- 5,455
- Alabamistan
Here we go. The Steal starts up.
Every bit of his statements on abortion is made up. This guy openly says, "legal scholars, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, everyone says it should be with the states". Just absolute ignorance b/c abortion is overwhelmingly supported across the country whether it's gender, age, race, political party; only hard line Republicans do not support it whilst moderate Republicans favor it 67%.Two women just died in Georgia, and not because they were far along. One didn't even need an abortion, she needed a D&C, the embryo was dead. The second was told that she might die if she got pregnant, she got pregnant, and as soon as she realized it she tried an abortion on her own and died. Both of those were entirely predictable events given the abortion ban.
I guess Trump just wants to make stuff up and hope that people aren't reading these stories.
Edit:
Also Roe didn't even prevent states from banning late term abortions. That's just made up also.
Every bit of his statements on abortion is made up. This guy openly says, "legal scholars, men, women, Republicans, Democrats, everyone says it should be with the states". Just absolute ignorance b/c abortion is overwhelmingly supported across the country whether it's gender, age, race, political party; only hard line Republicans do not support it whilst moderate Republicans favor it 67%.
The line, "You will no longer be thinking about it b/c it's with the states" completely misses the fact that that is exactly why everyone thinks about it b/c certain states are not only flat out banning it, but wanting anyone associated criminalized as well.
Cult 45, bro. His word is the only one that matters to them, no matter how stupid.These two women's deaths are making national headlines and Trump's just... acting like it's not. I guess some of his followers really are that insulated.
The right-wing media Vance? B/c that's whose been pushing said lies.Well I think the media has a job to fact check the residents of springfield, not lie about them
It is strange but only because it never used to be that way. We saw Obama in business-casual settings and dress all the time but Walz is literally taking us to a place we go all the time, our driveways. He is a person after all, and apparently a nerdy old car guy like the ones who show up to C&C an hour before the show actually starts. We should be seeing these candidates being actual people so we can get a sense of who they are, but for whatever reason they always gotta wear suits and for some reason nobody has ever realized that wearing suits to work isn't relateable to 90% of Americans. Nobody does that. I've been wearing a tie with my work uniform for over two years now and it still gives me the ick. This tie is not who I am, it's not where I'm from, and it's not who you're going to chat with at the bar. The tie is literally just a formality, as was every suit worn by whatever unrelatable politician you can think of. The suit is fake, their professional personalities are fake, their smiles are fake, everything is all about professional appearances.So I get that, but it's also just so friggin strange to see a VP candidate talk about how to deal with old rubber seals or hold up an air filter. Granted, it's less strange than a convicted felon running for president, but this is still really strange to me. That might be more about Tim Walz than anything else.
You should try jorts and free your mind.I've been wearing a tie with my work uniform for over two years now and it still gives me the ick. This tie is not who I am, it's not where I'm from, and it's not who you're going to chat with at the bar. The tie is literally just a formality, as was every suit worn by whatever unrelatable politician you can think of. The suit is fake, their professional personalities are fake, their smiles are fake, everything is all about professional appearances.
I heard she also needs to win Wisconsin as well in this scenario if the other swing states vote for Trump.Specifically this matters if Harris wins Michigan and Pennsylvania but loses North Carolina, Georgia (which nobody will win because hand counting), Nevada, and Arizona.
I heard she also needs to win Wisconsin as well in this scenario if the other swing states vote for Trump.
I think Nebraska knows....or should know...that if they give up their split EC vote, nobody from either party will ever stop to campaign or care about their state again.Yea, I had bookmarked Wisconsin for her in that breakdown. Although it looks like since last time I checked Wisconsin and Michigan have flipped in terms of which was more of a swing state, so maybe I should have stated it the other way around. Regardless, if she takes Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump can have the rest provided that Nebraska splits theirs. So there was some hand wringing over whether Nebraska would change the rules at the last second.
I think Nebraska knows....or should know...that if they give up their split EC vote, nobody from either party will ever stop to campaign or care about their state again.
Nebraska would be a solid R on the map, within the sea of red 'muricahWho would generally take the state if it was winner-takes-all?
Nebraska would be a solid R on the map.
@Danoff - I think there is some token interest shown...which is more than none at all.
California, Texas, NY, and Florida could come to an arrangement
Texas and Florida would die before they'd give up their ability to jam their majority religious conservatism down their minority voters' throats.Do states actually want campaigning? I feel like they should all split their EC votes just to avoid campaigning and get us closer to a popular vote. Maybe California, Texas, NY, and Florida could come to an arrangement to split EC votes. Pennsylvania certainly must be absolutely sick of it this year and ready to split theirs.
Did Maine have split EC in 2004? If so, it gives credence to the idea that it attracts some attention whereas states that don't have split EC, and aren't competitive, don't.Those states that are definitely blue and definitely red just mean that so much of the country doesn't matter when it comes to campaigning. By coincidence, I happened to be reading about the 1960 election earlier today and it stood out that Richard Nixon spent time and resources (read: wasted time and resources) campaigning in all fifty states whereas John Kennedy focused almost exclusively on swing states. Considering that Nixon had good cause to cry foul on Democratic voter fraud in Michigan and Texas, two states which would have given him the Presidency had he won them, had he similarly focused just on swing states he might have done better in those now-crucial few states that actually matter. A bit ironic that the guy who tries to reach everyone gets it "wrong" and the guy who games the system gets it "right".
And I always love resharing this image:
The final five weeks of the 2004 election; personal appearances and millions of dollars spent on ad campaigns.
Look how much of the country just doesn't matter.
Alaska and Hawaii are so empty they don't even get outlines.Did Maine have split EC in 2004? If so, it gives credence to the idea that it attracts some attention whereas states that don't have split EC, and aren't competitive, don't.
Slightly on topic - this is my favorite election map (from 2020). There is a dot for each vote, which illustrates the result a lot better than simply coloring the whole state or even the whole precinct in the color of the winner. Shows you how empty the west is and the stark urban-rural divide.
Did Maine have split EC in 2004? If so, it gives credence to the idea that it attracts some attention whereas states that don't have split EC, and aren't competitive, don't.
Those states that are definitely blue and definitely red just mean that so much of the country doesn't matter when it comes to campaigning. By coincidence, I happened to be reading about the 1960 election earlier today and it stood out that Richard Nixon spent time and resources (read: wasted time and resources) campaigning in all fifty states whereas John Kennedy focused almost exclusively on swing states. Considering that Nixon had good cause to cry foul on Democratic voter fraud in Michigan and Texas, two states which would have given him the Presidency had he won them, had he similarly focused just on swing states he might have done better in those now-crucial few states that actually matter. A bit ironic that the guy who tries to reach everyone gets it "wrong" and the guy who games the system gets it "right".
And I always love resharing this image:
The final five weeks of the 2004 election; personal appearances and millions of dollars spent on ad campaigns.
Look how much of the country just doesn't matter.
If you did away with the outdated Electoral College, that map would look a lot different. Now candidates would be competing for EVEYONE'S vote and not just the ones highlighted on the map.It's not exactly that it doesn't matter.
It's just that a lot of those bigger EV states are so firmly entrenched in one party or the other that it's nearly pointless for either side to give them more than lip service.