"Donald Trump wants to bang his daughter" was a recurring bit on The Daily Show as far back as 2016. These aren't new revelations; he says stuff like this in public. Here's an article from 2016 covering some comments about Ivanka as well as him saying of a very underage girl, "I'm going to be dating her in ten years. Can you believe it?"
In the land of the wretches, the pedophile is king.
Newzasa is not a news site. It is (probably illegally) reposting content from a two-bit conservative blog called Conservative Brief. Nothing it publishes should be viewed by anyone.
I’m not so sure it actually would hurt Trump more than Biden.
I think that any Republican who was disgusted by Trump didn’t vote for him in 2020. I don’t think there’s too many more voters out there who:
A) voted for him in 2016 B) were appalled by his administration C) voted for him again in 2020 D) were appalled by January 6th E) still plan to vote for him a third time, and F) would change their mind and vote for a 3rd party Cheney in 2024, given the option.
That’s a lot of conditions that would have to be met for Cheney to pull a Trump vote.
On the other hand, I think there’s probably a lot more voters out there who:
A) Don’t like trump and refuse to vote for him in 2024 B) Don’t like Biden either, for any number of reasons C) would jump at the chance to cast a vote for a right wing conservative that is not only “not Trump” but in fact “anti-Trump”, which mirrors their attitudes toward the main party candidates pretty damn closely.
I feel that Trump’s base is smaller but more loyal and dedicated, compared to Biden’s base, which has a smaller core but much larger overall…but the non-core part of his base is less cohesive.
Basically, he’s running, as in 2020, as “the option that is not trump that the fewest people hate”. And honestly, I can’t argue with that logic.
That was the logic in the run up to the 2020 election, and other than age, not much has changed, so the strategy isn’t likely to meaningfully change either. Add to that situation the facts that 4 years of Biden have been, broadly, “not great, not terrible”, that he hasn’t been the feeble minded fool that the MAGA base tried to paint him as, and the fact that not too many people really liked him 4 years ago and he still won…and here we are 4 years later with not too many people really liking him (but tons of people liking him better than Trump) and the calculus is pointing toward a repeat of last term.
Honestly at this point, I don’t think Biden has been bad enough to turn away anyone who voted for him in 2020, and I don’t see anyone voting for Trump in 2016, not voting for him in 2020, and voting for him again in 2024 provided the calculus doesn’t change…which it absolutely would if Cheney runs. I think Trump draws less overall votes this go-round (people who have him their vote in 2016 and 2020, but who are turned off enough by the insurrection and legal issues to stay home…not many, but more than the number of new Trump voters), so then it’s down to how many votes Biden gets (and of course where he gets them).
That said, I’m far less concerned about advance polling and approval ratings, and I’m far more concerned with voter access in places like Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Virginia, the Carolinas, Wisconsin, and Ohio. If GOP voter suppression works enough to decide close races in these areas, that will have more real impact than anything else. All of that goes out the window, though, if moderates and center-right Republicans see Cheney on the ballot.
Basically, I think Biden holds the advantage in a straight 2020 rematch, but things look a lot less optimistic with Cheney muddying the waters. As much as I hate to say it from a political philosophy standpoint, I think the best path to preventing another Trump win is giving voters less choice next November.
I don't see Cheney pulling many votes from Biden, but I think there's a lot of Republicans who dislike the Christofascist direction Trump has taken the party in yet are still unwilling to vote Democrat, she would be a protest vote for these people as well as a spoiler for Trump.
You’re making a lot of opinion statements with nothing at all in the way of reasoning to back it up.
Not saying there isn’t reasoning, but in the absence of any of it being shared, it’s impossible to even engage such a comment in discourse.
I don’t see Cheney pulling many votes from Biden
Okay.
I do.
Difference: I explained why.
Please explain how Cheney’s presence won’t sway at least some moderate centrist voters who don’t like either trump or Biden. I disagree with you, but I’m nonetheless interested to hear why you hold your opinions.
I think there’s a lot of Republicans who dislike the Christofascist direction Trump has taken the party in yet are still unwilling to vote Democrat,
I agree with you here.
However, my takeaway from this is: these voters were never going to be Biden voters anyway, so that means they’re either going to be non-voters in 2024 based on ideology, or they’re going to be Trump voters based on overall party loyalty (that is: “I don’t like Trump, but we’re still better off with a Republican in the white house…even if it’s trump, versus 4 more years of a Democrat”…the inverse of a lot of Biden voters, ironically).
If they were going to be a non-voter, they now become a Cheney voter. Okay great, but it changes literally nothing.
If they were voting for Trump for the party in spite of the man, then Cheney running doesn’t change their rationale, and a trump vote, no matter how distasteful, is still the only logical anti-Democrat vote.
Either way, Cheney running isn’t meaningfully fracturing the GOP base.
You might be right, I found this article that seems to be supporting your position, that she would help more than hinder Trump, but it relies on extrapolation from a 5-way race with different spoiler candidates. I haven't seen any 2024 polling specifically regarding likely Cheney voters.
And you’re not likely to find that kind of polling since polling itself is time and labor intensive, and these pollsters have a finite amount of resources, so they’re not going to devote much of them to these outlier scenarios, especially this early.
If Cheney is still in the discussion in 6 months, you’ll get that polling.
And as much as that source may support my thinking, it’s also very much worth noting nymag’s left bias.
I’m arguing against myself here, but in the interests of being circumspect on the topic, right now it seems like the Democratic tactic is accepting they have an unpopular candidate and weakly united coalition of voters, with the one big commonality among them being that everybody desperately wants someone in the white house not named Donald Trump.
On one hand, this makes their job easy over in Campaign Strategy. Just confirm that Joe Biden is not, in fact, Donald Trump…and then remind everybody of that.
On the other, it means that the only real effective way to sort of “herd the flock” and keep the coalition together is to avoid doing or saying anything that might offend anyone under the tent…and constantly, constantly fear monger the shit out of them with theories and polls and op-eds and anything else they can come up with to A) make sure they don’t forget how awful Trump is, B) remind them that while they may not like Biden, last they checked, he wasn’t Donald Trump, and C) stress how much this election is not in the bag and that just like 2020 they need every single goddamned one of us to get to the polls and vote for Joe Biden, or were going to see another Trump presidency.
At the time, the state senator falsely claimed that an “African American Confederate soldier” had designed the flag. “I can only imagine how proud he was that his art, his flag design was chosen to represent our State and now we want to strip him of his pride, his hard work. I’m sure he put a lot of thought into this design,” Chism wrote in a June 2020 Facebook post.
In fact, a white supremacist lawmaker, Sen. Edward N. Scudder of Issaquena County, designed the 1894 flag. In a 1924 speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy, his daughter Fayssoux Scudder Corneil explained his motives for designing the flag: “My father loved the memory of the valor and courage of those brave men who wore the gray … and has always taken keen interest in the reunions where he could meet and mingle with those of the Lost Cause. He told me that it was a simple matter for him to design the flag because he wanted to perpetuate in a legal and lasting way that dear battle flag under which so many of our people had so gloriously fought.”
Mississippi entered the Civil War in an effort to protect the institution of slavery, as the the state’s Declaration of Secession explains. Chism’s county, Union County, was formed in 1870—the same year Mississippi was readmitted to the Union.
Is this a common white nationalist conspiracy theory, that a black man designed the flag? First I ever heard of it, and I'll feel very differently about her if this was simple bullshit or if it's her buying into some kind of Nazi propaganda. I have different contempt organs for liars and cultists.
It's... hard to really interpret what the intent is of it. Are they trying to "trick" progressives into thinking the flag isn't a celebration of a bygone rebellion-with-intent-to-keep-black-people-as-property? Even if a black person had made it, it would not change the need to abolish it and cast out all who love it from civil society It has deep, unquestionable symbolic meaning as an celebration of unjust rebellion and racism.
And ALSO, she's wiping out a piece of "white history" in the process. Very weird thing for a white supremacist to be doing.
I have to just assume that Kathy Chism's really, really gullible and parrots random factoids she hears credulously and without critical thinking. Which is definitely closest to the truth, but man. It's just so much dumber than I expect even from a Nazi.
And with that $1 donation, you will be on every campaign email donation list for the Republicans from now until the end of time. Word to the wise: If you ever give your email address to a campaign fund (republican, democrat or otherwise), make sure its an email you don't care about or can shut down. No matter how many times you unsubscribe, they just sell your list to the next campaign and use a slightly different name/email/organization to get around spam laws. I made the mistake of donating to a campaign once. Their overzealous and borderline illegal email marketing is what has made me decide to never donate again.
While this $20 for $1 might sound good, especially in the humorous context of taking that $20 gift card and donating it to an opponent, I'm not willing to give my info to a republican campaign and assume they're going to do the right thing and only use it for campaign related activities. Next thing you know, my name will be on the next FCC astroturf campaign about how I hate net neutrality.
With Gmail you can add +whatever to your name, and then set a rule to automatically delete those. John.doe+spam@gmail.com works exactly like John.doe@gmail.com
This is why I now have my own domain. Do a catch all and I can create any address I want at any time and then just throw it away if it won’t stop spamming me. Also helps to ID those that sold my info. Or use Anonaddy ( anonaddy.com ). I use it with Bitwarden.
The only email I've ever had issues unsubscribing from is Marco's surprisingly. Even it stopped eventually...
Tell recipients how to opt out of receiving future email from you. Your message must include a clear and conspicuous explanation of how the recipient can opt out of getting email from you in the future. Craft the notice in a way that’s easy for an ordinary person to recognize, read, and understand. Creative use of type size, color, and location can improve clarity. Give a return email address or another easy Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice to you. You may create a menu to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to stop all commercial messages from you. Make sure your spam filter doesn’t block these opt-out requests.
The issue isn't unsubscribing itself, it's how they sell / have sold your information. I can unsubscribe, but the next campaign that buys that list from whatever sources they sold it to is just gonna start sending me crap again.
Republicans need every vote they can get our else even their cheating won't work. He literally can't afford to alienate the people who threatened his life.
A reasonable person with even a shred of self respect would simply choose not to run in such a situation. But then, if he was reasonable and had any self respect, he wouldn’t have chosen to be Trump’s VP in the first place.
So much so that he'll set aside the ethic and moral standards he and all those "God-fearing, law-abiding, patriotic people in this country" profess to uphold.
“This is a cynical distraction from the work that we should be doing,” Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard, D-Madison, said. “But thankfully, they’re not becoming law.”
Agreed, Ms. Agard. It's political theatre, and is not going to get past Evers' veto. The detail in the article is excellent and calls out:
A lead proponent testifying at the Capitol was a former Republican legislative aide representing a Florida-based advocacy group with no membership and tens of millions of anonymous donations. One Republican lawmaker noted it was the third time that afternoon that Adam Gibbs had spoken in favor of the bills, all which were aimed at dismantling the state’s social safety net.
“Busy day in the Legislature,” replied Gibbs, communications director for the nonprofit Foundation for Government Accountability.
...what's the problem with the FGA (aside from it's an out of state organization with no actual membership that for some reason has the full attention of Wisconsin legislators)?
A Wisconsin Watch analysis of the 2021-22 session found that of the 17 bills passed with Opportunity Solutions Project/FGA support, Evers vetoed all but one. The lobbying group also opposed a Democratic-sponsored bill that would extend Medicaid for eligible women for a full year after childbirth; Republicans refused to schedule a hearing, and the GOP-led budget committee stripped it from the governor’s budget. The group also supported 16 bills that ultimately did not pass both chambers.
....
Watchdogs that monitor dark money groups say FGA is just the latest example of an advocacy organization bankrolled by a small network of billionaire activists intent on deregulation, dismantling welfare protections and restricting voting rights.
FGA doesn’t disclose its donors. But IRS data tracked by the Center for Media and Democracy, which investigates the influence of money in politics, show some of the largest checks came from foundations tied to conservative causes.
The Ed Uihlein Family Foundation donated $17.85 million between 2014 and 2021, according to tax filings. The Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee gave $2.75 million over a similar period.
FGA’s lobbying arm isn’t required to disclose its funding sources. Critics call that a loophole in the law, giving donors the ability to secretly influence public policy.
The IRS says charitable foundations like FGA aren’t supposed to engage in substantial political lobbying. But like other similar groups, it shares office space, staffers and other resources with its lobbying arm. Such arrangements allow donors to make tax deductible donations that ultimately end up being used for lobbying.
So all you have to do to funnel dark money to Wisconsin Republicans is to open a non-profit in the same office as your lobbying firm. Gotcha.
it was a “military organization”, he said, that will be used for “aiding law enforcement with riots and illegal immigration”.
The whole time I was reading this, I was wondering how the fuck any of this is legal, and this passage answers my question perfectly: it's not. The constitution explicitly says that the military is never to be used for policing purposes, because the founding fathers were terrified of this exact kind of overreach happening as a result. This is the same as if the Third Amendment somehow became relevant again in modern times. That's why they branded the militia as "disaster relief," for the same reason as Fox News is branded as "entertainment" and not news media; they know this would never hold up against the law.
Politics
Hot