zeke5123a
26d ago
They got Bruce Springsteen to perform at another rally. They got Willie Nelson to perform at the not Beyoncé concert. They are openly asking for Swift to perform at one of these rallies.
The reason Beyoncé didn’t perform is because Beyoncé didn’t want to perform. But Harris stupidly ran a bait and switch.
zeke5123a
26d ago
Trump has a certain impatience to him. He sees where Joe is going and then interrupts to give Trump’s view. I think that is a mistake.
zeke5123a
26d ago
Yeah it isn’t so far must watch interview but at the same time Trump comes across like a decent guy and clearly not mentally incompetent. My guess is this doesn’t have much of an impact but if anything it is a very small boost for Trump (eg maybe 5-10k votes). But if that small boost is in the right area it could be consequential.
zeke5123a
26d ago
No I’m calling out your fake both sides here. You would generally hate anyone on the R side. But yet your post was basically “both candidates suck because they aren’t serious.” But when you peel the onion back a bit it isn’t the seriousness that you object to on the R side; it is the policies. Which of course that’s reasonable! But say that—don’t complain about candidate quality.
zeke5123a
26d ago
Sure. But RDS is that awesome and Harris is just that terrible. It seems your concern isn’t really about Trump; it is about Harris.
zeke5123a
26d ago
Then I don’t know what you are asking for. DeSantis is quite clearly an exceptional governor. He doesn’t just mouth certain positions but excels at running government and was tested under extreme pressures during covid era and came through with flying colors. He is pretty much the definition of “serious politician.” So if the complaint is “we don’t have serious politicians” why sour on DeSantis?
zeke5123a
26d ago
Trump has been a bit inconsistent about tariffs. Sometimes he has talked about them being solely protectionist; other times he has talked about using them to force other countries to bring down their trade barriers (leading to less tariffs). I’m not sure where exactly he will come out.
He does care about manufacturing. The single best way for him to influence manufacturing is making energy cheap in America. He and Vance seems to support nuclear among others. He can directly help shepherd these things via EPA. Question is how quickly can you get these programs off the ground. The manufacturing jobs probably would t be during his term but the building of plants etc would be so he could point to an employment benefit to make the case for a Vance presidency.
zeke5123a
27d ago
So when the same markets had Trump in the mid 40s to win…does your explanation still hold?
zeke5123a
27d ago
I’m curious why you think Trump would damage American standing compared to Harris? Strikes me more that Trump would reduce American standing against fashionable Euros but fashionable euros aren’t the world
zeke5123a
28d ago
Unexpected? Numerous polls have shown Trump recently +2 or +3. 40% chance seems about right. Not the favorite but far from unexpected.
zeke5123a
28d ago
Yarvin is wrong. The APA was in response to a growing administrative state and was an attempt to put safe guards on it. The biggest problem has been incredible deference to the administrative state ignoring the APA.
Loper Bright (and to a lesser extent Kisor) reduces some of that deference. The major questions doctrine reduces yet more. And the continued vitality of forcing administrative agencies to respond with real thoughts to comments shows the courts are finally taking the APA seriously.
zeke5123a
29d ago
Only works if Trump gets to appoint some people. And what if they found there was in fact fraud? Then how does that heal the nation? Presumably Harris would need to resign, Biden appoint Trump as VP, and then Biden resign? But that would never happen.
zeke5123a
29d ago
Wait Klein wants us to be scared that Trump might fire a bunch of entrenched bureaucrats with whom I have extreme disagreements and thinks that’s a bad thing?
zeke5123a
29d ago
If a system exists that is hard to audit, is that lack of evidence of malfeasance evidence that malfeasance does not exist?
I would suggest that if a party doesn’t want to fix obvious weak points it suggests there a reason why.
So I conclude based on Dems’ actions they cheated.
zeke5123a
29d ago
See my other comment. In short the innocent and fraudulent answer looks similar meaning there is an easy ability to do fraud. Especially when you know what the bogey is.
zeke5123a
29d ago
The problem is the fraudulent explanations and the innocence explanations look similar AND thr lack of security means it would be hard to tell the difference coupled with the obvious incentive.
Maybe there would be a red mirage or just maybe Biden got truly 60k of votes when he needed 75k and they added 15k. So the red mirage was in part true and in part false. They would look the same.
zeke5123a
29d ago
There is risk but…I think Trump generally comes across really well in long form interviews that aren’t overly adversarial because while he doesn’t go deep into topics his charisma shines through
zeke5123a
29d ago
Here is where this explanation breaks down. They stopped counting (no one could really say why). Then very early in the morning the next day there is massive vote dump. So either they stopped counting when they were 95% of the way there (which doesn’t make sense) or for some reason they refused to release the already known vote total.
Of course there are innocent explanations but the behavior was quite odd. Also the Dem discussion on red mirage can equally be explained as the Dems planned on potentially gaming the vote so they told everyone about the red mirage so that when they cheated they could say “we told you about the red mirage.” Just like the IC prebunked the true Hunter Biden story.
zeke5123a
30d ago
Again take a 20,000 foot view. The IC had spent four years making shit up to try to undermine Trump and or help Biden. On election night Trump looks poised for a victory. Then in almost unprecedented fashion the counting stops and then lo and behold Biden wins after a giant ballot dump.
If you just had those facts and it was a third country you would say “that smells really bad.” You wouldn’t say “oh but the people in charge of the elections said it was good and sure they destroyed the evidence but we have no reason to believe they were wrong.”
It’s funny — during the interview Trump basically admitted to bullshitting to make the story a bit better.
More options
Context Copy link