"Race For The White House 2024" Open Chat

[TTL News 308]

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trumpclinched their parties’ presidential nominations Tuesday with decisive victories in a slate of low-profile primaries, setting up a general election rematch that many voters do not want.

The outcome of contests across Georgia, Mississippi and Washington state was never in doubt. Neither Biden, a Democrat, nor Trump, a Republican, faced major opposition. But the magnitude of their wins gave each man the delegate majority he needed to claim his party’s nomination at the summertime national conventions.

Not even halfway through the presidential primary calendar, Tuesday marked a crystalizing moment for a nation uneasy with its choices in 2024. 

 

Source

[Ann 263]

If your State’s Primary hasn’t been held yet, where is the choice?  They have been declared the party nominees.  I guess you could write in a candidate but, to me, that vote doesn’t really count. 

[Chris 2,161]

There’s no one left but the two Geritol gems.

Maybe we can save the state some money and dispense with the charade. 

[TTL News 308]

Quote

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Former Vice President Mike Pence says he will not be backing Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

“It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,” Pence said in an interview with Fox News Channel Friday, weighing in for the first time since the former president became the presumptive GOP nominee. Pence ran against Trump for their party’s nomination but dropped his bid before voting began last year.

 

Source

[TTL News 308]

Quote

VANDALIA, Ohio (AP) — Former President Donald Trump claimed that he — not President Joe Biden — will protect Social Security and warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November as he campaigned for Senate candidate Bernie Moreno in Ohio.

Source

[Adam 373]

8 hours ago, TTL News Bot said:

VANDALIA, Ohio (AP) — Former President Donald Trump claimed that he — not President Joe Biden — will protect Social Security and warned of a “bloodbath” if he loses in November as he campaigned for Senate candidate Bernie Moreno in Ohio.

Context is key, and will not be considered by many who are rabidly partisan:

"China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans, and you’re going to sell the cars to us? No. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars."

Above is the quote in which he used the phrase, and if one actually reads it, the bloodbath is in reference to what could happen if Chinese-made cars in Mexico are allowed to be sold in American Markets.

of course Pappy Joe et al are claiming its proof trump wants another J6....smh

 

[Chris 2,161]

15 minutes ago, Adam said:

Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country

I understand full well the context of what he was saying. The problem is there’s a lot of people out there, who hang on his every word, that don’t understand context.

And he knows that.

[KarenK 383]

46 minutes ago, Chris said:

I understand full well the context of what he was saying. The problem is there’s a lot of people out there, who hang on his every word, that don’t understand context.

And he knows that.

I agree. When I read that headline I made a point of researching and (gasp) reading the actual article on it.  Horrible media manipulation.

[Ann 263]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

I understand full well the context of what he was saying. The problem is there’s a lot of people out there, who hang on his every word, that don’t understand context.

And he knows that.

There are a minority of radicals on both sides but I have to believe the majority of average Americans (not suffering from TDS) know and understand exactly what he is saying.  They live with and see the consequences of the current administration’s policies.

[Chris 2,161]

A "minority of radicals" is all it takes ( and it's not as few as you think anymore ) to set things into motion and suddenly you have Jan. 6th. 

This is not a case of "TDS." This is a man with a giant pulpit, millions of worshippers, and a fragile ego who doesn't give a damn about anything or anyone but himself using outlandish rhetoric to pump up his base. 

[MsKreed 1,179]

12 hours ago, Chris said:

I understand full well the context of what he was saying. The problem is there’s a lot of people out there, who hang on his every word, that don’t understand context.

He didn't call for any (corporeal) bloodbath, he's simply predicting an (economic) bloodbath if the current administration continues its path. And he's not necessarily wrong about that.

But it's not his supporters who are spreading the inflammatory out-of-context phrase....the problem is those who are against him that are hoping to foment fear and counting on the idea that voters who "don’t understand context" will believe he is calling for a "bloodbath" if he doesn't win.

[Chris 2,161]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

He didn't call for any (corporeal) bloodbath, he's simply predicting an (economic) bloodbath if the current administration continues its path. And he's not necessarily wrong about that.

Perhaps not. But I don't have nearly as much faith in most people to discern what he meant from what they heard. 

[MsKreed 1,179]

41 minutes ago, Chris said:

Perhaps not. But I don't have nearly as much faith in most people to discern what he meant from what they heard. 

I think we may differ on the "who/how/why" of incorrectly discerning what he meant.  I have less faith in those who willfully circulate "sound byte" headlines and selective excerpts that leave out the context.  Click-bait is designed to hide mundane 'full context' behind inflammatory and misleading snippets.

It gives me pause to see incomplete snippets instead of the full context. (And that kind of includes TTL Bot's truncated AP quoted here, about 7-8 posts back). 

 

When a news outlet (whether AP, MSN, etc or one of their commentators) presents clear disingenuousness in a (highly edited, selectively curated) message, it tends to call the messenger’s integrity into question. Rather than offering a compelling argument of the alleged “danger” Trump presents.....misleading narratives and “quotes” illustrate bias.  

[Chris 2,161]

1 minute ago, MsKreed said:

It gives me pause to see incomplete snippets instead of the full context. (And that kind of includes TTL Bot's truncated AP quoted here, about 7-8 posts back). 

It's a snotty little f--ker, that's "learning" how to get responses. 😉

He needs to dial down the rhetoric, no matter the context. 

 

[MsKreed 1,179]

34 minutes ago, Chris said:

It's a snotty little f--ker, that's "learning" how to get responses. 😉

Unfortunately, getting responses can be a dubious objective.

The li’l f—ker is likely to “learn” that a click-bait model with provocative rhetoric will absofarking-lutely satisfy a metric based on “responses”.

 

Whether the bulk of those resulting “responses” are going to be thoughtful or contentious....welllll. 🤷‍♀️

Bill proved that years ago without any AI help. 😉

[Chris 2,161]

I get it, but also need to find out if this place has a pulse still or not. 

More on topic, as I the only one who thinks his rhetoric, in whatever context, is not only unbecoming of the office he held but also potentially dangerous?

And before anyone responds with, “What about…” yeah I get it, the left talks as if a Trump win is the prophecy of Armageddon fulfilled. We can talk about that as well. But “what about” isn’t an answer in my way of seeing things, and too often uttered.

[Ann 263]

I find it hypocritical that prior to announcing his candidacy in 2016, Trump was “the man”.  The movers and shakers loved spending time with him, taking pictures with him, visiting his golf clubs and other properties.  He was one of “them”.

However, his candidacy and eventual Presidency changed their opinions.  His personality didn’t change, just his position and suddenly he was evil incarnate.  From the get go, no one gave him a chance to see what he could accomplish.  Republicans and Democrats both went after him with a vengeance.   Suddenly it was “get Trump”.  I find what’s being done to him via our so called legal system reprehensible.  

We are sheep being led to the slaughter; who the butcher is remains to be seen.

[MsKreed 1,179]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

More on topic, as I the only one who thinks his rhetoric, in whatever context, is not only unbecoming of the office he held but also potentially dangerous?

And before anyone responds with, “What about…” yeah I get it, the left talks as if a Trump win is the prophecy of Armageddon fulfilled. We can talk about that as well. But “what about” isn’t an answer in my way of seeing things, and too often uttered.

I’ll refrain from “what about” examples, and just say that other politicians say (and do) things that are also offensive, with much less scrutiny and amplification (whether social media, pundits or “news” coverage).

 

For now, I’ll try to focus on your specific questions about Trump’s conduct***.(see footnote)

I'll qualify my remarks by saying, I did not vote for him (and will not vote for him in the future).

Yes....his rhetoric is often abrasive, antagonistic, crude and hyperbolically exaggerated.

In my opinion, his campaign(s) and presidency have displayed the same persona that he demonstrated on The Apprentice......evidently making it very successful – with dozens of awards and nominations. (Although I proudly count myself among those who never watched a single episode and found the commercials/clips distasteful).

But clearly, the millions and millions of Apprentice fans would suggest that his rhetoric style is effective, and many people found it appealing.

While his distasteful persona is unbecoming of POTUS, I’ve seen little to no evidence of the “dangerous talk” (or perceptions of) equating to any genuinely dangerous Executive actions that have been fear-mongered. (no EO’s to lock up or censor reporters, or jail Muslims, or strip LGBTQ’s of any rights, etc).

 

And, I do include Jan 6^th in my consideration. There's been plenty of domestic unrest, with intent to forcibly influence Constitutional government activity, throughout US history. Often in larger numbers and with comparable (or even higher) degrees of violence....Anyone who wants a taste of what “insurrection” actually looks like can scoot on down to Haiti. 

 

Weighing his rhetoric against his actions as POTUS, I believe his domestic and foreign policy decisions had far more positive impact on national security and economic prosperity than his successor.

Barring some miracle of a third party being able to defend against the powerful D/R machine that restricts voter choice.....I have to say that, in the presumptive 2-man 2024 race, I will be more optimistic about the future if the former POTUS with potentially dangerous rhetoric prevails over the former POTUS with a demonstrably dangerous policy record.

 

***(perhaps we can also have an equally critical discussion on Biden’s potentially dangerous conduct at a later time – also refraining from “what about” comparisons).  

[Chris 2,161]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

For now, I’ll try to focus on your specific questions about Trump’s conduct***.(see footnote)

I'll qualify my remarks by saying, I did not vote for him (and will not vote for him in the future).

Yes....his rhetoric is often abrasive, antagonistic, crude and hyperbolically exaggerated.

In my opinion, his campaign(s) and presidency have displayed the same persona that he demonstrated on The Apprentice......evidently making it very successful – with dozens of awards and nominations. (Although I proudly count myself among those who never watched a single episode and found the commercials/clips distasteful).

But clearly, the millions and millions of Apprentice fans would suggest that his rhetoric style is effective, and many people found it appealing.

While his distasteful persona is unbecoming of POTUS, I’ve seen little to no evidence of the “dangerous talk” (or perceptions of) equating to any genuinely dangerous Executive actions that have been fear-mongered. (no EO’s to lock up or censor reporters, or jail Muslims, or strip LGBTQ’s of any rights, etc).

There's nothing there I disagree with, including your last point. As for Jan. 6th, I disagree. I do and will always consider what happened a near catastrophic event in our history if only that they honestly thought they could and tried to overturn an election. I firmly believe it was attempted insurrection. His role in it, both in adding a match to the tinder box as well as standing by and doing nothing when even his kids and Fox News wonks were saying he needed to do something, is a disgrace.

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

I have to say that, in the presumptive 2-man 2024 race, I will be more optimistic about the future if the former POTUS with potentially dangerous rhetoric prevails over the former POTUS with a demonstrably dangerous policy record.

I'll have no part in aiding either, so unless there's a halfway sane third party candidate, I'll sit this one out, thanks. 

[Chris 2,161]

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

***(perhaps we can also have an equally critical discussion on Biden’s potentially dangerous conduct at a later time – also refraining from “what about” comparisons).

I want to address this one separately because the question and its answer has implications for this entire site. I want everyone who even so much as lurks here to see it. 

Yes, absolutely yes we can have that discussion. My comment:

3 hours ago, Chris said:

And before anyone responds with, “What about…”

 And what followed pertained only to the question I posed. '

Folks, this isn't just MY forum. It's everyone's, I just keep the lights on for you. If you want to pose a question or start a new conversation, go for it. I'm actually begging you to because then I don't have to sit here, try and find fresh content only for it to not result in any responses whatsoever.

If you have something on your mind and want to talk about it, post it.

I only know what interests me, and that may not be what anyone else wants to talk about. 

And the fact is, in the coming weeks my schedule looks like it could change enough to keep me away from this desk to write, nevermind curate topics for here. So again I'll say that if you guys want to talk about something, create a post. If it's in a spot I don't think it fits, I'll move it or add it to where it does later.  

[KarenK 383]

So speaking of 3rd party, I know Kennedy is an extreme underdog here but he seems to be garnering more and more support very quietly.  Maybe that's the idea.

[MsKreed 1,179]

I think you’re right.

Sane voters across all parties and persuasions are unhappy with the presumptive 2-man race. But, being of sane mind, they don’t have much desire to get into heated arguments by saying that out loud.  

Both campaigns are built on emphasizing what’s bad about the opponent. While neither is doing much to demonstrate why their candidate is a good choice.

 

I feel like this election could be more like the unexpected 2016 result. Whether their reasons were “anti-Hillary” or “pro-Trump”..... it seemed like a large number of voters didn’t advertise their feelings, and just cast their vote quietly in November (throwing polls out the window).

In contrast to the 2020 attitude of both sides screaming their choice, we could very well see quiet voters having a huge impact again.

[Adam 373]

12 hours ago, Chris said:

A "minority of radicals" is all it takes ( and it's not as few as you think anymore ) to set things into motion and suddenly you have Jan. 6th. 

This is not a case of "TDS." This is a man with a giant pulpit, millions of worshippers, and a fragile ego who doesn't give a damn about anything or anyone but himself using outlandish rhetoric to pump up his base. 

i guess in that guess, it would be incumbent upon any media outlet covering that story( or any others) to be sure to NOT bank on people being responsible enough to read beyond the headlines. and there were many headlines similar to the one posted here that infer he was alluding to something other than the auto-industry.

[Adam 373]

7 hours ago, Chris said:

not only unbecoming of the office he held but also potentially dangerous?

unbecoming? MOST certainly, thats probably being too generous. but dangerous? no.

 

[Adam 373]

4 hours ago, Chris said:

His role in it, both in adding a match to the tinder box as well as standing by and doing nothing when even his kids and Fox News wonks were saying he needed to do something, is a disgrace.

except i heard a story and found a recent article to check for B.S, stating the Jan 6th committee had and hid communications indicating Trump was trying to get DC mayor i believe, to request Nat guard troops and made the offer of up to 10,000

https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview