Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinda amazed how poorly prepared the Trump people were for this day.

Especially as this was definitely one of the more likely outcomes. But I do not think they can imagine the possibility of not prioritizing yourself.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinda amazed how poorly prepared the Trump people were for this day.

Really? Yesterday's NYT said they already have attack ads prepared.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

People complain (from a distance) about California being hell but he is a very very strong speaker. He would obliterate Trump so that he would just crawl inside his poop diaper.

People complain about California being hell out of rank envy.

Newsome is not my favorite, but agree with you 100% -- he is good at what he does.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Really? Yesterday's NYT said they already have attack ads prepared.

Did you know that the NYT writes that sort of article by giving their sources a sponge bath with their tongues?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

People complain (from a distance) about California being hell but he is a very very strong speaker. He would obliterate Trump so that he would just crawl inside his poop diaper.

When? I doubt Trump would agree to a debate, but if he does it’s v Harris. The VP goes against a writer/storyteller. And just like I own all you lot, Vance will own him. Plus, you’ll pick a VP to firm up winning Cali? It will be a Midwest swing state gov.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Did you know that the NYT writes that sort of article by giving their sources a sponge bath with their tongues?

So “fake news?” Are you a Trump sock?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So “fake news?” Are you a Trump sock?

Do you know what a beat-sweetener is?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you know what a beat-sweetener is?

No. Explain? I mean, I looked it up, but it makes no sense to explain the article.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No. Explain? I mean, I looked it up, but it makes no sense to explain the article.

You and I both read the article. It suggested that the Trump campaign was ready for Biden to drop out and Harris to be their opponent. We both saw, on Sunday, that the Trump campaign didn't seem so ready.

Here is my hypothesis. Someone from the NYT proposed a story about how the Trump campaign would handle Biden dropping out and Harris being their opponent. They interviewed people from the campaign about this, and wrote a story about how awesome the campaign people were, and how ready they were, and all that good stuff. They wrote this article this way, in part, to curry favor with their sources in the Trump campaign, to ensure good access to future stories. Were they intentionally misreporting? Of course not. But it's hard to really assess how ready the campaign would be to deal with a new opponent, and when they tell you they're on top of it, isn't it easier to report it that way? If you're writing the story, you're not really expecting Biden to drop out the next morning, and for the Trump campaign to fumble in its response.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When? I doubt Trump would agree to a debate, but if he does it’s v Harris. The VP goes against a writer/storyteller. And just like I own all you lot, Vance will own him. Plus, you’ll pick a VP to firm up winning Cali? It will be a Midwest swing state gov.

I am partial to Whitmer now. SHE IS NO JABRONI.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

People complain about California being hell out of rank envy.

Newsome is not my favorite, but agree with you 100% -- he is good at what he does.

I don't think people complain about it being hell. It's a beautiful state.

People complain about it being run badly by crazy progressives.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I am partial to Whitmer now. SHE IS NO JABRONI.

She is funny. But she gets kidnapped too much.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

One side brought us closer to national health care. The other ended Roe v. Wade. One of those things is not like the other.

Agreed, but in aggregate, the difference I noted remains.

If you're a small or mid-sized businessperson, you want Rs. They aren't likely to create any new taxes or regulations on you, or expand enforcement in any way (small and mid-sized businesses operate in numerous compliance "grey zones"). They also tend to cut taxes and preside over more lax lending practices by capital providers. These things, among many more, help businesspeople and result in more hiring.

Democrats focus on the desperate more than the workers or the small businesspeople who employ them. I'm not saying this as a criticism, by the way. That's a valid approach. But Democrats tend to regulate more often, and more aggressively enforce it. They tend to pass new laws that make it difficult to employ people. More Ds = More rules. It's a reality, not a stereotype. Ds have a tendency to try to control things, to intervene in commerce in manners that protect those with no power. This can be helpful. It can also be counterproductive. More rules and things like higher minimum wages lead historically to less hiring. More taxes have this effect as well.

The truly poor are better off under Democrats. People who are generally dependent on the govt are as well. People who want to build small businesses and who work in them are better off under Republicans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

I am partial to Whitmer now. SHE IS NO JABRONI.

Best candidate for Ds out there. She should be running for Pres on D ticket, not VP. She'd definitely beat Trump. Harris might as well, but it's a toss up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You and I both read the article. It suggested that the Trump campaign was ready for Biden to drop out and Harris to be their opponent. We both saw, on Sunday, that the Trump campaign didn't seem so ready.

Here is my hypothesis. Someone from the NYT proposed a story about how the Trump campaign would handle Biden dropping out and Harris being their opponent. They interviewed people from the campaign about this, and wrote a story about how awesome the campaign people were, and how ready they were, and all that good stuff. They wrote this article this way, in part, to curry favor with their sources in the Trump campaign, to ensure good access to future stories. Were they intentionally misreporting? Of course not. But it's hard to really assess how ready the campaign would be to deal with a new opponent, and when they tell you they're on top of it, isn't it easier to report it that way? If you're writing the story, you're not really expecting Biden to drop out the next morning, and for the Trump campaign to fumble in its response.

Is the Trump Campaign really ever on top of anything? They had a great social media campaign in 2016, but that's it. Everyone I know who's worked with them has described a disorganized bunch that, like its leader, makes decisions in an almost exclusively reactive manner. Run and gun offense, everything on the fly.

In one regard, they can be viewed as ready for anything. In another, they're never really ready for anything.