“Do undecided voters really need more details from Harris when the alternative is Trump? Don't most presidents fail to achieve their stated policy goals anyway? Instead, consider the Democratic and Republican Parties as brands. Typically, you know what you are getting when selecting one brand over another. If the economy is your priority, trust the brand. Over the last 75 years, annual real GDP growth has averaged 3.79% during Democratic administrations compared to 2.60% during Republican administrations. Republican trickle-down economics is an abject failure unless you are a billionaire.” – NYT comment
Former Obama Chief Strategist David
Axelrod on CNN Thursday said that undecided voters "still don't have a strong
perception" of Kamala Harris.
The veteran campaign manager said that
while middle-ground voters have a firm idea of who former President Donald Trump is,
they're less settled on what a Harris administration would look like, which
could make things more difficult for her in November."
Make things more difficult for HER? After that mud-slinging felonious traitor Turd and braggart spouted off craziness in the debate about people eating pets? By now Kamala ought to be ahead in the polls by 60 points if this country were the least bit rational, or hell- even semi sane. Can't these undecided morons see that this is a gimme choice? Can't Mr. Axelrod? What's the big deal? It's like choosing between a woman who has honor, brains and courage vs. a senile slimeball whose only vision for the country is a train wreck.
Axelrod added:
"One important thing to note is that undecided voters have a pretty strong judgment about Donald Trump. They're skeptical about politics generally, and they don't particularly like Trump, but they don't know very much about Kamala Harris. They're open to her, but they're also prepared to be disappointed by her,"
Well tough shit! By now, and after the Trump debate fiasco, it ought to be evident to the lowest IQ voter that Trump ought to be summarily disqualified. He has no sense, no brains and lacks even a scintilla of credibility to govern this country. Further, what's the excuse from these know-nothings for well, knowing nothing? As one poster on the NY Times put it:
How many of these "I'd like to know more" people have ever gone to kamalaharris dot com? There is a page with her positions on ALL the issues that is literally named "Issues." If they want to like or disagree with her positions, that's one thing; but to say "I don't know enough" as if it's all everyone else's responsibility is just not convincing when the information is all there, one click away from the pages where they are doing the very whining about not knowing enough.
The same commenter also asked a question I'd like answered: Why does so much of the media give these ill-informed twits a free pass, and also keep their pathetic reactions front and center? As Bill Maher said on Real Time, if you don't know who the sane choice is by now you need to go back to kindergarten. You shouldn't be casting a ballot. Or to quote another commenter in the NY Times:
"Anybody who hasn't made up their mind about who is fit or unfit to lead America, doesn't have a mind. Full stop!"
The travesty is that with less than 2 months to go before voting (even less for mail in ballots) so many (apparently) of these forlorn bumpkins are still not doing homework that takes 3 minutes or less. And yet the more stubbornly they refuse to put in one ounce of work the more media attention is focused on them. Perhaps, and I know this is cynical, they are playing out the 'don't know yet' game just to get attention. And the media keeps feeding it to them like crack.
Axelrod again:
"The big task for her campaign is to continue to fill in
the picture of her, particularly around transactional issues like the economy.
I don't think what she needs is a voluminous list of policies, but there may be
a few signature policies that speak to economic experience and quality of life
to give voters a sense that she gets it."
This needs addressing because it is evident that even the savviest pundits seem to miss the point that in the end spinning out policies doesn't matter. First, none of them will be realized without enough votes in congress to pass, so the president isn't a one man, or one woman show. Second, being too intricate with policy details too early means that whatever your position your words can then be used against you or twisted any way a disingenuous pundit wants. As for changing policy positions, as Kamala did with fracking- which the media makes a big deal of - let me cite Al Franken's words on the most recent Real Time:
"Sheesh! She's a politician, what do you expect? She wants to get elected."
And she's not spewing dangerous, inciteful garbage for weak lizard brains - like her opponent, Dotard Trump. His recent bollocks about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, OH has set off chaos and hysteria in one Ohio town. (WSJ, 'False Claim That Immigrants Are Eating Pets Stirs Chaos', p. A3, Sept. 14-15). So there've now been school shutdowns as well as hospital lockdowns - amidst the bomb threats as officials try to regain control of their town after an unhinged orange ape let loose all manner of wild claims. And as far as any 'undecideds' leaning Trump, they may well want to process the words of one Springfield official appearing on Velshi Sunday morning:
"At this point you have to know who Trump is. If you're planning to vote for Trump you are down with this, the lockdowns, the bomb threats, the schools closed. I give you no quarter. You are down with racism, bigotry, the most vile stuff as well as the attempted January 6 coup."
That also has to apply to senior voters - over 65 - who've switched to Trump by 11 points since the Biden debate debacle. (WSJ, 'Older Voters Still Up For Grabs In 2024', p. C5, Sept. 15). Senior voters are supposed to have more sense, genuine honor for country, and superior recognition of snake oil salesmen. So they ought to have little truck with Trump's antics, especially after that debate with Harris. Why in hell would you want this infantile, elderly psychotic in the White House? A guy who can't even control his emotion for 90 plus minutes. Just because he 'promised' to exempt all Social Security benefits from income taxes? Newsflash, he cannot order that by fiat, it has to go through congress. As well as his Project 25 handlers who want the program defunded or privatized.
Seniors with sense ought to also detest a party and "leader" who cultivates Nazis. Oh, and the siren baiting call that taking a nick in the ear from a wannabe assassin's bullet and screaming "Fight! Fight! Fight!" qualifies one as a leader. No, it does not - not unless there also exists a core of decency, respect for norms and honor - which are alien to a despicable fiend like Trump.
In that regard, Velshi on Sunday took note on how the neo-Nazis cheered on their pet media site (GAB) while Trump was spewing his brain rot. To them the orange rat fucker had basically 'mainlined' their meme, their trope. As one of the imps wrote: "This is what real power looks like."
Something the WSJ's delirious Peggy Noonan also ought to process after dinging Kamala ('A Small But Decisive Win', p. A13, Sept. 14-15) being "often evasive, and full of clever and not so clever dodges."
Well, hey, Pegs! She didn't have neo-Nazis cheering her! And she wasn't accusing Trumpers in NYC of grabbing rats off the subway tracks and cooking them up to eat in Times Square. Pegs also beefed about the "disparity of the ABC moderators" who in her limited mental view should have "held Kamala to the same standard they held Trump". But see, Kamala wasn't going off the freaking rails (like Dotard) about women killing their babies right after they're born and immigrants eating pets in Springfield OH.
As CBS politics pundit John Dickerson noted, it's the difference between a cook maybe putting a tad too much salt in the soup (Kamala's changed stances on fracking etc.) and another cook (Trump) who empties a whole box of salt into the soup. And in the latter case, riling up his crazies - over migrants eating pets - to the point he has an American city approaching possible martial law with all the bomb threats, lockdowns, shutdowns.
THAT shows this POS is totally unfit to be a president, given his reckless claims and crazed lies which have upended the entire civil security of a U.S. city. So no, we do not want this demented 78 -year old 'weaving' screwball jackass anywhere near the seat of power. And anyone truly in support of our democracy, i.e. a real patriot, ought to know that. A vote for Trump, or even a supposed benign "side choice" (3rd party, leaving slot blank etc.) is effectively treason as the Springfield official put it.
In his latest tantrum, Trump took aim at Taylor Swift in a
Truth Social post Sunday, declaring his distaste for the superstar after
she endorsed his opponent, Kamala
Harris.
"I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!" Trump wrote in the post.
Let’s agree this is the sign of an emotional infant, and certainly one unfit to access the nuclear football – or even be within a kiloparsec of one. As I've repeatedly written, he is unfit to run a Porto-Potty operation far less the presidency of the United States.
Then in the NY Times Friday podcast, "Matter of Opinion,” the hosts talked about how each campaign should reconsider its nominee’s visibility in the next seven weeks to win the White House. Lead blabber Ross Douthat said it wasn't so much Harris "drill down" on policies, but she did have to address "issues on voters' minds" such as inflation, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and "why some felt they didn't know enough about what her plans are."
I.e.
"She really really needs to give us some more concrete
details about what she would do if elected. Economy is big, but healthcare,
housing, childcare and education are intrinsically tied to this issue and need
some specific and positive goals (and how we'd get there) to show at least an
effort is being made. And while the immediate reaction to immigration is shut
the border down, I'd like to see something more nuanced."
Huh? This elicited the reaction from me of why these clueless undecideds, supposedly "low information" voters, are being so fetishized by the media. Again, to reiterate, my theory is that the undecideds are not really the low information simpletons they appear, but rather love the spotlight and play the indecision hand to get media attention. And the U.S. media gives it to them like crack or magic mushrooms. Or both.
But let us grant the assumption that Kamala needs to provide a bit more information to allay any persistent fears of some voters. The best way to do that is not another debate with Trump. No, she doesn't need a format where half her time has to be spent addressing the "gatling gun lies" of senile derelict who'd be cleaning porto-potties if he wasn't wealthy. And in any case, the limited delivery and response times are simply insufficient to do any elaboration justice. So debates are a waste of time, and in any case Trump doesn't want another one.
The best format then for Kamala to more robustly state her positions and why she has them would be in the town hall setting. There she can meet voters in a free wheeling setting as she did just five years ago, e.g.
With European antisemites from the Middle Ages right up through WWII, the blood libel was to claim that Jews were using the blood of Christian children to make their matzo bread for Passover. In 1890s America, east coast German and Dutch immigrants were slandered with claims they were making sausage from local pets; the assertion was even made into a then-well-known folk song. Chinese immigrants suffered the same sort of defamation with white Americans spreading rumors of pets being served in their restaurants from the 19th century through last year.
Now it’s Donald Trump and JD Vance turn telling the vicious, racist lie that legal Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are both here illegally (they’re not) and are eating the pets of local white people (also a lie). Most recently, Don Jr. has repeated his father’s frequent claim that Black people have lower IQs than white Americans:
“You look at Haiti, you look at the demographic makeup, you look at the average I.Q. — if you import the third world into your country, you’re going to become the third world.”
Despite the ongoing excessive whining in the press about Kamala Harris not doing interviews and MAGA's laughable insistence that Trump won the debate and that it was rigged by ABC moderators, the truth is that the vice president is running an exceptional campaign. At every important juncture, she has met the moment and surpassed it.
Personally, I never understood the widely (but not deeply) held belief that she was a mediocre politician. As a Californian, I have followed Harris' career pretty closely from the time she made a name for herself as the San Francisco district attorney and then state attorney general. I happily voted for her for the Senate. She always struck me as a talented politician who was very likely headed for higher office if the breaks came her way.
Donald Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Sunday to declare he hates Taylor Swift, five days after the global popstar endorsed his opponent, Kamala Harris.
"I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!" the 2024 GOP nominee wrote.
Former US Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) replied: "Says the smallest man who ever lived."
Former right-wing operative Matthew Sheffield replied: Trump's brain is so broken that he's just now getting upset that Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris."
Politico's Kyle Cheney sarcastically replied: "The youth strategy."
Trump is now the oldest presidential candidate ever nominated by a major party.
I’m not a young man, but I’m a little younger than Trump — and hopefully doing better in the noggin!
Trump has confused President Biden with Obama so many times, he had to put a statement claiming it was intentional.
He confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi.
Before picking him as his running mate, he called JD Vance “JD Mandel.”
During recent legal proceedings, Trump was unable to distinguish E. Jean Caroll — the woman a jury conclude he raped — from his ex-wife Marla Maples.
Trump can’t accept his poor debate. He’s spiraled into conspiracy theories.
Former president Donald Trump has long inhabited a bizarre world of his own creation. He rewrites history — or makes it up entirely — to aggrandize himself, denigrate others and spread the basest of lies. It keeps getting worse.
Since Tuesday’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris he’s spiraled ever deeper into conspiracy theories, falsehoods and grievances. He insists he is not a loser. He never lost the 2020 election, he says falsely, and he certainly didn’t lose that debate in Philadelphia.
He claims victory in an event in which he spent 90 minutes chasing Harris’s barbs down every possible rabbit hole. He rarely managed to get off the defensive long enough to make a case against her — and when he did, he was barely coherent.
— from Robert Reich's Substack
The second apparent attempt on Trump’s life — yesterday at his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida — occurred just over two months after he was wounded during an attempt on his life at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. “They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” Trump said after the first attempt. “I’m just standing in the way.”
“They” should not be coming after anyone. There is no place in our democracy for violence, nor for threats of violence.
Which brings me to Trump’s claim in last week’s debate that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are “eating the dogs … eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
It quickly became a vast internet joke, fueling thousands of hilarious memes and songs. But it’s no laughing matter. Trump’s claim has already provoked threats of violence.
Harris’ debate moves were brilliant, but the aged, racist, gut-driven charlatan drove his own train wreck, blind to eight years of scatter-gun, MAGA-driven electoral blows
Trump’s devolving, ever-desperate tantrum campaign is now taking far too literally the old saw, “The only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity.” Tactical “bad publicity” works, like a splashy lightning strike, but not the crude drudgery of Donald’s demagoguery. Expect worse. But contriving bad publicity after a terrible debate sabotages any potential reversal against a vigorous, up-spirited foe vigorously pumping out good publicity. Trump’s ugly, undisciplined flare-outs, ever vile and racist to grab a headline, fully infests J.D. Vance, whose tone-deaf blunders match the Fraudster-in-chief. Robotically played-out Trumpist tricks are backfiring, even disqualifying.
A MAGA miasma explains Trump’s vanity defense of his latest pet – a pernicious, conspiratorial white supremacist, Laura Loomer. Someone could get killed in Springfield, Ohio when nutcases bomb-threat grammar schools. On display is calculated, sensationalized outrage, invoking that old media motto, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Trump now blames his 2020 loss less on Dems than insiders who stopped Trump from being Trump. Gloves are off, even if go-for-broke, reptilian venom infects his own campaign.
— from the Brennan Center for Justice
The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has long spread disinformation about elections, claiming there is widespread voter fraud despite ample evidence to the contrary. More recently, it has gained attention for its authoritarian and antidemocratic Project 2025 plan for a second Trump administration.
Ahead of this fall’s election, Heritage has been at the forefront of pushing the lie that noncitizens are registering and voting in significant numbers, laying the groundwork for election deniers to use in case the results don’t go their way.
Now its efforts to undermine trust in elections have taken a dangerous new turn—a boots-on-the-ground approach to fish for voter fraud where there is none. In July, men working with Heritage knocked on the doors of suspected noncitizens in an apartment complex outside Atlanta, asking about the residents’ citizenship status and whether they are registered to vote. The pair misrepresented themselves as being with a company that assists Latinos with navigating the election system and secretly videotaped their interactions.
The less popular pet species — your gerbils, iguanas, and cockatoos — should be grateful. So far, at least, they haven't become the focal point of a deranged MAGA urban legend, conspiracy theory, or bigoted meme. The same cannot be said for America's two most popular animal companions: cats and dogs. This election cycle has been dominated by discourse about cats and dogs, and not in a fun way. Instead, it's been one news cycle after another involving the deeply unpleasant combination of a household pet plus bizarre far-right behavior.
So it's time to ask the question: Why can't MAGA Republicans leave pets alone?
Looking back over the past few months, it is startling how many gross stories of Trumpist weirdness involve dogs and/or cats, who do not have partisan preferences. Though, if animals could vote, I suspect they'd turn out for the Democrats, because Republicans can't seem to talk about pets without giving everyone the heebie-jeebies. In her springtime bid to be Donald Trump's running mate, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota bragged about shooting her dog in the head. (She also killed a goat for the high crime of annoying her.) Not that Trump's actual pick, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, is any more pet-friendly. The man has an alarming obsession with "cat ladies," his go-to insult for women who haven't — or even haven't yet — given birth.
In Tuesday night’s debate, ABC’s host David Muir asked Harris about Trump:
“This was a post from President Trump about this upcoming election just weeks away. He said, ‘When I win, those people who cheated,’ and then he lists donors, voters, election officials, he says ‘Will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, which will include long-term prison sentences.’ One of your campaign’s top lawyers responded saying, ‘We won’t let Donald Trump intimidate us. We won’t let him suppress the vote.’ Is that what you believe he's trying to do here?”
Harris responded by saying that Trump was “fired by 81 million people” and is a “disgrace” who she would not allow to intimidate her, adding that “the world’s leaders” are “laughing” at him. Muir then turned to Trump for his response, and he was blunt:
No comments:
Post a Comment