Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 318: Markey Matchup

(+) Yeah! (+)

KamikazePotato posted...

Why is that uh oh

It was a tongue in cheek way of acknowledging that this is bad news for Biden.

If the economy fully recovers, I think his diehard base combined with secret (embarrassed) Trump voters, with Bidens apathetic base leads to his reelection.

Id love to be wrong, but book it.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It was a tongue in cheek way of acknowledging that this is bad news for Biden.

If the economy full recovers, I think his diehard base combined with secret (embarrassed) Trump voters, with Bidens apathetic base leads to his reelection.

Id love to be wrong, but book it.

If that is all it takes I would rather find out when I am young how stupid my country is tbh

---

Damn you quoted before I fixed my typo.

Also I know youre being facetious, because we both know how stupid this country is lol

---

I think Biden is going to be crushing Trump in the numbers all the way up until election day. Not much is going to move the needle at this point because of how badly Trump fucked up COVID, which will still be here in a few months. The real issues are - and have been for a long time know - dramatically increased voter suppression, results manipulation, actual fraud, and Trump potentially refusing to leave office.

---

Yeah Biden's lead is remarkably steady. There's significantly less undecided voters heading into this election than 2016.

---

Yeah, I've tried to make note of it whenever we descend into polls talk but a key difference between 2016 and 2020 is that not only are Biden's leads typically higher than Clinton's were when compared but perhaps more critically, Biden is hitting higher numbers. He is frequently hitting or exceeding 50 in many of these polls and often in the very high 40s (48, 49) when not.

In 2016 there was a fairly significant "undecided/third-party" block in the polls where Clinton might be +4 but it was like 44-40. So when that 16% broke hard for Trump it sunk her in key states. That dynamic isn't really in play in most polling here. When you have Biden at +6 with 50-44 it's like "dudes at 50 already he wins" before you even consider that another key difference is that in 2016 Trump won big with voters who reported a negative opinion of both Clinton and Trump. Biden is winning that group (negative opinion of both Biden and Trump) by an even greater margin than Trump had last time.

---

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I do not understand for the life of me why people hated Hillary Clinton so much outside of overexposure. People were bringing up war crimes she had previously been excused for.

Part of me even feels like Biden's speech impediment might make him more relatable to voters compared to Clinton, which just sounds all kinds of wrong. Though it's good for this election that most everything I can think of that might have turned voters off of Clinton is something that does not apply to Biden, but still.


---

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54018133

oh no

---

Fox News confirms (thread):

https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1301975321495973889?s=21

---

People were bringing up war crimes she had previously been excused for.

Excused by whom? Because if the public doesn't forgive, it doesn't matter if the powers that be do when it comes to your popularity with the public.

Currently trending



---

I mean, the comments mostly are ridiculous, so I find it hard to believe they were said. I think a few here and there might of been true, but I dunno about all of them. If true, Trump would be very un-american to me and should never be within a mile of a political office again.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Currently trending

LOL, this is so fucking blatant.

---

Some of these leaks are so outrageous that it's hard to imagine them being true.

---

4 Americans die in an attack that intelligence say could not be prevented:
"THE PRESIDENT IS TOTALLY AT FAULT AND HIS SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD BE HUNG!"

180,000 Americans die from a pandemic that experts say many could've been prevented:
"Meh, not the President's fault. Not like he called it a hoax or anything ehehehe..."

---

Corrik7 posted...

I mean, the comments mostly are ridiculous, so I find it hard to believe they were said. I think a few here and there might of been true, but I dunno about all of them. If true, Trump would be very un-american to me and should never be within a mile of a political office again.

Why is it so hard to believe? He's said stuff similar to this publicly before (e.g. "I like people who weren't captured")

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Why is it so hard to believe?

It's not. It's completely consistent with the (lack of) character he has shown stretching back well before the 2016 election.

Hell, he straight-up lied in his denial of The Atlantic's reporting which - again - was confirmed in its entirety to an AP Investigative Reporter. And the number of other news agencies confirming the story continues to grow.

---

He said today that he never called McCain a loser when theres footage of him calling McCain a loser on live television
---

Jakyl25 posted...

He said today that he never called McCain a loser when theres footage of him calling McCain a loser on live television

and him tweeting it

(this was the specific lie i was referencing in his denial)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Why is it so hard to believe? He's said stuff similar to this publicly before (e.g. "I like people who weren't captured")

He was making a jab at McCain. The people being suckers who went to Vietnam, Americans not wanting to see disabled vets at a military parade, and the McCain stuff seems like the only things that would be in the realm of what I cod believe he said.

---

Because it's more convenient for them if they can simultaneously wring their hands and cover their ears and eyes. How they manage that without having extra arms and hands is beyond me, but there you have it.


---

And I dont think any of the reported comments are unfathomable for someone with undiagnosed NPD like Trump who doesnt understand how empathy works
---

There's a huge difference between going after people like John McCain who was an admiral's son and went on to be a very prominent senator, in which role he strongly supported going to war with Iraq and said he wanted to go to war with Iran too, and going after soldiers who were called out of their peaceful lives to fight -and die- in World War I, who never got to do anything further because they died.

---

Forget McCain. We're talking about someone who started fighting with a Gold Star family. The examples of this kind of stuff goes back.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

And I dont think any of the reported comments are unfathomable for someone with undiagnosed NPD like Trump who doesnt understand how empathy works

Exactly, this is consistent with Trump's widely demonstrated worldview that people who do anything without getting anything out of it are suckers and that people who sacrifice are losers. Similarly, people who only look out for their own interests (e.g. autocrats like Putin, Kim, Erdogan, Xi) are great guys who he finds it hard or impossible to criticize (because they're not "suckers"). This is the most coherent worldview that Trump has.

In any case, there's a hell of a lot of outlets confirming this story, all with multiple sources. I don't see how there could be much room for doubt that he really did say these things.

---

Fox confirming is a big hit, but it's not gonna reach the really dug in ears until OAN confirms.

...uh huh.

---

great Ari Melber segment on right now on the history of citizens recording police misconduct - even just now calling out Comey's ass in 2016 arguing against recordings saying they'll make cops stop doing the policing they need to keep people safe.

---

I wonder if no one has told Trump about the unpaid WWI debt the US is owed yet. We have 88 years of interest to collect.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

In any case, there's a hell of a lot of outlets confirming this story, all with multiple sources. I don't see how there could be much room for doubt that he really did say these things.

Because the sources are all unnamed or scorned former officials Trump got rid of who have motive.


---

Because if they were named and current officials Trump would fire them and sue them.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Because if they were named and current officials Trump would fire them and sue them.

Yes, but again, it leads to motive and unable to be verified sources. It is why people can easily find it unbelievable. It wouldn't be the first unnamed sourced stuff that was wrong or reported things from a former official that was not true.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, but again, it leads to motive and unable to be verified sources. It is why people can easily find it unbelievable. It wouldn't be the first unnamed sourced stuff that was wrong or reported things from a former official that was not true.

If there's a single unnamed source, sure, it's possible they might be making something up. But four all confirming the same story? Plus likely more, assuming the other outlets didn't have completely overlapping sources? Come on.

And Trump does this extremely disingenuous thing were for every single negative story that comes out about him, he'll trash the sources for being anonymous if they don't go on the record, and he'll trash them for being a disgruntled former employee if they do go on the record. If they're still working for him, he'll fire them (e.g. Vindman). Is it really plausible to you that this is always the case? Or could it be that Trump's just going to attack the source no matter what, and that what they're saying is very often true?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If there's a single unnamed source, sure, it's possible they might be making something up. But four all confirming the same story? Plus likely more, assuming the other outlets didn't have completely overlapping sources? Come on.

And Trump does this extremely disingenuous thing were for every single negative story that comes out about him, he'll trash the sources for being anonymous if they don't go on the record, and he'll trash them for being a disgruntled former employee if they do go on the record. If they're still working for him, he'll fire them (e.g. Vindman). Is it really plausible to you that this is always the case? Or could it be that Trump's just going to attack the source no matter what, and that what they're saying is very often true?

Some things they say could be true, but not necessarily this one.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If there's a single unnamed source, sure, it's possible they might be making something up. But four all confirming the same story? Plus likely more, assuming the other outlets didn't have completely overlapping sources? Come on.

So Kim Jong is dead?

We have seen many stories such as these end up false. The comments are ridiculous. It looks like some truth is in there, but I am not sure all of it is. I am giving benefit of the doubt on the more ridiculous things because I can't see them being said.

---

Trump just started preemptively bashing John Kelly (who's obviously in a position to confirm or deny much of what was in the article).

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1302006536190005255

Notably, when Kelly was asked about the story, he had no comment. If the stories he was there for (in particular the one at his son's grave) were false, I find it pretty unbelievable that he wouldn't deny them. Of course, if he does ever end up publicly confirming, Trump's been setting himself up to pivot straight from "anonymous sources" to "disgruntled former employee."

---

Corrik7 posted...

So Kim Jong is dead?

We have seen many stories such as these end up false. The comments are ridiculous. It looks like some truth is in there, but I am not sure all of it is. I am giving benefit of the doubt on the more ridiculous things because I can't see them being said.

Were there multiple outlets saying that they had confirmed Kim's death? I remember reporting on rumors, but can't recall any that said they had any sort of confirmation. False factual reporting in reputable outlets does happen, but it is rare.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Were there multiple outlets saying that they had confirmed Kim's death? I remember reporting on rumors, but can't recall any that said they had any sort of confirmation. False factual reporting in reputable outlets does happen, but it is rare.

What difference does multiple outlets make? They could all be using the same sources.

---

i don't see how "the quotes are too ridiculous" is what makes people skeptical when trump says ridiculous shit on the record on a regular basis.

not too long ago, he said (paraphrased) "the US is doing great when it comes to covid because we have less covid cases than the world" in a public interview.

---

Okay, so looked it up and the US used the draft for WWI. So the soldiers were not there by choice. Under the big assumption that these alleged statements are accurate, it's hard to see how they could be suckers, unless Trump means they weren't rich enough/creative enough to get themselves diagnosed with bone spurs.

---

What we know about the media is simple. Standards have devolved drastically. News is rarely reported without spin. And the rush to get the story very often leads to not vetting or verifying stories (sandmann hello). The rush is so immense that other outlets have no qualms piggybacking off the first outlet just to rush the story out as well.

There is just as little reason to believe the media is reporting honestly as there is that someone would say stuff that ridiculous. Thus, I give the benefit of the doubt. I believe there is truth in there and some stuff added likely. I don't think Trump said the men and women who died in our military are losers specifically.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Yes, but again, it leads to motive and unable to be verified sources. It is why people can easily find it unbelievable. It wouldn't be the first unnamed sourced stuff that was wrong or reported things from a former official that was not true.

Dude, can you seriously not see why no one who is an active employee or friend of the President would confirm this...?

Corrik7 posted...

So Kim Jong is dead?

We have seen many stories such as these end up false. The comments are ridiculous. It looks like some truth is in there, but I am not sure all of it is. I am giving benefit of the doubt on the more ridiculous things because I can't see them being said.

Go ahead and remind the class how many major news organizations CONFIRMED Kim was dead.

Theres a difference between reporting on the existence of a rumor and outright saying I have sources confirming this

---

Oh, even better, Trump was actually preemptively using the "disgruntled former employee" excuse under the assumption that one of the sources was Kelly:

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1302007144326270980

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't see how "the quotes are too ridiculous" is what makes people skeptical when trump says ridiculous shit on the record on a regular basis.

not too long ago, he said (paraphrased) "the US is doing great when it comes to covid because we have less covid cases than the world" in a public interview.

Because Trump almost always goes after the powerful when he makes these kinds of statements. John McCain, Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, multiple senior members of his cabinet, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. All 1%ers and well-connected 1%ers. Even when he talked about Mexico, he didn't blame poor Mexican immigrants - he said they were smart (or possibly sent to the US by the Mexican government, which he said is very smart), and American politicians were stupid.

For Trump to go after conscripted, mostly poor, American soldiers who died in World War I (a war they WON), is actually out of character.

---

https://twitter.com/DailyFXTeam/status/1301587630195462144?s=20

Sounds like the stimulus bill is dead on both sides then.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Because Trump almost always goes after the powerful when he makes these kinds of statements. John McCain, Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, multiple senior members of his cabinet, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. All 1%ers and well-connected 1%ers. Even when he talked about Mexico, he didn't blame poor Mexican immigrants - he said they were smart (or possibly sent to the US by the Mexican government, which he said is very smart), and American politicians were stupid.

For Trump to go after conscripted, mostly poor, American soldiers who died in World War I (a war they WON), is actually out of character.

maybe this is true for "trump the president." he certainly had no problem bashing powerless nobodies into the ground when he starred in the apprentice.

---

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/coronavirus-stimulus-mike-pence-says-congress-to-pass-government-funding.html

---

Nikki 2024.

---