US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[Humphrey Bogart]

You are being generous about how well Twitter is working.

New Data Suggests X Is Still Far From Profitability

Financial performance numbers highlight the dire state of the app, with no clear pathway to profitability in sight.

www.socialmediatoday.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/01/musk-twitter-investors-underwater/

Maybe he has a grand plan.

Him backing down with the dust up with Brasil is also a good indicator…

Any news about how 'well' or 'not well' X is supposedly doing should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's a Private Company and anything related to its finances is pure speculation. Musk taking the Company private was his biggest masterstroke and as a result of this move, it is no longer held at gunpoint by the quarterly report.

I think this article sums it up best:

Navneet Alang: Elon Musk’s X isn’t going away anytime soon. There’s a good reason for that

Despite attracting conspiracy theorists and bigots, the site formerly known as Twitter is still the news glue between the chattering classes and power, writes Navneet Alang. Maybe it should be

www.thestar.com

X is the only place where you can get real-time information, unfiltered and unpoliced. It's a gold mine in that respect and even though we hate it, we will keep coming back for more.

 

[brihard]

Any news about how 'well' or 'not well' X is supposedly doing should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's a Private Company and anything related to its finances is pure speculation. Musk taking the Company private was his biggest masterstroke and as a result of this move, it is no longer held at gunpoint by the quarterly report.

I think this article sums it up best:

Navneet Alang: Elon Musk’s X isn’t going away anytime soon. There’s a good reason for that

Despite attracting conspiracy theorists and bigots, the site formerly known as Twitter is still the news glue between the chattering classes and power, writes Navneet Alang. Maybe it should be

www.thestar.com

X is the only place where you can get real-time information, unfiltered and unpoliced. It's a gold mine in that respect and even though we hate it, we will keep coming back for more.

At a certain point, yet more wealth becomes meaningless.

If Musk bought Twitter as a financial investment, it was likely a pretty terrible one based on what he’s done to the place. But I don’t think he did.

Wealth begets power, in various ways. He essentially conquered one of the most preeminent platforms for discourse and influence, and the dissemination of narratives, and we see that that means. With significant influence over these things he can achieve things that can never be bought outright.

 

[mariomike]

So far it’s a pretty good debate between the veepee cohorts!!

Didn't catch it, but this quote caught my eye, this morning,

Tim: "Did Trump lose the 2020 election?"

JD: "I'm focused on the future."

Tim: "That's why Mike Pence isn't on this stage."

 

[dimsum]

I gather it was a civil debate, if not quite a gentlemen's debate. Next up, people looking for a way to swap the P and VP candidate slots on both tickets.

There were points when they agreed with each other and said so, so yeah.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

At a certain point, yet more wealth becomes meaningless.

If Musk bought Twitter as a financial investment, it was likely a pretty terrible one based on what he’s done to the place. But I don’t think he did.

Wealth begets power, in various ways. He essentially conquered one of the most preeminent platforms for discourse and influence, and the dissemination of narratives, and we see that that means. With significant influence over these things he can achieve things that can never be bought outright.

Bingo....

I see X as Musk's marketing appendage of all his other assets.

In other words, any costs associated with it are probably considered by him to be an "operating expense" and not an investment.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Musk likely bought X for some of the same reasons Soros is buying control of a couple of hundred radio stations. People who believe ideologically-inclined billionaires shouldn't be buying messaging platforms can sort out the differences to justify one or the other in their own minds. One of the differences is that Musk gets a lot of flak from politicians who don't like his messages, and Soros's application at the FCC (an exception to foreign ownership rules) was expedited and granted.

 

[KevinB]

Interesting thoughts on JD Vance and his constant state of change.

JD Vance 4.0 Is Here

The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.

open.substack.com

 

[GR66]

Interesting thoughts on JD Vance and his constant state of change.

JD Vance 4.0 Is Here

The latest upgrade to JDos aims for a chaotic-good character alignment. Not sure how well MAGA is going to take to that.

open.substack.com

The MAGA folks are going to vote for Trump regardless. Vance 4.0 wasn't directed at them. His targets were the non-MAGA Republicans (or undecided voters - if there's still such a thing in the US) that may have been tempted to sit this election out because they don't feel comfortable voting for what they see as an extreme ticket.

A reasonable, more traditional political performance by Vance may convince some of them that a 2nd Trump White House might be less radical/unpredictable than they fear and get them out to vote. In a race as close as this one it could actually make a difference in some States.

For that reason I'd call the debate a "win" for Vance. More "crazy town" would have been a draw but unlike Vance I don't see anything in Walz's performance that would change anyone's voting intention or intention to vote.

$0.02

 

[KevinB]

The MAGA folks are going to vote for Trump regardless. Vance 4.0 wasn't directed at them. His targets were the non-MAGA Republicans (or undecided voters - if there's still such a thing in the US) that may have been tempted to sit this election out because they don't feel comfortable voting for what they see as an extreme ticket.

A reasonable, more traditional political performance by Vance may convince some of them that a 2nd Trump White House might be less radical/unpredictable than they fear and get them out to vote. In a race as close as this one it could actually make a difference in some States.

For that reason I'd call the debate a "win" for Vance. More "crazy town" would have been a draw but unlike Vance I don't see anything in Walz's performance that would change anyone's voting intention or intention to vote.

$0.02

No questions on Ukraine, which disappointed me.

Both to me were fairly unimpressive, so I don’t think that performance is changing anyone’s opinions.



Vance is just showing that he’s nothing but an opportunist who while say/do anything to gain power/attention. It’s pretty clear he doesn’t even like Trump but will kiss the ring to get ahead. Time will tell how that works for him.

 

[KevinB]

Admittedly I thought DuffleBlogs take on the debate was best.

Zyn, Rip It sponsor first enlisted VP debate

"Who better to sponsor this historic debate than these two powerhouses of enlisted life?”

open.substack.com

 

[dimsum]

Admittedly I thought DuffleBlogs take on the debate was best.

Zyn, Rip It sponsor first enlisted VP debate

"Who better to sponsor this historic debate than these two powerhouses of enlisted life?”

open.substack.com

Ford declined to sponsor with its “Mustang at 29.99% APR deal at the shady dealership off-base”.

 

[KevinB]

While it may be better suited to the other thread, I think it is also very relevant to the election, so…

Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump

Judge Tanya Chutkan made public portions of a filing by prosecutors setting out their argument for why the case should go forward despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Blackadder1916]

While it may be better suited to the other thread, I think it is also very relevant to the election, so…

Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump

Judge Tanya Chutkan made public portions of a filing by prosecutors setting out their argument for why the case should go forward despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

www.nytimes.com

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0.pdf

Makes for juicy reading.

 

[Lumber]

While it may be better suited to the other thread, I think it is also very relevant to the election, so…

Judge Unseals New Evidence in Federal Election Case Against Trump

Judge Tanya Chutkan made public portions of a filing by prosecutors setting out their argument for why the case should go forward despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

www.nytimes.com

@brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard @brihard

 

[QV]

One Month Before Election Day, Judge Chutkan Allows Jack Smith to Broadcast His Evidence | National Review

The supremes’ immunity ruling provided pretext for publicizing allegations against Trump in the campaign stretch-run. Will it matter?

www.nationalreview.com

Andrew McCarthy, not a Trump fan, has some comments on this lawfare.

 

[Brad Sallows]

While it may be better suited to the other thread, I think it is also very relevant to the election, so…

If it doesn't sway the election, it will just be self-inflicted damage - another "democratic norm" breached.

 

[Baz]

Andrew McCarthy, not a Trump fan, has some comments on this lawfare.

I would listen to that argument, except for this (Mitch McConnel on what should happen because of 6 Jan during the impeachment):

There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.
We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

Trump has done everything he could possibly do to avoid that consequence before this election, including having a Supreme Court he put a third of in place (enabled by, who was that again, oh yeah, Mitch McConnell) muddy the waters on what he was allowed to do as president. So, yes it is politics that this is being rolled out now, but... is it lawfare if by all indications you are guilty of the crimes for which you are charged.

To put it a different way, MAGAs believe that the country is at risk, and Trump is the useful idiot they've chosen to save it, at all costs in some cases. Other's believe that Trump is actually that existential risk, so shouldn't they do everything in their power to keep him from returning?

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, yes it is politics that this is being rolled out now, but... is it lawfare if by all indications you are guilty of the crimes for which you are charged.

Lawfare (in the sense of being applied against individuals) has to have a basis in law; it wouldn't make sense for the matters brought before the courts to not be plausible. What makes it "lawfare" is when rules are applied selectively with ulterior aims. People in positions to take action have vowed to "get Trump" and his associates and some of his supporters; that toothpaste isn't going back into the tube. Everyone involved in the pursuit of punishment seems to have the forethought of Cersei Lannister. "Rule of law" requires consistency.

 

[Baz]

What makes it "lawfare" is when rules are applied selectively with ulterior aims.

The argument can be made just as easily that his allies have applied the rules selectively whenever they are able to for the opposite ulterior aims...

SCOTUS has a black cloud hanging over them that two of them have evidence that they are corrupt, and one of those two should have reclused from the Presidential Immunity case and did not. Their answer to that seems to be a shrug and "what are you going to do about it?"

The problem is a small minority on both sides are absolutely convinced that they are right and unless they do something the end is nigh (Trump, by the way, has thrived by encouraging them they are right), and are willing to do whatever it takes to "get their way."

I think Trump, if not one of those that planted the seeds of lawfare, certainly has been more than willing to water it most of his life. You reap what you sow...

 

[Brad Sallows]

The argument can be made just as easily that his allies have applied the rules selectively whenever they are able to for the opposite ulterior aims...

SCOTUS has a black cloud hanging over them that two of them have evidence that they are corrupt, and one of those two should have reclused from the Presidential Immunity case and did not. Their answer to that seems to be a shrug and "what are you going to do about it?"

You'll have to show your work for that one. I've read plenty about the allegations against Thomas and Alito. Essentially all of it comes down to the colloquial "nothingburger". As I wrote in one of the threads here a while back, a simple application of common sense should be enough: the people trying to light those flames are picking arguments over chickensh!t; they display high motivation, so if they had anything substantial, they'd use it; ergo, there's nothing substantial. It's fair for people to complain that certain things should be included in ethical standards, but it isn't fair to judge ethical conduct by what you think should be included. It's fair to judge by the rules and customs that are.

The "black cloud" over SCOTUS is that progressives have their noses out of joint about particular decisions that didn't go their way and some among them are willing to employ almost any tactic, up to and including veiled threats against the safety of justices, to try to influence the court.

I think Trump, if not one of those that planted the seeds of lawfare, certainly has been more than willing to water it most of his life. You reap what you sow...

Trump certainly engaged in the rhetoric (eg. "lock her up"). But the thing is, he didn't actually follow through. That sets him apart.