Tuco

Also worth mentioning that there were plenty of bullets and bloodshed. Just not from Gandhi.

A girl’s got to have standards.

That clip works on so many levels. Everybody behind him seems like they’d rather be anywhere else. It highlights that a well-known Republican woman in the state will not endorse him. And, of course, the grievance/whining politics. I know I’ve underestimated his appeal before (and overestimated the public) but damn this is a train wreck campaign.

If he was Christian and had taken a hardline on anti-Israel protests? Yeah, I think I’d have a bigger issue with him. For me, worst case scenario with Shapiro: he gets the nod, anti-Israel protests at the convention get much worse than they’d be without him, media can’t stop talking about Chicago ‘68, and Dems get painted with the chaos, lose any of the “normal vs weird” mojo they built. Best case scenario for me is he takes a stronger line against Israel, and it’s one of those Nixon/China things were his past stances helps with a controversial policy. That’s not just because he’s Jewish, but it doesn’t hurt. Edit: fuck, quoted wrong post on tapa.

Trump offers up a debate, but on fox instead of abc.

Right now, I think if it's not him, then the campaign made a misstep by keeping him around this long. If the Israel issue was going to be a disqualifier, then they should cut him early on. Not picking him will be more conspicuous to pro-Israel and Jewish voters. Although, I do think it was interesting that the UAW leader said Walz and Beshear I would have thought Shapiro would be a favorite of the unions.

That's a good deal. I'd take that deal. But Kamala gets to carve a swastika into his forehead.

I think the interview was the longest, continuous clip of Trump I have seen in at least four years, maybe six or seven years. It's tough to do. It's like this weird visceral disgust combined with boredom. He is just, so fucking boring. It would be worse if he wasn't such a weird dumbshit, more boring I mean. The limited vocabulary, the pointless tangents and flashbacks, the repetition, the fucking droning. Without his idiocy, he's basically Uncle Colm. So, been a while since I've watched his schtick. Was he leaning into Jan 6th that much at the convention? I mean, that wasn't just him not being responsible. That was him saying it wasn't a big deal and that that security shot the chick "for just protesting." That was him blaming cops for letting the protestors in. I mean, I though the public was consistently against the J6 as just protest. That seems like a huge liability if he is going to push that.

Agreed. The Republicans want to defend Trump's statements for not being racist. As Democrats, we see that argument, know it's horrible logic, are confident we can win the argument, and then engage. The problem is America already knows Trump is racist. They don't really have the attention span or interest in that argument. Some of them bemoan "political correctness" over whether it is racist. But "weird" isn't a logical argument. It's just observation. It's quick and clean, and pretty self-evident. And then surrogates can move on to pardoning J6 cop-beaters. They can move on to pardons/immunity for the Deputy who murdered Sonya Massey.

And her surrogates are going to say, "what a weirdo." And they will be right.

Self-delete: OU Sucks bet me to the punchline.

They thought they could reduce the black vote for Kamala by telling black people she wasn't black. They though this, because they are a bunch of white people living in their white people echo chamber. They just proved why having diversity on the team would be helpful.

GenX also was the first to have political talk radio from early adulthood on. I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh when I was in college because my roommate thought it was awesome. It was different than any other mass media out there. There was no natural resistance, other than education and basic common sense. My roommate was all in. (Same roommate ended up calling the cops on me later, but that's a different story.)

Walz summarized the sentiment saying something like "If this was a TV show, it would be cancelled. People are just tired of it."

I just realized he made the motion like someone was throwing a bucket of water. Gaslighting fuck was implying that the victim was throwing water at the cop.

"You're talking the one with the water?" Dude really does his homework.

But he did actually confirm that he would pardon the people who injured cops on J6.

Even his ear is gross.

Not sure the shooter was a supporter at the time.

Um, I don't think she is going to withdraw from the race before anyone votes. I think that will be the major difference. She withdrew from the race on Dec 3, 2019. The Iowa Caucus didn't occur until two months later. So, yeah, I think that is just another bullshit Republican talking point. I think it is also worth noting that she came out of the 2020 election as the Vice President of the United States of America. I think most of us would love to fail so badly.

Just so we are clear, what percentage do you consider the "fringe"? 25% of Democrats? Am I getting that right?

I agree with pretty much all of that. This discussion started as whether a Kamala immigration commercial should be on-line or broadcast. I said on-line, because I think it's a message that should be targeted, rather than a central theme, because it is divisive within the Democratic Party. I think Biden's approach was too Republican and I am sure more labor-oriented Dems would say it didn't go far enough. I think Harris has to address it, but she needs to be extremely cautious.

Obviously, it's still art. It may be art you don't like. It may be art that is terrible. For the sake of argument, it could even be obscene and profane, and still be art. If it's not art, then what is it? Pornography, maybe? Do you think anyone is jerking off to a (possible) blurry nutsack in the background?

In case you are wondering, I think the last few pages have proved why I think it's a good ad for a targeted audience, but probably shouldn't be a centerpiece of her campaign. Actually, there were a lot of people pissed about it, including the ACLU and most immigrant advocacy groups. Let me repeat: groups whose entire charter is to help immigrants were pissed about Biden's jump to the right on the issue. Obviously, it's not a big issue to you, but it is to them. It would have continued to build the wall, beefed up the deeply flawed Border Patrol, loosened the hiring standards for BP, increased the burden of proof for asylum seekers, and allowed rejection of asylum seekers without a day in court. It had some good stuff too, but it didn't have a path to citizenship for Dreamers, which was always a major negotiation point, even during Trump's presidency. I'm going to vote for Kamala barring some insane shift in her position, or a serious mental health issue on my part. I assume chainsaw will as well. The people on this board are not the concern. But if this compromise made so much sense, the Dems would have offered up years ago. They only did so now because they were getting hammered on the border politically and Biden tied it in with support for Ukraine. Trump has changed how the Democrats approach immigration policy, and that pisses me off. I think Harris's position makes sense to politically to blunt Trump's attack, but she needs to be careful on it. Also, a few pages back there was some shit how we should "just let it go" when disaffected Republicans talk about their Republican beliefs on Twitter, because they might vote for Harris. Ok. But in the interest of coalition building, perhaps that should also be applied to the actual Democrats expressing Democratic beliefs.

I think it's a good ad for targeting certain voters (like "Republicans against Trump"). I would be concerned about making it look like a centerpiece of the campaign. For the voters who list immigration as their number one issue, I think Harris has little opportunity for improvement. For lefites (like me), the pandering could be a major turnoff. I don't mind the ad, but it does set her campaign promise at what had previously been seen as a moderate compromise. It's a shift to the right on an issue that is driven largely by xenophobia. Like I said, I don't mind it, but I can see the campaign treading lightly here. Edit to clarify: I think the issue is driven by xenophobia, but the ad isn't.