Given the kind of people Trump hires, I would believe that the two unnamed people are Kash and Mark.
Pat Bagley is one of the things I miss about Salt Lake.
i know I can look him up online, and every now and then my Utah friends send me a collection of his work, but it ain’t the same.
Given the kind of people Kash and Mark have shown themselves to be, I would believe they’d lie for Trump without a second’s hesitation, especially if not under oath.
Nobody said there would be fact checking.
The name calling has really ramped up of late. He’s called Harris everything but a cunt in recent days, although I’m sure that’s common when not on a hot mic. What a piece of work this guy is. How anyone is undecided is beyond me, although I have a thought on how to fix it.
The Dems seem to have had a communication problem for many years now. As in they don’t talk to the people in terms they will understand. Obama and Biden have done a lot of good, but you never heard about it. Telling the press through an intermediary is not the same thing. They should bring back the old frequent FDR “fireside chats”, telling the people in plain, basic terms what it is that is being done to address issues.
I’m not sure what you expect.
It’s pretty clear what people like to hear from politicians - memes, insults, and comforting platitudes.
Unfortunately, those are also qualities we don’t especially need in people interested in effective governance.
There are some who can win despite that - like Obama - but people were also projecting a lot of their own hopes and beliefs onto him rather than, ya know, actually listening to him. He was more of a centrist Democrat than most of his supporters ever realized, which they would have if they, ya know, actually listened to him.
Legal Eagle laid it out quite plain. Talked about what a criminal Trump is.
Plain talk about what could be changed would be good. I think it’s good that Kamala has not attacked Trump. He’s just a childish schoolyard bully after all.
We’re so profoundly information siloed that the message, itself, may be much easier to arrive at than the way to actually access those who the D’s need to reach.
Timely sessions are critical. For instance, when inflation skyrocketed during COVID, a press conference to explain the whys would have relieved some stress. When prices didn’t drop along with inflation, another presser to explain greed and price-gouging as the culprits, and measures being considered to stop the practice, would have gone a long way towards reassuring the masses. When the POTUS calls a press conference, all channels televise it. Simple solutions are too much to ask, I’m guessing.
Justice, while complicated, would be a solution. Good people are working on it, but it may take a while.
I think the current thinking – at least among many of us, if not prominent among the Harris campaign folk – is that what’s still at play are really what we call ‘low-information voters.’
I don’t get the feeling that they watch State of the Union addresses, or seek out substantive answers to the precious few burning questions they may have.
I think they’re likely to be governed by emotions: the economy is horrible, and illegal aliens are – as we speak – sexually assaulting 1/3rd of both men and women over the age of six – and never ever bother to make valid inquiry.
[and that’s after they’ve eaten your pets]
I think they’re also likely to be poor critical consumers of information – particularly quantitative information.
I also think the “We just don’t know what Harris stands for” crowd epitomizes this. Do a Google search. They don’t.
“Trump is America’s Hitler, but I heard that Harris backed taxpayer funding of gender-affirming surgeries for incarcerated people.”
Where do you go with that kind of thinking?
Because I think Trump has made awe-inspiring use of Brandolini’s Law, the people I’m talking about have ‘vaguely heard’ about 100 significantly negative things about the Democrats, about life under Biden-Harris, and about Harris herself.
I just don’t personally believe that we can fireside chat that kind of stuff into inertness, much less replace it with far more accurate information.
And ‘policy’ is dry and boring. Trump’s (profoundly repugnant but totally on-brand) breed of demagoguery perks people’s ears up.
Fear and faith. Same as it ever was.
I may not have made myself clear. I’m talking about perhaps monthly-ish POTUS press events where, in plain English, any ongoing problems and solutions are talked about. It’s way too late for that this time around, but it’s something that would have to help in the future. If Jack doesn’t watch that sort of thing, perhaps his friend Mary does and will pass on critical information. That way, we’re not watching a candidate either scrambling to explain four years of governance, or totally fucking up their chances of election by trying to reach alienated voters who don’t want to hear it.
Is there a cite for him saying that? I know what he says is 100% bullshit, but really, did Trump say that?
I agree. It’s like arguing with flat earthers. Facts. Don’t. Matter (or they’re just trolling you/us). When stupid gets to the point that NO facts will change a persons mind. Ya sort of have to walk away.
Vote. My wife and I have. The pieces will fall where they will. Trump of course will attempt to destroy democracy, Harris is trying to save it.
I get what you meant, and I truly think it’s a good point.
I’m simply overly pessimistic about the nature of the bell that, at this point, would have to be un-rung in order for the people who need to listen – particularly to a Democratic administration – to start listening (again).
Trump could suffer a resounding loss in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, and – IMHO – that would barely scratch the surface of how we begin to unwind the damage he has done to this country, its democracy, and its democratic institutions.
He blew it all up in order to appear as the savior … the strongman … the authoritarian answer to all our prayers … the Mister “I alone can fix it” guy.
It’s easier to break things than it is to build them, or – as Megyn Kelly once said:
Some of those things probably needed to be broken, but some of those things are very precious to us.
Trump was absolutely indiscriminate in his carnage. The only things he left untouched were things which he believed were serving his interest. That included conservative media, essentially still unscathed.
Not that I know of. Pure, unadulterated hyperbole on my part.
But it’s genuinely difficult to create something so outrageous that our first thought is that Trump couldn’t possibly have said it.
Even if Trump said he was a Traitor. A criminal, and a total moron. His supporters would either say that great, or that Trump did not know what he meant. Oh, or the media is lying. Take your pick.
Today I stumbled upon artist Gordon Belray, a man who… well, let me quote:
So, what he does is takes images of specific historic events and creates panorama’s of the entire scene, showing these (many-times) famous images and placing them in a larger context.
Like, for example, this picture:
Trump and Epstein at a party together in 1992. Trump pointing at something off camera. But what?
Well, that’s what Gordon does. He researched this image, found footage, pictures, and more, and when it’s all put together, it’s pretty amazing… and disgraceful, as you see two (and likely more) sexual predators pointing out to each other which of the cheerleaders (the Buffalo Bills and Miami Dolphin cheerleading squads were there, dancing for the guys) looked like easier targets, with Ghislaine Maxwell standing there, knowing the discussion they were having:
Anyway, this picture pisses me off because of the predatory nature of the two assholes to the right.
Find out more here:
This doesn’t make any sense to me. If the Army had agreed to pay, why send a bill to the White House at all? The Army would have had a policy in place about funeral costs for serving personnel who die. It’s not as though the family would have had to apply and wait for a decision.
So Guillen dies; Trump makes a public promise to pay for the funeral; the family arranges the funeral; the family sends the bill to the White House…and then learn that the Army will pay, and so call the White House and say ‘never mind’…???
It all seems implausible. It seems as though this pro-Trump sister is desperately trying to explain why Trump made a public promise to pay, and then didn’t pay. And the explanation isn’t working.
What news reports are saying differs from the ‘Trump was fully willing to pay but we got paid so fast by the Army and donations that he didn’t get the chance to pay’ storyline. This NBC piece implies that the timing was: the bill was sent to the White House, no payment was made, then the family resorted to Army and donated payments:
So, oh well, some people will defend and cover up for Trump no matter what. I guess we know that, but it’s still sad to see.
Do we know for sure that the bill was sent to the White House?
The story was reported that Trump agreed to pay for the funeral, then made an insulting remark when he received the bill and found out the amount. Guillén’s family has denied that it happened that way. Does that mean that Trump didn’t make the remark, or that the bill was never even submitted to him? Has there been an alternate narrative established, or does it only amount to “no he didn’t”?
I think it means they were not there when the bill was received and Trump made insulting remarks, so they chose to not believe the witnesses. And the Trump toadies are backing up the lying story by lying about it. Occam’s Razor.