Trump lied about Haitian immigrants eating cats. But he's a weak pussy when it comes to debating.

[stevenkesslar]

Trump suggests he won’t debate Harris again, attacks ABC over moderators’ fact-checking

I am getting a real kick out of the collective whining about how unfair ABC, and life in general is, to poor spoiled rich boy Donald Trump.

He lost a debate because he can't help being a narcissistic liar.  And, like a narcissistic liar, he now wants to whine and blame it everyone but himself.

He's once against setting up the standard that a Republican in good standing has to take an oath to NOT tell the truth - whether it's about whether Trump lost the election, or some crazy shit he said during a debate.

Meanwhile, no Republicans are attacking ABC for giving Trump five more minutes than Harris.  Which he used to make himself look like a fool.

No Republican is attacking ABC for "rigging" the debate by making the first question to Harris, "Do you think people are better off than four years ago?"  That is THE perfect pro-Trump question.  Which Trump himself would have asked Harris about a dozen times if he weren't so busy nursing his own man child ego.

I have looked at several fact check lists like at BBC and DW.  I could not get behind the WSJ's pay wall, which I assume might have the most Trump-friendly of fact check lists.  All the items called out about Harris, and some of the ones about Trump, were completely appropriate things for them to say in the context of a debate.

It's completely debatable whether Harris was correct about Trump leaving Biden and her with the "worst" unemployment ever.  Just like it's debatable whether Biden and Harris created the "worst" inflation ever, as Trump claimed.  That is what debates are for.  If ABC had continuously fact checked claims like that, I would be pissed.  The debate is supposed to be between the candidates.  Trump just did a super shitty job.

Same with whether Trump supports a national abortion ban.  A smart debater often makes claims that force their opponent to deny things.  In fact, ABC handed Trump the opportunity to say he would veto a national abortion ban.  He would not.  At least implying that he does support a national abortion  ban.

The two things I recall being called out were whether immigrants are eating pets, and whether Democrats are killing babies.  Those are bald-faced lies, not open to interpretation.  It is illegal to kill babies.  There in no proof that immigrants in Ohio are stealing and eating pets.  Trump of course wasn't going to be called out on a lie.  So of course he has to turn it into a debate with ABC, both then and now.

Trump wants to be able to tell any ridiculous lie he wants and never be challenged.  Why is everyone not surprised?

Trump is a whining loser.  That's just a fact.

[RockyRoadTravel]

20 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Trump suggests he won’t debate Harris again, attacks ABC over moderators’ fact-checking

I am getting a real kick out of the collective whining about how unfair ABC, and life in general is, to poor spoiled rich boy Donald Trump.

He lost a debate because he can't help being a narcissistic liar.  And, like a narcissistic liar, he now wants to whine and blame it everyone but himself.

He's once against setting up the standard that a Republican in good standing has to take an oath to NOT tell the truth - whether it's about whether Trump lost the election, or some crazy shit he said during a debate.

Meanwhile, no Republicans are attacking ABC for giving Trump five more minutes than Harris.  Which he used to make himself look like a fool.

No Republican is attacking ABC for "rigging" the debate by making the first question to Harris, "Do you think people are better off than four years ago?"  That is THE perfect pro-Trump question.  Which Trump himself would have asked Harris about a dozen times if he weren't so busy nursing his own man child ego.

I have looked at several fact check lists like at BBC and DW.  I could not get behind the WSJ's pay wall, which I assume might have the most Trump-friendly of fact check lists.  All the items called out about Harris, and some of the ones about Trump, were completely appropriate things for them to say in the context of a debate.

It's completely debatable whether Harris was correct about Trump leaving Biden and her with the "worst" unemployment ever.  Just like it's debatable whether Biden and Harris created the "worst" inflation ever, as Trump claimed.  That is what debates are for.  If ABC had continuously fact checked claims like that, I would be pissed.  The debate is supposed to be between the candidates.  Trump just did a super shitty job.

Same with whether Trump supports a national abortion ban.  A smart debater often makes claims that force their opponent to deny things.  In fact, ABC handed Trump the opportunity to say he would veto a national abortion ban.  He would not.  At least implying that he does support a national abortion  ban.

The two things I recall being called out were whether immigrants are eating pets, and whether Democrats are killing babies.  Those are bald-faced lies, not open to interpretation.  It is illegal to kill babies.  There in no proof that immigrants in Ohio are stealing and eating pets.  Trump of course wasn't going to be called out on a lie.  So of course he has to turn it into a debate with ABC, both then and now.

Trump wants to be able to tell any ridiculous lie he wants and never be challenged.  Why is everyone not surprised?

Trump is a whining loser.  That's just a fact.

If you are losing the game you start playing the referees.

I've got no explanation for Trump's appeal other than there must be some really deeply ingrained racism, overt or subtle, amongst a wide swath of the American population. People who are more concerned about the WHITE working-class than they are about the white WORKING-CLASS as I said before. Race interest trumps economic interest.

Trump's message is all you can do is fight over the crumbs left over for the working and middle-classes, and make sure the white folks get enough from the folks of color to survive. I need to succeed over my brown neighbor, because it's the best I can hope for; I'll never get more from the billionaire who owns my factory. 

Trump translates his bullying impulse to create and encourage a racism of white bullying of people of color as the only means of survival. Trump narrows economics to a battle over crumbs. To me it's a defeatist and minimal expectation of solving real economic issues. 

Trump is such a racist, to his bones. 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

 

I've got no explanation for Trump's appeal other than there must be some really deeply ingrained racism....

It's your lucky day.   You are going to get a long verbose response.  Lucky you!  Reading this struck a nerve.

It's my thread, so I can be verbose if I want to, I figure.

As I mentioned in some other post, Mark Halperin really got me thinking with something he said on his 2Way a little while ago.  He said if Trump wins, about half the country will be in shock.  It will shake the foundations of their belief system about the country they live in.  Because they really have no idea what motivates Trump voters.  That's not his exact wording.  But it is close enough.

It's interesting that he sees that as a sort of one way street.  He said Trump supporters would be disappointed, and maybe angry, if they lose.  But they would not be shocked in the same way.  My take away, which is NOT what he said, is that makes me the half that are the elitist pigs who  are actually too ignorant or arrogant to understand the other half.

One of the things I like about his 2Way thing, which actually undermines his claim, is that it helps me to understand Trump voters.  If he's right, why would Harris supporters even bother to listen to Trump supporters?  I'll add that there are as many reasons people support Trump as there are Trump voters.  But I'll tick off two big reasons people support Trump that sound incredibly normal to me.

One.  It's the economy, stupid.  It is an objective fact that Trump happened to govern during a time of relative economic calm and prosperity - if you stop the clock at Feb. 2020.  I always got that during that period.  Many Trump supporters put up with Trump because it was about them, not Trump.  If the Trump economy is good, they are good.  Same basic idea as people could give a shit if Clinton lied about a blow job, as long as the stock market and their savings account grew.

Two.  We hate the dude, but we love his policies.  This is an interesting one that historians will fight over forever, I think.  It is true that a lot of right of center voters who don't like Trump, and specifically are turned off by J6 bullshit and anarchy, will vote for him anyway. Because they like his right of center policies.  And they feel the hysteria about how he is a threat to democracy is overblown. 

I could agree with them, if "lawfare" only meant going after Trump for being a shady business tycoon in New York.  It's not like having a crooked family business is a new thing.  When you add stealing an election and The Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating, I beg to differ.  No one ever has tried to steal an election like that before in the US.  The debate about history will be whether the realignment Trump has caused in the Republican Party necessitated his authoritarian and faux working class populist schtick.  Or whether it was just an accident of history that he got there first.  My guess is the latter.   But I think the Republican Party may stay the way it is for a while, as the heartland conservative party.

Either way, I think what we are seeing play out is Trump is leading his party down a historical dead end.  Maybe this is my own bias.  But the GOP used to be the party of the Chamber Of Commerce.  The Chamber of Commerce will ALWAYS be a powerful thing.  Now it is the self-described truck driver party.  It tends to attract the losers of history, who lost when their factory jobs went overseas.  I think of Trumpism as, in part, a failed peasant's revolt led by a charlatan.  Electing Trump in 2016 and watching him try to kill Obamacare and shower tax cuts on the billionaires and corporations who backed him did not really improve their lives.  

Again, maybe this is my bias, but I think the Democratic Party will eventually figure this out.  As I said on another post, it's a little bit of a problem to me that a vert smart woman (lawyer Karen Dunn) who graduated from the best schools (Yale and Brown) and debate coached Obama, and Clinton, and Harris also has as her clients Apple, Uber, Oracle, and Jeff Bezos.  That is, by definition, a party of winners.  It also confirms the Trumpian feeling of this Deep State or elitist cabal that is coastal and liberal and just doesn't get us.  It explains why Democrats who rely on these corporate winners to fund their campaigns have to be careful about doing some of the very popular things that polls say working class Whites support - like higher taxes on corporations. 

I think Democrats will eventually figure out how to win again in places like Missouri.   But West Virginia may be the poster child of a failed Republican state for a long time.  They will elect guys like Joe Manchin and Jim Justice, rich and interested in their own power and wealth as they are. And voters there will mostly be obliging peasants who just want the coal industry back.  There.  How's that for smug?

I do think some of this is just an accident of history.  If COVID had struck in early 2021, not early 2020, I think Trump probably would have been re-elected. If Clinton had won in 2016, I think inflation would still have been low from 2016 to 2019. But I get that working class people pissed about how eggs and gas cost more think things were better under Trump.  They'll be disappointed again when eggs and gas cost the same and Trump panders to his rich donors again.

4 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Trump translates his bullying impulse to create and encourage a racism of white bullying of people of color as the only means of survival. Trump narrows economics to a battle over crumbs. To me it's a defeatist and minimal expectation of solving real economic issues. 

On race, I will keep going with the idea that there are two Republican parties. 

There is the party of Trump, which I think panders to the racial grievances of older Whites, as you say.  That's been proven in study after study, I think.  When the dust settles, I think one reason Harris will win is because she'll get in the ballpark of the percentage vote of Blacks and Hispanics that Biden got in 2020.  But there is also the Republican party of Tim Scott or Nikki Haley.  It doesn't surprise me that the part of the Black community most likely to vote Republican are younger Blacks, more highly educated, who look and think like Tim Scott.  Good for them.  There is no shortage of Blacks who says the organic conservatism of the Black community (evangelicals) would make more vote Republican if the Republican Party wasn't so damn racist.  Tim Scott makes them less damn racist.

The problem I have with Halperin, but what also makes him very good at what he does, is he is fundamentally cynical.   So I think that helps explain why he thinks Trump voters will be less shocked if Trump loses.  They have a cynical view, anyway.  Many of them are authoritarian followers who are happy to follow a cynical authoritarian leader like Trump.  I think Halperin views this as just being all part of "The Circus", to steal the name of the show of his former partner in crime (and fellow cynic) John Heilemann.  For Halperin, Obama v. McCain would just be a different version of The Circus.  And his role is to be the brilliant journalist rooting around for the inside scoop of a cynical game.  That is what Game Change was about.  And I loved it. 

The problem is Halperin exudes the feeling that Hitler v. Jews and Gays and Democracy would be viewed kind of the same way, if you are a Straight Christian White centrist.  Or, Lincoln v. Slavery would be viewed the same, to use a more American example.  It's not a fundamental clash of principles, or two different directions.  It's just another version of The Circus.  Perhaps just a bit more extreme. 

It's probably unfair to view Halperin that way.  But I think that would help explain why he might think half the country will be shocked if Trump wins.  As if there is really nothing to be shocked about.

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

Interesting information in this new YouGov poll:

Kamala Harris' debate win hasn't yet won her new voters, but more like her and see her as qualified

In this poll, she was winning by 1 point (aka a statistical tie) before the election, and she is still winning by one point after.  No change.  She is slightly ahead 46/45 in this poll, with 6 % undecided.   55 % say she won the debate versus 25 % for Trump.  Many Trump supporters said they were dissatisfied with his performance. 

Below the surface, things shifted.  There was a 5 % decrease in voters who think Harris is unqualified and a 3 % rise in voters saying she is qualified.  A 4 % increase in voters who think Harris says what she means, and a 1 % increase in voters who think Harris says what she thinks voters want to hear.  So it firmed up impressions. In  a mostly positive way for Harris and in a mostly negative way for Trump.  Whether those are the impressions held by the narrow slice of undecided voters is a while different question. But something like 1 in 4 Americans say they need to get to know Kamala Harris better.  This helped.  The impressions for people who wanted to know more seemed mostly favorable.  

This poll notes that Biden's poll numbers did not change within 24 hours of his horrific debate, either.  Which is one reason his staff said, "No real problem here."  As is noted in the article, the damage gradually expanded as the days and weeks went on.  In part, of course, because SENILE BIDEN and the battle royal in the Democratic Party blacked out everything else for weeks.  But I think its far to say this adds to Harris's upward moment.  At the very least, it did not help Trump generate upward momentum.  If he won't debate again, my guess is it's probably because he is worried it could lead to a real downward spiral like Biden.  Poor old dictator wannabe!

In this poll, 50 % of viewers say the moderators were fair to both candidates, while 35 % said they were unfair to Trump and 6 % said they were unfair to Harris.  73 % of Trump supporters said they were unfair to Trump.  What a shocker!

Here's the most interesting part:

Quote

While far short of majorities, significant shares of Americans accept several false claims made by Trump. 32% say it is true that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. 33% believe that "Trump recommended that 10,000 national guard troops be sent to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but Nancy Pelosi turned this suggestion down." 21% believe that "in certain states, it is legal for a doctor to perform an abortion after birth." And 20% believe "immigrants are abducting and eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio."

Quote

These assertions divide Trump supporters and that division varies from claim to claim. 75% of Trump supporters believe that Pelosi turned down Trump's request for National Guard troops on January 6, 9% do not, and 16% are unsure. 67% of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was stolen from him, 12% do not, and 22% are unsure. Just 36% of Trump supporters believe doctors can perform abortions after birth in certain states, 26% do not, and 38% are unsure. And just 43% of Trump supporters believe immigrants are abducting and eating dogs and cats in Ohio, while 16% do not, and 40% are unsure.

If there were an objective way to measure the racism of Trump supporters, I'd bet there would be similar results.  It's absurd to me to argue Black Trump supporters are racist.  When we get to the Charlottesville crowd with their KKK and Nazi flags, it's pretty easy to argue they are racist as hell.  

My point is this all dooms Trumpism to be a failed and minority movement to me.  Whites who feel strong racial animus and Blacks like Tim Scott really do have a hard time being under the same tent together.  The proof of the pudding to me is that the people who gave us the Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating were mostly White men.  I think it was a subset of Trump Republicans who turned lots of other Republicans off.

There is nothing in this poll, on the other hand, that suggests Harris could not be the leader of a majority movement in America.

There is a theory that Harris doesn't need to really persuade any more voters.  She just needs to get her coalition out to vote.  So that could be an impact as well.  The debate gave anyone thinking of voting for Harris another reason to vote for her, as well as donate or volunteer.  It had to be demotivating for Trump supporters.  In that sense, it almost certainly helped Harris, even if it did not change the mind of one undecided voters.  But it sounds like it did change minds for her, albeit in a slow shifting of tides kind of way.

 

[KeepItReal]

13 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Trump suggests he won’t debate Harris again, attacks ABC over moderators’ fact-checking

I am getting a real kick out of the collective whining about how unfair ABC, and life in general is, to poor spoiled rich boy Donald Trump.

He lost a debate because he can't help being a narcissistic liar.  And, like a narcissistic liar, he now wants to whine and blame it everyone but himself.

He's once against setting up the standard that a Republican in good standing has to take an oath to NOT tell the truth - whether it's about whether Trump lost the election, or some crazy shit he said during a debate.

Meanwhile, no Republicans are attacking ABC for giving Trump five more minutes than Harris.  Which he used to make himself look like a fool.

No Republican is attacking ABC for "rigging" the debate by making the first question to Harris, "Do you think people are better off than four years ago?"  That is THE perfect pro-Trump question.  Which Trump himself would have asked Harris about a dozen times if he weren't so busy nursing his own man child ego.

I have looked at several fact check lists like at BBC and DW.  I could not get behind the WSJ's pay wall, which I assume might have the most Trump-friendly of fact check lists.  All the items called out about Harris, and some of the ones about Trump, were completely appropriate things for them to say in the context of a debate.

It's completely debatable whether Harris was correct about Trump leaving Biden and her with the "worst" unemployment ever.  Just like it's debatable whether Biden and Harris created the "worst" inflation ever, as Trump claimed.  That is what debates are for.  If ABC had continuously fact checked claims like that, I would be pissed.  The debate is supposed to be between the candidates.  Trump just did a super shitty job.

Same with whether Trump supports a national abortion ban.  A smart debater often makes claims that force their opponent to deny things.  In fact, ABC handed Trump the opportunity to say he would veto a national abortion ban.  He would not.  At least implying that he does support a national abortion  ban.

The two things I recall being called out were whether immigrants are eating pets, and whether Democrats are killing babies.  Those are bald-faced lies, not open to interpretation.  It is illegal to kill babies.  There in no proof that immigrants in Ohio are stealing and eating pets.  Trump of course wasn't going to be called out on a lie.  So of course he has to turn it into a debate with ABC, both then and now.

Trump wants to be able to tell any ridiculous lie he wants and never be challenged.  Why is everyone not surprised?

Trump is a whining loser.  That's just a fact.

Of course he is doubling down - now it is cats, dogs and geese.  Racist loser. 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-conspiracy-theory-that-immigrants-are-eating-peoples-pets/news-story/406247b28621b63c319af5941b7b2aa1

[lookin]

On 9/13/2024 at 6:14 AM, KeepItReal said:

Of course he is doubling down - now it is cats, dogs and geese.  Racist loser.

Dogs and cats and geese better scurry

Immigrants eat them up in a hurry

Either raw or cooked in a curry

🎶  🎶  🎶

Says the guy

With a fringe on top

[Suckrates]

Although he has always been racist, it pretty obvious now that Trump has pivoted, and is running soley on RACISM.....   Its what his base likes and wants, and it certainly sets himself apart from Kamala with it....  Nothing else seemed to work for him,  but this new Racist episode has gotten him the spotlight, and headlights he lives for.....And with the support from other racists like Looney Loomer,  what does he got to lose at this point...?    But, a Big BUT...... he will never win the "popular" vote,  but the giant racist asshole can still conquer the "electoral college" and WIN the whole shebang....   He has nothing to offer people but Project 2025 and his Supreme Court immunity, so he will do what he is TOLD to do by the Heritage Club with no consequences and deprive these oblivious morons of their protections, rights and freedoms, and they wont even know what hit them .   In their warped minds, perhaps theres another "stimy" in their future , because "Trump is looking out for THEM" ?    

[reader]

From MSN

Erika Lee, a woman from Springfield, Ohio, who initially made a Facebook post alleging that local Haitian immigrants were "eating pets," leading to significant national attention on the small city, has confessed she had no direct evidence supporting such a claim.

Amid the 2024 presidential election where immigration is a hot topic issue, city officials have consistently debunked these rumors, but the claims gained even more prominence when former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, repeated them during the televised presidential debate on Tuesday night.

"It just exploded into something I didn't mean to happen," Lee told NBC News on Friday.

Lee said the incident has left her ridden with guilt and anxiety due to the controversy it generated. Her post detailed the disappearance of a neighbor's cat and included her neighbor's suspicions that their Haitian residents were involved in the incident.

According to NewsGuard, an organization dedicated to combating internet misinformation, Lee was one of the first to spread the baseless rumor on social media, the screenshots of which were widely shared. The neighbor, identified as Kimberly Newton, reportedly got the information about the alleged incident from a third party, as per NewsGuard's findings and reported by NBC News.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/woman-behind-springfield-haitian-immigrants-eating-pets-rumor-speaks-out/ar-AA1qA7ez

 

[KeepItReal]

15 hours ago, reader said:

 

Lee said the incident has left her ridden with guilt and anxiety due to the controversy it generated. Her post detailed the disappearance of a neighbor's cat and included her neighbor's suspicions that their Haitian residents were involved in the incident.

According to NewsGuard, an organization dedicated to combating internet misinformation, Lee was one of the first to spread the baseless rumor on social media, the screenshots of which were widely shared. The neighbor, identified as Kimberly Newton, reportedly got the information about the alleged incident from a third party, as per NewsGuard's findings 

At least she claims to feel guilty. Nicki Minaj never did when she was spreading wild rumors. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-58571353