[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-July-22, 23:18, said:

I gotta ask all you Kamala Harris stans. I previously wrote "The method in which [Biden not running for 2024] was accomplished seems a bit odd". Some 30+ hours have passed & I'm upgrading "a bit odd" to "strange & spooky".

Has no one of you (a) considered the possibility of a palace coup? OR (b) if the thought crossed your mind, you don't mind a palace coup?

I didn't know the QOP had a branch in the UK.

Kamala Harris stan????? Of course Fox Propaganda, right fringe media, Convicted Felon Trump, and his QOP cult are openly praying for chaos at the Democratic convention with perhaps multiple potential candidates fighting it out for the nomination, and hopeless dividing the base among the various candidates. Looks like they are going to be bitterly dissapointed since Democrats almost immediately got behind VP Harris who got Biden's strong endorsement.

And who besides Kamala could gather support to win the nomination? Basically Bernie Sanders has aged out consideration if Biden's age was the consideration. And nobody else who ran in 2020 had any real level of support. Newcomers for 2024? None of the potential new candidates have been vetted in a presidential primary race, or have the name recognition of Harris. And now, there's just 4 months until the election, when in a normal election cycle, new candidates would have already been running for well over a year, gone through the primary and caucus process, and built up the name recognition around the country. Apparently Democratic delgates to the convention have done the math and decided Kamala is the best hope to win in November.


Palace coup??????????? I guess the right, no matter where they live, fall for every Qonspiracy theory that is fed to them. Explain exactly how you think that could have happened, who was involved, and why Biden is still POTUS. Yes, there were calls from all over the country in the Democratic party for him to drop out of the race, and I'm certain that he had advisors showing him polls where voters were concerned about his health. And since Biden is neither a narcissist or sociopath, he is capable of analyzing a situation and listening to advice from knowledgeable advisors.

[Al Phalpha]

johnu, on 2024-July-23, 17:59, said:

I didn't know the QOP had a branch in the UK.

Kamala Harris stan????? Of course Fox Propaganda, right fringe media, Convicted Felon Trump, and his QOP cult are openly praying for chaos at the Democratic convention with perhaps multiple potential candidates fighting it out for the nomination, and hopeless dividing the base among the various candidates. Looks like they are going to be bitterly dissapointed since Democrats almost immediately got behind VP Harris who got Biden's strong endorsement.

And who besides Kamala could gather support to win the nomination? Basically Bernie Sanders has aged out consideration if Biden's age was the consideration. And nobody else who ran in 2020 had any real level of support. Newcomers for 2024? None of the potential new candidates have been vetted in a presidential primary race, or have the name recognition of Harris. And now, there's just 4 months until the election, when in a normal election cycle, new candidates would have already been running for well over a year, gone through the primary and caucus process, and built up the name recognition around the country. Apparently Democratic delgates to the convention have done the math and decided Kamala is the best hope to win in November.


Palace coup??????????? I guess the right, no matter where they live, fall for every Qonspiracy theory that is fed to them. Explain exactly how you think that could have happened, who was involved, and why Biden is still POTUS. Yes, there were calls from all over the country in the Democratic party for him to drop out of the race, and I'm certain that he had advisors showing him polls where voters were concerned about his health. And since Biden is neither a narcissist or sociopath, he is capable of analyzing a situation and listening to advice from knowledgeable advisors.

This post, in my view, is nothing more than a continued spouting of the Dem's "talking points". "Qop"? "Qonspiracy theory"? "Convicted felon"? You are certainly free to spout it but, as I see it, it is childish at best and stupid at worst.

[johnu]

Al Phalpha, on 2024-July-23, 19:17, said:

This post, in my view, is nothing more than a continued spouting of the Dem's "talking points". "Qop"? "Qonspiracy theory"? "Convicted felon"? You are certainly free to spout it but, as I see it, it is childish at best and stupid at worst.

Totally accurate and descriptive, and feel free to describe yourself as such.

Talking points without substance are "Kamala Harris stans" and "palace coup". Actual facts are that Convicted Felon Trump was convicted on 34 felony criminal counts, hence he is a convicted felon. Actual facts are that the QOP never met a qonspiracy theory they didn't fall for hook line and sinker, e.g. the election was stolen, the economy is bad, inflation is still high, the job market is bad, things were great under Convicted Felon Trump despite the worst economic numbers and job market since the Great Depression, there was no insurrection on January 6, just a stroll through the Capitol.

BTW, shouldn't you be patrolling Comet Ping Pong Pizza for pedophiles? Oh wait, wasn't Convicted Felon Trump's "spiritual advisor" Robert Morris the one who just confessed to molesting a 12 year old? In defense of Trump, Robert Morris was his replacement choice as "spiritual advisor" after his dating buddy Jeffrey Epstein hung himself in prison.

[shyams]

In a previous post, I wrote "But let us be clear that a fair % of posters here (many Dem leaning) will swallow anything your media publishes as long as the Dems look great in that publication."

johnu is definitely one of those shallow people who came to mind when I wrote this line. To buttress my assertion, here are 3 from memory:

1. Recently I wrote about Newsom as a potential Pres candidate. johnu found one phrase within an otherwise long post and promptly started snarling at me. A proper read of my post would have made it obvious that I thought of Gavin as strong potential. But the "blue mist" may have prevented him from understanding it.

2. In the past, I said something about Ukraine Govt's instances of interference into past US elections (I added that it probably made no diff, but it did happen). I suspect that before the snarlfest that followed, he did not even google whether something like that happened.

3. Then there are a few instances of snark (calling me "self-proclaimed expert" or "glorified analyst") merely because I wrote something that did not match his warped worldview.

Yet, I am QOP whereas he (presumably thinks he hold mainstream & balanced opinions. LOL! Vote Blue no matter who!

[kenberg]

I doubt Kamala HArris will be calling to ask my advice, but I have been thinking a bit. No doubt immigration will come up.

I always look for simple answers, so first I recall my father, He cam to Ellis Island, age 10, with his older brother, age 16, they filled out some forms and took some exams and were admitted in, and as far as I know that was pretty much that. Others arrived at Ellis Island and were sent back, and again that was that.

There could be, probably should be, a third category where a person is allowed to stay for a while to present a more complex case as to why they should be allowed to stay. I gather that is what happens now when someone who comes across in some non-standard way is caught. Maybe they are sent back immediately but maybe they are allowed to stay abd present their case.

My suggestion: Yes, there should be three possibilities. Quick acceptance, quick send backs, allowed to stay for a bit to present an argument for being allowed to stay.

But combine this third option with requiring the person desiring entry to present themself voluntarily to authorities. Ok, maybe they are in a desperate situation and need to quickly cross the border for reasons of safety. But then, if they are seeking this third option, they must present themselves within, say 48 hours to some officialstation. Or, at least, they don't seek to elude aurhturities.

As I say, I like simplicity and this seems to be fiarly simple. Some people are granted immediate entry, some are immediately sent back, for some there will be a hearing to decide. But in this third case we do not first have to play an expensive game of hide and seek. If they do not present themselves either right away or reasonably soon, then that is reason enough to send them back.


My starting point is that the current immigration system is a mess. Few disagree. We should accept immigrants. We cannot, or at least I am sure we will not, accept evryine who wishes to come. Many wish to leave Guatemala. Same with Venezuela. Who wants to live in Haiti? And how about Syria? Etc. We will not be taking everyone who wishes to come. So we need to find some sensible approach to deciding who comes and who does not. One requirement could be, as I think it once was, that those who wish to come cooperate with the rules we set for deciding on admission. I can see why some won't, but they get sent back.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2024-July-24, 08:00, said:

As I say, I like simplicity and this seems to be fiarly simple.

Yeap

This is terribly simplistic.

To start with, no one is funding the court structure that you need to impose that three part test at the border.

Biden and the Republican neogiators came up with an extremely strong border protection bill.
The Republican congress shut it all down because the prefer to be able to demagogue the issue rather than doing anything to fix it.

Simply put, you're ignoring the actual root of the problem and pretending that this is a matter of policy rather than politics

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-July-24, 08:00, said:

Who wants to live in Haiti? And how about Syria? Etc. We will not be taking everyone who wishes to come. So we need to find some sensible approach to deciding who comes and who does not. One requirement could be, as I think it once was, that those who wish to come cooperate with the rules we set for deciding on admission. I can see why some won't, but they get sent back.

Normally, I find your thoughts to be reasonalbe, Ken. The above quote I took from your longer post is not reasonable. No one wants to leave his or her home unless forced to do so by circumstances. Sure, there may be greater opportunity in America and that will attract some who want admissions, but it would not be enough to attract the thousands who are risking death by walking thousands of miles to escape.

We may be a shining city on a hill to many, but we're not a glass slipper that fits Cinderellas. Cinderellas, like all of us, prefer their own homes and countries.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-July-24, 10:23, said:

Normally, I find your thoughts to be reasonalbe, Ken. The above quote I took from your longer post is not reasonable. No one wants to leave his or her home unless forced to do so by circumstances. Sure, there may be greater opportunity in America and that will attract some who want admissions, but it would not be enough to attract the thousands who are risking death by walking thousands of miles to escape.

We may be a shining city on a hill to many, but we're not a glass slipper that fits Cinderellas. Cinderellas, like all of us, prefer their own homes and countries.

OK, if some wish to stay, sure. I imagine you are right, some do. But surely my point was that there are far more people who would wish to immigrate to the USA than we are will accept. The conclusion then is that therre must be a way of deciding. Some will be admitted, some will be turned away, and I am pretty sure that the numbers are such that quite a large number will be turned away. Do you thnk it is or should be otherwise?

I am suggesting that whatever our decision is about the number of immigrants we will accept and whatevere our decision is about the criteria for acceptance, we instigate rules that wil simplify the process. I suggest that those who wish to immigrate be required to cooperate with the process. This means that they will present themselves in some way. As it is, they take risky ways to come into the country, they try to evade authority, we try to find them, it all takes time, trouble and expense.

Hrothgar finds my suggestions impractical Perhaps, as I phrased them they need work. But my basic idea is that we insist on cooperation from those wishing to come here. We can have a large number of immigrants, I am fine with that. I am not fine with the way it is happening.

I metioned that this is something Kamala Harris must have a position on. Of course it is. PBS New Hour reminded us of a clip where she was addressing those coming through the border and she said "Don't come". I think her idea, more fully, was that it is difficult and dangerous to come as they were doing, and there was a good chance that even if they made it over the border they woul eventually be caught and sent back. Well "Don't come" is too brief, too simple even by my standards.

But to me, this suggest that she and I are thinking along the same lines. The system needs to be changed. Welcome immigration. I.m fine with that. But the chaotic way that this is taking place is not acceptable.


And, since I mentioned that my thoughts were prompted by KH, what would you suggest she put forth as a policy? Railing against Trump is easy. But she has a chance to set out her own ideas, "Don't come" is insufficient. Any suggestions for her? No, nothing that goes on for 50 pages, just a general idea. Eg, My idea is we set a policy that would allow substantial immigration nd then we insist that those who wish to come here cooperate by presenting themselves. Failure to present themselves would substantially reduce the likelihood of their acceptance. More details needed, sure, but it sets out the basics. If you don't like that, then what?

If KH can come up with a good plan with basics that can be explaned briefly this will get her a lot of votes.


One more thought. There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. One of them is that she ran a lousy campaign. The score now is a tie, one for Trump one for Biden, I want the next to be for Harris. Talking about how awful Trump is, true as it is, is not enough.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: My firm belief is that the average MAGA voter is much ore interested in inflicting gratuitous physical violence on brown people than they are in anything else...

Consider Trump's mastabutroy fantasies about shooting immigrants in the legs or Governor Abbott\'s focus on razor wire and death traps in rivers. So, I don't think that there is all that much room for compromise

Comment 2: If folks want to actually address immigration, there's a couple places to start

If you want to short term fix, start focusing on the folks who are hiring illegal immigrants.
There's a lot fewer of them and they are much easier to target

I will understand that this will never happen because for all America decries "illegal immigration" we sure like folks working in agriculture, processing poultry, doing construction, working in health care...

If you want a long term fix, that's going to require much more serious efforts at building out the economies in Central American and the like
You know... All that foreign aid stuff that American's also hate that's eating up 75% of the federal budget...

Which is probably why the Republics are so focused on concentration caps and other such fantasies

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-July-24, 11:20, said:

OK, if some wish to stay, sure. I imagine you are right, some do. But surely my point was that there are far more people who would wish to immigrate to the USA than we are will accept. The conclusion then is that therre must be a way of deciding. Some will be admitted, some will be turned away, and I am pretty sure that the numbers are such that quite a large number will be turned away. Do you thnk it is or should be otherwise?

I am suggesting that whatever our decision is about the number of immigrants we will accept and whatevere our decision is about the criteria for acceptance, we instigate rules that wil simplify the process. I suggest that those who wish to immigrate be required to cooperate with the process. This means that they will present themselves in some way. As it is, they take risky ways to come into the country, they try to evade authority, we try to find them, it all takes time, trouble and expense.

Hrothgar finds my suggestions impractical Perhaps, as I phrased them they need work. But my basic idea is that we insist on cooperation from those wishing to come here. We can have a large number of immigrants, I am fine with that. I am not fine with the way it is happening.

I metioned that this is something Kamala Harris must have a position on. Of course it is. PBS New Hour reminded us of a clip where she was addressing those coming through the border and she said "Don't come". I think her idea, more fully, was that it is difficult and dangerous to come as they were doing, and there was a good chance that even if they made it over the border they woul eventually be caught and sent back. Well "Don't come" is too brief, too simple even by my standards.

But to me, this suggest that she and I are thinking along the same lines. The system needs to be changed. Welcome immigration. I.m fine with that. But the chaotic way that this is taking place is not acceptable.


And, since I mentioned that my thoughts were prompted by KH, what would you suggest she put forth as a policy? Railing against Trump is easy. But she has a chance to set out her own ideas, "Don't come" is insufficient. Any suggestions for her? No, nothing that goes on for 50 pages, just a general idea. Eg, My idea is we set a policy that would allow substantial immigration nd then we insist that those who wish to come here cooperate by presenting themselves. Failure to present themselves would substantially reduce the likelihood of their acceptance. More details needed, sure, but it sets out the basics. If you don't like that, then what?

If KH can come up with a good plan with basics that can be explaned briefly this will get her a lot of votes.


One more thought. There are many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. One of them is that she ran a lousy campaign. The score now is a tie, one for Trump one for Biden, I want the next to be for Harris. Talking about how awful Trump is, true as it is, is not enough.

Immigration is a dfferent question than asylum seekers. There is a severe limit as to presidential power to alter immigration or asylum seekers. Reform will require Congress to act in concert. I am not going to rely on that. The border is not a big issue to me-it's broken and has been broken for decades. Until there is consencus and reasonableness in Congress, no president can fix it alone.

The more important concerns to me are saving democray, the rule of law, the independence of the Department of Justice, the federal agencies that protect us from bad food, unsavory businesses, etc. I let the the rabid right blather border, border, border, and I don't think KH can do or say anything to get those votes.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-July-24, 11:30, said:

Comment 1: My firm belief is that the average MAGA voter is much ore interested in inflicting gratuitous physical violence on brown people than they are in anything else...

Consider Trump's mastabutroy fantasies about shooting immigrants in the legs or Governor Abbott\'s focus on razor wire and death traps in rivers. So, I don't think that there is all that much room for compromise

Comment 2: If folks want to actually address immigration, there's a couple places to start

If you want to short term fix, start focusing on the folks who are hiring illegal immigrants.
There's a lot fewer of them and they are much easier to target

I will understand that this will never happen because for all America decries "illegal immigration" we sure like folks working in agriculture, processing poultry, doing construction, working in health care...

If you want a long term fix, that's going to require much more serious efforts at building out the economies in Central American and the like
You know... All that foreign aid stuff that American's also hate that's eating up 75% of the federal budget...

Which is probably why the Republics are so focused on concentration caps and other such fantasies

As I mentioned (more than once) I started thinking about this since KH becme the almost certain Dem candidate. She must address immigration issues first because anyoneone running for president must address immigration issues and second because she took some role in this as VP. So let's suppose she announces that if elected president she will address the hiring of illegal immigrants and she will push for rebuilding of economies in Central America. I suppose this might get her some votes. And it might lose her some votes. Mostly I think many of the people who consider immigration an important issue would be disappointed that that's all she has to say on the issue.


I agree that the solution (maybe somewhat viable or at least slightly viable) solution to immigration problems is to help other coutries become more stable and prosperous. Niot easy, and, as you say, long term.


KH will make a choice. Immigration is only one of many issues, she will be expected to lay out her general thoughts. I would not be amazed if her thoughts run somewhat along my lines, but I can't read her mind.


There are many issues on which I have simple, you might well say (as youdid) simplistic views. I think people, including young people, should be able to read what interest them When I was youn I I tried reading both Meiin Kampf and Das Kapital. I gave up on both after a few pages but I thought I would give them a try. I think we should go easy on what we require young people to read, but whatever we require I think it should be clear the ther raader is free to have his own opinions. I don't think the Bible should be an assigned book but if it is, as I gather will be the case in Oklahoma, then the students reading it should be perfectly free to express skepticism about Mary's virginity when she becomes pregnant. And there are many situations in many books where skepticism is very reasonable. When I was 12 I biked down to the Hill Reference Library in St. Paul to read up on the details of female anatomy. Very useful. Of course I also read Thorne Smith's The Passionate Witch. And, when I was younger, Son of Tarzan. Etc. The Third Man came out when I was pretty young, I liked it. Kids can read as they please, go easy on what we force kids to read.Simple.

Anyway, there are many issues for KH to stake out a position on. Of course I can hope her views natch mine. There is always hope.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-July-24, 12:52, said:

[/size]

Immigration is a dfferent question than asylum seekers. There is a severe limit as to presidential power to alter immigration or asylum seekers. Reform will require Congress to act in concert. I am not going to rely on that. The border is not a big issue to me-it's broken and has been broken for decades. Until there is consencus and reasonableness in Congress, no president can fix it alone.

The more important concerns to me are saving democray, the rule of law, the independence of the Department of Justice, the federal agencies that protect us from bad food, unsavory businesses, etc. I let the the rabid right blather border, border, border, and I don't think KH can do or say anything to get those votes.

No surprise here. But of course you, like me, will be voting for KH. No doubt about that. I am thinking about how KH might win the election. Your vote and mine won't do it. I keep thinking a squirrel should be able to get mmore votes than DT, but this is not the case. So some thought as to where the votes can be found could be very useful.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-July-24, 13:22, said:

No surprose here. But of course you, like me, will be voting for KH. No doubt about that. I am thinking about how KH might win the election. Your vote and mine won't do it. I keep thinking a squirrel should be able to get mmore votes than DT, but this is not the case. So some thought as to where the votes can be found could be very useful.

The point that should be driven home is that neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump can fix the immigration/asylum system alone.
You write often about basic sensibilities, and I often agree with you. I happen to think part of that is honesty. People would respect a truthful response from candidate Harris, I think, if she simply said I can't fix it by myslef, and netither can Trump. Both of us have to have the US Congress to change the laws.

You would think people would know this. I don't think they because civics and government are no longer part of education and have not been in decades.
If you talk to voters as if they were adults who can comprehend the problem, I think they will respond well to that treatment.

The ranting right will not, of course. They never will. Ignore them.

[kenberg]

We shall see what she says, aboout immigraton and about many things, I think it is crucial. There are a lot of normal people out there, like people I have known all of my life, who are hoping she presents herself in a way that they can vote for her, where "for her" means more than just "well, at least she isn't Trump"

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-July-24, 06:11, said:

In a previous post, I wrote "But let us be clear that a fair % of posters here (many Dem leaning) will swallow anything your media publishes as long as the Dems look great in that publication."

johnu is definitely one of those shallow people who came to mind when I wrote this line.

You were definitely born in the wrong country because you would definitely fit right in with the QOP. You could be be a speechwriter with your gift for prose and lack of substance.

shyams, on 2024-July-24, 06:11, said:

1. Recently I wrote about Newsom as a potential Pres candidate. johnu found one phrase within an otherwise long post and promptly started snarling at me. A proper read of my post would have made it obvious that I thought of Gavin as strong potential. But the "blue mist" may have prevented him from understanding it.

Took a while to find that post since this forum isn't included in the list of poster's content.

shyams, on 2024-July-01, 08:08, said:

In my opinion, two other Dem candidates are better than Whitmer.
1. Gavin Newsom: Setting his track record to one side (maybe Whitmer's is much better), the positive here is that Newsom projects arrogance and strength. When he is surely attacked by Trump (say at a debate), I predict that his demeanor will not even flicker.

He will ignore all insults and barbs while projecting himself as the big "Double Inverted Comma King" (don't google that, make an acronym of it). Voters will love & respect him for it.

...

The reason I think Whitmer is worse is that
A. She is not a brash, psychopathic one like Newsom i.e. she will eventually blink under relentless attack and when that happens, the viewers will think of her as weak.

OK, you said Newsom projected arrogance, called him a D.I.C.K, and finally a psychopath.

And I replied:

johnu, on 2024-July-01, 18:16, said:

You seem to have major problems with Newsom. Is he perfect? Nobody is perfect, but Newsom is a very good charismatic politician.

Hmmm, was I supposed to figure out that an arrogant D.I.C.K psychopath was your idea of somebody with strong potential??? They are all huge negative factors for me, and I expect most Democratic and independent voters.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-July-24, 06:11, said:

2. In the past, I said something about Ukraine Govt's instances of interference into past US elections (I added that it probably made no diff, but it did happen). I suspect that before the snarlfest that followed, he did not even google whether something like that happened.

If you are talking about the events before the 2016 election, Convicted Felon Trump was impeached for his actions in trying to illegally pressure Ukraine to provide dirt on Biden.

If there's some other interference you are talking about, pre-Zelenskyy (I'm not even going to try to find the posts on that one since I don't remember when those posts may have occurred), then I don't blame Ukraine, I ultimately blame Putin. So, what was it?

shyams, on 2024-July-24, 06:11, said:

3. Then there are a few instances of snark (calling me "self-proclaimed expert" or "glorified analyst") merely because I wrote something that did not match his warped worldview.

Yet, I am QOP whereas he (presumably thinks he hold mainstream & balanced opinions. LOL! Vote Blue no matter who!

Calling you a self-proclaimed expert or glorified analyst??? I thought I was giving you a compliment and congratulating you on your insightful posts. Excuse me!!! I'll have to be more concise in the future. Maybe if I called you a psychopath it would have been clear that I was complimenting you.

Yes, I think I am in the mainstream, or at least the majority, as in majority position in most instances in the USA and the QOP is clearly in the minority according to the last popular votes in the presidential elections. Balanced, as in Fox Propaganda's Fair and balanced slogan??? Nope, can't say that I am. Or giving "balanced" coverage and consideration of politically charged topics? Nope, not when one side has little or no merit and/or is based on lies and appeals to prejudice and hate.

But yes, do vote Blue no matter what, because the QOP has driven out out almost all the centrist and left leaning Republicans (yes, the Republican party was once more liberal than the Democratic party), and even very conservative but not members of the Convicted Felon Trump cult like Liz Cheney and the Bushes.

And why not vote Red??? Because they appeal to Americans basest instincts by demonizing different minorities to gain power. They demonize immigrants (Convicted Felon Trump even demonizes the ethnicity of American judges), people who live in large cities (just the black and brown people), they talk about replacement theory (even going after Mitch McConnell's foreign born wife, and VP candidate JD Vance's foreign born wife), they're strongly anti-Semitic (some QOP still don't know that Ivanka converted to Judaism), want to deport all undocumented immigrants even though it means a punch in the stomach for the economy as their work is essential to many segments of business, and don't want to even allow legal immigrants, at least if they are from a mostly brown or black country (don't worry guys, the Swedish Bikini Team is still welcome to enter the country).

Why is the QOP appeals to intolerance so successful? One quote comes to mind.

Lyndon B Johnson said:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

What about the QOP economic plan??? Privatize or get rid of Social Security and Medicare (oops, they don't want to talk about that now), even further decrease taxes on the very rich and big corporations who have already gotten even filthier rich under Trump's tax cuts (BTW, at least one study suggests that corporate profits accounted for over half the inflation in the US in the post Covid period, and inflation, inflation, inflation has been one of the main QOP talking points in this election cycle). Oh, and Trump's plan to add large tariffs on all imports will hit lower income earners the most, resulting in them having a higher percentage tax burden than they currently have. And contrary to Trump's statements, China will not pay for the tariffs, American taxpayers will pay for the tariffs. And Mexico has still not paid for the wall.

[shyams]

Yawn, next.

[shyams]

PeterAlan, on 2024-July-23, 05:39, said:

A good rule in life is: if trying to decide whether some unclear event is cock-up or conspiracy, choose cock-up. (Unless you're a rabid conspiracy theorist, of course.)

Cyberyeti, on 2024-July-23, 06:43, said:

Hanlon's razor as it's known

https://app.podscrib...9793?tabValue=0

This link is for "Morning Joe" show from Monday (I became aware of it this morning). The full podcast is an hour long but the portion that I found interesting begins around the 5 min mark and lasts about 4 1/2 minutes. The best parts of this conversation begin around 8:30 into the audio. A panellist on the show says "Those leaders were going to go public" etc. after which ...
Joe Scarborough remarks that "All reporting we [presumably referring to Mika & himself] had throughout the weekend was Monday was going to be brutal for the President".

If this is not a palace coup, what is? They [Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries] put him under such intense pressure that they were almost blackmailing him into submission.

Folks, you all know the circumstances leading to the abdication by Edward VIII. If that qualifies as a palace coup, I believe so does this.

[pilowsky]

shyams, on 2024-July-25, 03:59, said:

https://app.podscrib...9793?tabValue=0

This link is for "Morning Joe" show from Monday (I became aware of it this morning). The full podcast is an hour long but the portion that I found interesting begins around the 5 min mark and lasts about 4 1/2 minutes. The best parts of this conversation begin around 8:30 into the audio. A panellist on the show says "Those leaders were going to go public" etc. after which ...
Joe Scarborough remarks that "All reporting we [presumably referring to Mika & himself] had throughout the weekend was Monday was going to be brutal for the President".

If this is not a palace coup, what is? They [Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries] put him under such intense pressure that they were almost blackmailing him into submission.

Folks, you all know the circumstances leading to the abdication by Edward VIII. If that qualifies as a palace coup, I believe so does this.

Surely you're familiar with how party politics works?
You don't really think that Liz Truss just woke up one morning and thought to herself "Oh, wait a minute, maybe I'm not the right person to Be Prime Minister, I better resign and let someone else do the job."

[shyams]

pilowsky, on 2024-July-25, 04:16, said:

Surely you're familiar with how party politics works?
You don't really think that Liz Truss just woke up one morning and thought to herself "Oh, wait a minute, maybe I'm not the right person to Be Prime Minister, I better resign and let someone else do the job."

I did not include Truss or any other PM (UK or other nations) because a PM is elected by the MPs and is answerable to the MPs of his/her party as much or more than he/she is answerable to the people of their nation.

Not true for a President. Elected (indirectly) by the people, elected again (>95% of pledged delegates) through the 2024 Dem primaries by the people.