Why would I as a level minded conservative adult want to try and decipher the madness of the liberal hive mind? They dont call it the woke mind virus for nothing. LOL!!
Trump on X with Elon
- Thread starter CUTiger1977
- Start date
A quick glance at the polls and the betting markets this morning show that the libs don't have much to worry about 😅
hell yes. we're back to getting a steady drip from GWP. thank you growls. i was worried you were gonna let them go under.Libs running scared!!
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz’s Campaign in Complete Meltdown Over Elon Musk’s Space with President Donald Trump
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz's Campaign in Complete Meltdown Over Elon Musk's Space with President Donald Trump | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
Former President Donald Trump held a groundbreaking interview with tech mogul Elon Musk on Monday.www.thegatewaypundit.com
This is the Kamala we all know. When put in front of a camera and challenged, Americans will see her radical agenda and one that was kept quiet for the last 3.5 years.
She's no moderate even if MSM tries to portray her as such. Just like we knew Biden was not mentally fit, the truth eventually comes out.
So you're going to use a clip from early 2016 to explain what she will do now that she's been VP for four years? There are indications that her views have changed and she's moved more to the middle on a lot of issues, so why don't you wait until she's asked about this again? Do you think Trump has changed his position on any issues since he ran in 2016? Hell, he flipped on his position about EVs overnight after Elon endorsed him.
I can only take her at her word. She said that. Has her radical opinion changed? Maybe, but she has yet to sit down and take an interview. As I said, there was a reason why Biden was not put in front of the camera very often until he absolutely had to. We saw how that worked out.
I look forward to hearing Kamala have to explain her ideas, policy and agenda. I think that's when most Americans will be able to get some answers and quite frankly, some honesty from her.
She is no moderate and you know it.
I didn't say she was a moderate, I said she's moved more to the middle, how much we'll have to see. You will get what you want from her but give her some space to work out her policy details before casting judgment, as she found herself in this position virtually overnight. I'm sure that four years as VP can do a lot for how you approach an issue - after all, what better place to learn about how policies affect real world issues than that?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
run for the hills! trump did a safe space interview!
trump being back on twatter is the best thing that has happened to Kamala. Let more people see his crazy tweets and the ramblings of a senile old man.
"I am crushing kamala in the real polls!"
"she should be disqualified and I am suing her for taking biden's money!"
Let the world see his fear and desperation.
There's no way that Kamala has changed her mind on anything during the Trump era. Anyone who thinks that is a cuck shitlib. Now, about JD Vance calling Trump America's Hitler...
Trump actually got "Lou Holtz" trending on twitter last night lol. Another disaster for this crazy train campaign.
I asked you specifically because you showed some integrity in accepting the ban, and seem to be pretty reasoned, accepting faults from both parties not just the "other", etc. I know you don't care about my approval lol, just giving you context for why I singled you out with that question.
I ask because the amount of smoke from last election that when it investigated or reviewed by bipartisan people involved (nefarious suitcases that turned out to be completely standard storage to that area, things "deleted" where the person just didn't know what to look for, "thumb drives" that were actually mints, complete recounts, cyber ninja's audit adding votes to Biden, etc etc) it turns out the smoke was just a fog machine by people looking for anything to explain their feelings. They care so much and all of their bubble care so much and the rally's show so many people with fervor that they just can't believe it. So you look for anything to latch on to (maybe not you specifically). So with that in mind, if all that "smoke" was enough last cycle, I just don't see any chance the "machine" of die hard "investigators" aren't able to create that same fog again. So if court case after court case, debunking after debunking wasn't enough this cycle, I am not sure what could possibly change next cycle.
Here is the one thing supporters of both parties can agree on: More exposure for Trump is good for their candidate.
Period.
Period.
That can't be true for both parties though. Though maybe supporters of both hold that opinion, is that what you mean?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think the Democratic Party is thrilled when Trump holds a 90-minute news conference or appears on a podcast.
I think the Republican Party is thrilled when Trump holds a 90-minute news conference or appears on a podcast.
I think supporters of Harris-Walz are thrilled when Trump holds a news conference or appears on a podcast.
I think supporters of Trump are thrilled when Trump holds a news conference or appears on a podcast.
I think the more exposure Trump has over the next 90 days, independent voters will find their decision at the ballot box will become clearer.
I think it was the "Period" that threw me, but I do agree with the latter at the high level. Though there are plenty of people like @CUT93 that support Trump in the voting/policy sense, but disagree that more exposure to him is a positive.
Got you, and mostly agree with the average supporter for all of the above. Though I suspect a lot of Trump's campaign staff may not agree in the quiet part of their brain.
HIllary says hi... How has that worked out in the past? Its all due to the fact they oversample Dems in the polling...She was at 99% to win and it wasnt that close in the EC at the end...
He also mentioned betting markets. What's your rebuttal on that point? There's no bias or margin of error in betting markets. It's about cold hard wet stinky cash.
Well, I have to say up front that I'm a big Musk fan, especially on the spaceX and EVs.
But honestly, I put him in the same boat that I put Lebron James, Aaron Rogers, and almost any Hollywood type when they start talking social issues. Namely, they are welcome to their opinions, but they are no more qualified to talk about this stuff than any other Joe from the street. Musk just has a bigger platform than anyone else.
But honestly, I put him in the same boat that I put Lebron James, Aaron Rogers, and almost any Hollywood type when they start talking social issues. Namely, they are welcome to their opinions, but they are no more qualified to talk about this stuff than any other Joe from the street. Musk just has a bigger platform than anyone else.
I was a big fan of his until Covid. Then I started wondering whether he was also a total charlatan, like Trump. Now I don't even wonder anymore.
Polls are a snapshot in time. I don't think either side should be worried about them right now. Trends are important, though, and if Trump is to win he has to find a way to reverse trends. And with the DNC coming up, it isn't likely to happen this coming week.
Harris will certainly have her bumps in the road. Her economic policy will cause people both far left and far right to criticize it. I, for one, didn't like her advocating for eliminating taxes on tips. I think that is a lousy policy and will mean that hospitality workers who bring home, say, $50K a year between salary and tips will pay far less in taxes than the sanitation worker who is paid the same in salary.
I get a bonus at work but no one is suggesting that it be exempt from taxes.
(On the other hand, I get why she announced the policy: she wants to win Nevada just like Trump does.)
I think, in the end, the difference in this campaign will come down to which vision of America's future is more compelling for the typical voter: the dark future offered by Trump or the optimistic outlook offered by Harris. History says Americans are generally optimistic. They were drawn to Reagan's "City on a Hill" vision and his, "It's Morning in America" four years later. I think that will help Harris-Walz in November, too.
Harris will certainly have her bumps in the road. Her economic policy will cause people both far left and far right to criticize it. I, for one, didn't like her advocating for eliminating taxes on tips. I think that is a lousy policy and will mean that hospitality workers who bring home, say, $50K a year between salary and tips will pay far less in taxes than the sanitation worker who is paid the same in salary.
I get a bonus at work but no one is suggesting that it be exempt from taxes.
(On the other hand, I get why she announced the policy: she wants to win Nevada just like Trump does.)
I think, in the end, the difference in this campaign will come down to which vision of America's future is more compelling for the typical voter: the dark future offered by Trump or the optimistic outlook offered by Harris. History says Americans are generally optimistic. They were drawn to Reagan's "City on a Hill" vision and his, "It's Morning in America" four years later. I think that will help Harris-Walz in November, too.
I agree to a point, he is just one person.
However, Elon does have more experience than almost any other person on what it takes to manage a large corporation(s). Disagree that the Government should be run like a corporation, that is fine. But to put Elon on par with Lebron or Aaron Rogers? Elon has vast more experience and depth of knowledge. C'mon.
Do you think I believe you know what you're talking abvout when you say they over-sampled Dems? Since the last two cycles, pollsters figured out why they believe Trump supporters were under-weighted so they've tried to correct it this time, which means they "should" be more accurate. But the trends in the polls and the betting markets are moving in the same direction. which is good news for Harris no matter how you slice it. But this is just a snapshot so things could change.
2024 course correction
"Heading into the 2024 rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, pollsters are trying a variety of strategies to avoid repeating history and to accurately capture the elusive Trump vote.For one, pollsters have adjusted their approach to “weighting,” a method that assigns a multiplier to each respondent to change how much their answer sways the overall poll outcome.
Pollsters have always used weighting to construct survey samples that accurately reflect the electorate in terms of gender, age, race or income. But after 2016, they are taking particular care to weight education.
Atkeson suggested pollsters go beyond education weighting for 2024 and factor in variables like how someone voted in 2020, or even whether they rent or own a home, or whether they are a blood donor.
“You just start tagging to everything you can,” Atkeson said. “Anything that can tell us, ‘Well, what does the population really look like?’”
Along with weighting, pollsters are paying more attention to survey respondents they used to discount.
“Some people will start a poll, they’ll tell you who they’re going to vote for and then they say, ‘I’m done. I don’t want to talk to you anymore. Goodbye,’” Don Levy, director of the Siena College Research Institute, which helps conduct polls for the New York Times, told CNBC. “In 2020 and 2022, we didn’t count those people.”
But this time around, Levy says they are counting the “drop-offs.”
They found that if they had counted those impatient respondents in 2020 and 2022, their poll results would have moved “about a point and a quarter in the Trump direction,” Levy said, eliminating roughly 40% of their error.
Levy added that SCRI is also taking an extra step to target Trump voters by modeling their sample to include a higher survey quota for people who are considered “high-probability Trump voters in rural areas.”
“If you think of them as M&Ms, let’s say the Trump M&M vote is red,” Levy said. “We have a few extra red M&Ms in the jar.”
Loading…
www.cnbc.com
Last edited:
That's the thing though, you can never prove the negative. Any evidence that shows the 2020 election was safe and fair is just itself further proof of a coverup. If you start with the premise that it was stolen, any evidence to the contrary just means you haven't been looking hard enough.
It's no different than me asking you to prove that there isn't a coffee maker flying around in the asteroid belt. You can't.
I obviously agree. Why I was asking what it would take.
Led a 7th grade youth group type thing a long time ago and asked around the circle what everyone's biggest fear was. One kid, without a shred of joke said, "velociraptors" and when everyone kind of chuckled, then replied, again completely serious "You can't prove they don't exist."
"If I can believe in dinosaurs, then someone out there a dinosaur is believing in me." -Mookie Wilson
Dammit he might have just recaptured the youth vote with that topical Wayne's World reference.
not to mention that dems have outperformed the polls the last three elections.
