I think you had to show it was in carrying out your duties as president with a broad latitude to what that meant. I think it was a stretch to argue it would allow him to order a US citizen killed. And even if the courts failed the remedy would be impeachment. That would have quite the controversial trial
Ok, but "this time we got him for sure" continues to happen. I have no faith.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Just an interesting thread about the broader repercussions from Iowa's abortion ban. Makes me think of what will go on in Alberta down the road as well, just with slashing healthcare overall
I'll take Trump dismantling the Republic of it stops people from discussing polls as if they're relevant to anyone outside of the campaigns.
The only people discussing polls or that betting site were trumpers, RT, twitter users. Same with the polymarket. The message from RT even made it here.
No need to cheer for trump to get rid of them, just ignore them and know that a lot of money, by Musk and other Billionaires, was spent to get the polls and odds magnified before any real poll numbers came out.
There’s no way Trump is winning this. The undecided voters are as hell not voting for him after his recent insane talking points. I think Kamala will take the majority of the swing states and score a big electoral cottage win.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
Trump still holds a huge lead. I think Harris has a good shot to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pennsylvania is literally 50/50. Trump will handily win all of the other swing states. If she can carry Pennsylvania, that leaves her winning 270-268. All Trump has to do is win one of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.
We likely won't have a winner until this time next weekend.
Ok, I'll bite, even though I think you are an Oiler fan
Where, exactly is trump holding a huge lead, like what states, and which sites are you seeing that? I am not seeing that at all. Weren't you talking about Polymarket and all the the ones that had it 35 harris, 65 trump?
Penn is not 50/50, trump is already suing and none of the actual exit polls show that trump is leading.
How about a link?
Or hey, you keep spamming this stuff from twitter and RT, you must believe it, i'll take the current odds on your poly site for 100 dollars on Kamala Harris, Canadian. We can donate the proceeds to CP or a nice Christmas charity? You seem pretty confident and I don't mind donating if I lose.
Put up or shut up as they say Either way, if you accept, another family or a place of communication will be helped.
Wonder if exit polling will show that Trump lost the election in the last two weeks of the campaign with all the “garbage”. His campaign mangers must be absolutely furious.
What an idiot. Always the smartest in the room.
He could still win this but all he had to do was act somewhat normal the last month and he had it in the bag.
The Following User Says Thank You to Manhattanboy For This Useful Post:
I think the Harris camp hasn't attacked this issue because they too will move towards a more protectionist stance too. It won't be as loud or extreme as the Trump side. But let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. with Energy and Food Security is going to be a lot more difficult to do business with for anyone not offering something they can't live without.
In the next 10 years it won't really matter who is in Power, the U.S. will make trade much harder on anyone wanting to do business with them.
Screwing consumers for the capitalist producers. You've got to think that at some point the workers hooked on spending their American incomes on third-world goods will revolt - although at this point the workers seem to already be idiots, and that's without further dismantling of education.
Ok, I'll bite, even though I think you are an Oiler fan
Where, exactly is trump holding a huge lead, like what states, and which sites are you seeing that? I am not seeing that at all. Weren't you talking about Polymarket and all the the ones that had it 35 harris, 65 trump?
Penn is not 50/50, trump is already suing and none of the actual exit polls show that trump is leading.
How about a link?
Or hey, you keep spamming this stuff from twitter and RT, you must believe it, i'll take the current odds on your poly site for 100 dollars on Kamala Harris, Canadian. We can donate the proceeds to CP or a nice Christmas charity? You seem pretty confident and I don't mind donating if I lose.
Put up or shut up as they say Either way, if you accept, another family or a place of communication will be helped.
What is your basis for assuming penn is not 50/50?
How to do evaluate early vote numbers (not exit polls) to reach your conclusion when they haven’t been historically predictive.
Polymarket is now 45/55 right in the ball park with the modellers. Outside of one state level poll there is nothing to suggest the race isn’t close.
Taking the current odds on poly market isn’t really showing confidence in your position. It’s basically saying Trump is favoured slightly more than polling suggests which is the opposite of the rest of your argument.
Wonder if exit polling will show that Trump lost the election in the last two weeks of the campaign with all the “garbage”. His campaign mangers must be absolutely furious.
What an idiot. Always the smartest in the room.
He could still win this but all he had to do was act somewhat normal the last month and he had it in the bag.
This election on a fundementals Basis should have been a relatively easy republican win. Trump is the only reason this is close.
I’d like to see a few more polls showing the Harris trend continuing other than Iowa but the pollsters are herding right now so it’s unlikely to show up. Momentum is a little bit toward Harris this week so that’s good. Vibes matter when convincing people to stand in line.
Last edited by GGG; 11-04-2024 at 06:40 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Wonder if exit polling will show that Trump lost the election in the last two weeks of the campaign with all the “garbage”. His campaign mangers must be absolutely furious.
What an idiot. Always the smartest in the room.
He could still win this but all he had to do was act somewhat normal the last month and he had it in the bag.
There was that moment after he “got shot”, that he was at his peak. He was told to bring a unifier message. It lasted 20 minutes.
He is who he is. Narcissists just can’t help themselves, they can’t hide it, as they don’t even see a need to. If people cannot accept he is the perpetual victim than that is bizzare and unfair of them.
You cannot control a person of that extreme. They need and crave destructive behavior.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to OldDutch For This Useful Post:
This election on a fundementals Basis should have been a relatively easy republican win. Trump is the only reason this is close.
A "fundamentals basis"? What does that mean? Wouldn't that imply based on policy positions? Wouldn't Project 2025 pretty much make this election a complete loss for either party trying to run under that policy structure? I think there are a lot of reasons that this election is close and much of it is appealing to the inherit racism and xenophobia of Americans and the desire to turn the United States into a Christian caliphate by those same voters. Fundamentally, that is completely incongruous with America is supposed to be about or what the constitution says. Trump only lets those voters say those quite parts out loud without the fear of repercussions they faced in the past.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
A Federal Communications Commission commissioner claimed incorrectly on Saturday that Kamala Harris‘ appearance onSaturday Night Liveviolated the “equal time” rule.
“This is a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule,” commissioner Brendan Carr wrote on X (formerly Twitter), in response to news of Harris’ planned appearance.
The FCC’s equal time rule requires American radio and television stations to offer equal time to rival political candidates. However, the burden falls on the candidates to request those equal opportunities, and the agency’s policy on the rule states: “Equal opportunities generally means providing comparable time and placement to opposing candidates; it does not require a station to provide opposing candidates with programs identical to the initiating candidate.”
Quote:
In his statement on social media, which an FCC representative noted did not represent the agency’s official views, Carr wrote, “The purpose of the rule is to avoid exactly this type of biased and partisan conduct — a licensed broadcaster using the public airwaves to exert its influence for one candidate on the eve of an election,” adding: “Unless the broadcaster offered Equal Time to other qualifying campaigns.”
In a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, the FCC noted they have “not made any determination regarding political programming rules, nor have we received a complaint from any interested parties.”
Quote:
Carr was appointed to the FCC by Donald Trump in 2017. Per Forbes, he is also credited as the author of a section in Project 2025, the unofficial policy plan of the Republican party.
This is the first I've ever heard of an "equal time rule". So dumb. And of course it's a Trump appointee who is pissing and moaning about it, lol.
The equal time rule was entrenched in the Fairness Doctrine, which the Republicans killed off in 1987 under Reagan. That allowed for the rise of RW radio and Fox News, where equal time was a punch line.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Is it? I think he touches on my point in his closing comments. I would think a good video on tax plans, especially from a self-identified CPA, would take into consideration the balance sheet of the plans.
Personally, I think this is a terrible presentation because he doesn't go into any depth of the impact of the plans. Trump is cut, cut, cut, and give away money to those who already have capital and assets, but then has no mechanism to pay for any of that policy. At least Harris has identified where and how there is going to be some level of balancing of the spreadsheet in reductions countered with increases on specific income levels. For Trump to provide any balance to the tax breaks and incentives he is giving to the rich there must be reductions in spending, which will be in social security and Medicare. So while this CPA identified that Trump wants to eliminate taxes on social security income, he also wants to greatly decrease that income or eliminate it all together.
This CPA does a very poor job in trying to show the actual outcomes of the policy and outcomes to individuals. He makes it seem like the big benefits in Trump's plan trickle down to average Americans, which it clearly does not. He acknowledges at the end of the presentation that he doesn't talk about impacts in other areas and especially to the national debt, which is how Trump does everything, toss it on the credit card and then don't pay for it down the road. There is a reason why his administration created twice the impact to the national debt that the Biden or Obama administrations did. He is a big spender and a tax cutter, which is no way to run government.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
