump establishment voter. Would get a bump from either the Latino or Black vote.

Loading…

thehill.com

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Should have picked Rubio or Scott. Would have placated the anti Trump establishment voter. Would get a bump from either the Latino or Black vote.

Loading…

thehill.com

I agree. But I also don't think Trump himself puts a whole lot of value on placating people who oppose him. But I'd bet that Chris LaCivita does -- he actually seems like a pretty smart cookie. It would've been interesting to hear those conversations.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We have restrictions. We've had restrictions. That's not what's being pushed. A total ban bill in Indiana was walked back before presented.

Most people support restrictions. Hardly anyone is suggesting unfettered abortions, and we know the pro-life people aren't pro-life, they're pro-birth.

Who’s “we?” Your statement (bolded) is every bit as incendiary and false as “pro-choicers are for abortion on demand until the baby is born.”