I only saw Urquiza, and she gave a great speech. It's the powerful response to the idiocy of let me know when someone has "lied to me about something as major as Benghazi."

Quote:Kristin Urquiza appeared on the screen to talk about her father’s having been one of the fatalities of the pandemic. (Urquiza already became something of a star when she blistered Arizona Governor Doug Ducey in her father’s obituary.) Talking straight to camera, Urquiza brought the hammer:

The coronavirus has made it clear that there are two Americas, the America that Donald Trump lives in, and the America that my father died in. Enough is enough. Donald Trump may not have caused the coronavirus, but his dishonesty and irresponsible actions made it so much worse...He voted for him, listened to him, believed him and his mouthpieces when they said that coronavirus was under control and going to disappear...He died alone, in the ICU, with a nurse holding his hand...My dad was a healthy 65-year-old. His only pre-existing condition was trusting Donald Trump and for that, he paid with his life.

Did not see Bernie, but here is a piece from his speech:

Quote:Together we have moved this country in a bold new direction showing that all of us—Black and white, Latino, Native American, Asian American, gay and straight, native born and immigrant— yearn for a nation based on the principles of justice, love, and compassion. Our campaign ended several months ago, but our movement continues and is getting stronger every day. Many of the ideas we fought for, that just a few years ago were considered “radical,” are now mainstream. But, let us be clear, if Donald Trump is re-elected, all the progress we have made will be in jeopardy. At its most basic, this election is about preserving our democracy. During this president’s term, the unthinkable has become normal. He has tried to prevent people from voting, undermined the U.S. Postal Service, deployed the military and federal agents against peaceful protesters, threatened to delay the election and suggested that he will not leave office if he loses. This is not normal, and we must never treat it like it is.

And did not see Michelle Obama, but I was curious if/how she would re-visit the high/low comments she is remembered for from 2016.

Quote:Over the past four years, a lot of people have asked me, "When others are going so low, does going high still really work?" My answer: going high is the only thing that works, because when we go low, when we use those same tactics of degrading and dehumanizing others, we just become part of the ugly noise that's drowning out everything else. We degrade ourselves. We degrade the very causes for which we fight. But let's be clear: going high does not mean putting on a smile and saying nice things when confronted by viciousness and cruelty. Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountain top. Going high means standing fierce against hatred while remembering that we are one nation under God, and if we want to survive, we've got to find a way to live together and work together across our differences.

And going high means unlocking the shackles of lies and mistrust with the only thing that can truly set us free: the cold hard truth. So let me be as honest and clear as I possibly can. Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po...lle-obama/

Bunch of commies.

The most striking thing to me was the video clips from all of the Republican voters saying they would not be voting for Trump. Kasich's speech was also decent and Cindy McCain will have a video clip tonight. The Dems are clearly going after the moderate voter and the regretful 2016 Trump voters.

Trump and the Republicans will have to hope they can either a) have great turnouts from the lower 40s percentage that approve of his job performance or b) that turnout for Biden is not high, as I think the number of people who voted for Trump in 2016 that will either be abstaining from voting / voting for Biden / voting for third party is much higher than the number of Clinton / 2016 third-party voters that are converting to Trump.

(08-18-2020 07:36 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The most striking thing to me was the video clips from all of the Republican voters saying they would not be voting for Trump. Kasich's speech was also decent and Cindy McCain will have a video clip tonight. The Dems are clearly going after the moderate voter and the regretful 2016 Trump voters.

By running the most extreme leftist ticket ever. Interesting how much cover their stooges in the MSM are giving them. Kamala Harris a moderate? That's nuts. Biden is no moderate, but he's way more moderate than she is. And she is very likely the vilest human being ever to appear on a US presidential/VP ticket.

(08-18-2020 07:36 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The most striking thing to me was the video clips from all of the Republican voters saying they would not be voting for Trump. Kasich's speech was also decent and Cindy McCain will have a video clip tonight. The Dems are clearly going after the moderate voter and the regretful 2016 Trump voters.

Trump and the Republicans will have to hope they can either a) have great turnouts from the lower 40s percentage that approve of his job performance or b) that turnout for Biden is not high, as I think the number of people who voted for Trump in 2016 that will either be abstaining from voting / voting for Biden / voting for third party is much higher than the number of Clinton / 2016 third-party voters that are converting to Trump.

Maybe... I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right... just I have almost the opposite perspective.

"Never-Trumpers' existed in 2016 as well. This is 'the establishment' fighting for relevance much in the way they tried and failed in 2016. The couldn't get the convention to turn against their constituents, and they sure can't when he's an incumbent. They didn't even run anyone against him.

Cindy's been to my house. She's not a conservative... let's just say that. John was one of my dad's roommates at the academy and groomsmen. I've tailgated with him. Like many people, JMac of 1980 and JMac of 2010 were very different people. Dad went to the War College with Colin, played on sports teams with him... Dad worked for him on the JCS and he's also been to the house. He's a good man, but also not especially conservative. 'Form' and 'respect' are very important to him... and clearly they are not to Donald. Has nothing to do with policies, but personalities. It's like Republicans putting black Republicans on their platform. I don't see many black people being swayed by that. Like Democrats, I just see it as the parties making themselves feel better. LOOK, we got THIS guy. I think old white man Biden's 'you ain't black' comment would sway more (but not many) votes.

Roughly 50% of the 60% of people who don't approve of Trump are democrats... who wouldn't vote for him anyway.... and as we learned in 2016 (and other years)... you don't need 50.1% of the vote... You just need 50.1% of certain states. NY and CA voters who are part of that 60% (from either party) don't matter one bit, nor do they help Biden. I say this because I know some California Republicans who no longer support Trump, in no small part but because Trump has pretty openly not supported California so they haven't seen benefits of his election, and the 'anti-Trump' rhetoric out there is so aggressive that its just not worth the effort.

I disagree that the number of leftists who didn't support Hillary will be bigger than the number who don't support Biden. The party has moved even further left since 2016... I've seen my son and some of his NY friends describe Biden AND HARRIS as 'Republicans'.

This isn't Biden's first run at this office, and the party hasn't 'come to him' in terms of policies. This is just another year of awful candidates that I can't explain.

(08-18-2020 07:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 07:36 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The most striking thing to me was the video clips from all of the Republican voters saying they would not be voting for Trump. Kasich's speech was also decent and Cindy McCain will have a video clip tonight. The Dems are clearly going after the moderate voter and the regretful 2016 Trump voters.

By running the most extreme leftist ticket ever. Interesting how much cover their stooges in the MSM are giving them. Kamala Harris a moderate? That's nuts. Biden is no moderate, but he's way more moderate than she is. And she is very likely the vilest human being ever to appear on a US presidential/VP ticket.

have you noticed that the messaging in no way promotes their platform or their stances, but hammers at 'OMB'.

Krist, I'd run the hell away from their policies as well.

I can summarize their platform stances in four two word sentences.

Take things. (you name it they want to take it --- more income tax, more death tax, guns that look bad, etc.)

Stop things. (oil pipelines, fracking, use of hydrocarbons, use of firearms, etc.)

Redistribute things. (self explanatory)

For fairness. (blahbitty blah blah blah)

In all honesty, I am sure that one can describe the Trump platform in related ways. At least some there might have a common sense basis ---

(08-18-2020 07:36 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The most striking thing to me was the video clips from all of the Republican voters saying they would not be voting for Trump. Kasich's speech was also decent and Cindy McCain will have a video clip tonight.

I didn't watch. Did they say they would be voting FOR Biden? Voting FOR Biden is way different from NOT voting for Trump. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but that does not mean I voted for Hillary.

So, between me and Kasich, Trump has gained one vote from 2016, when he went 0-2 for the pair of us.

Kasich was my favorite in 2016, but if he is supporting the leftists now, he won't get my support in 2024. Like Benedict Arnold, I don't about his reasons or his grievances, if he is helping the enemy, he is the enemy.

(08-19-2020 01:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I can summarize their platform stances in four two word sentences.

Take things. (you name it they want to take it --- more income tax, more death tax, guns that look bad, etc.)

Stop things. (oil pipelines, fracking, use of hydrocarbons, use of firearms, etc.)

Redistribute things. (self explanatory)

For fairness. (blahbitty blah blah blah)

Well said. When the first three things are done to our leftists, they will console themselves with the fourth one.

Summary of tonight.

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

If you didnt already know, those two are lifelong Democratic donors in St Louis.

Now being prosecuted by the St Louis DA for having the temerity facing off a rather decent sized mob of of your all's 'peaceful protesters' who had happened to tear the gate to their house down its hinges, some of whom were armed, and were making threats against the couple.

But please, leave that context off the table.


The St Louis DA has gotten ***** slapped by the Missouri AG for her prosecution, not just for the crystal clear defense of defending against a threatening mob, but also in which she is reported to have had altered evidence (the handgun, which had a reversed firing pin rendering inoperable, the techs were told by the DA office to put the firing pin in the proper position) to sustain a higher charge (use of a deadly weapon).

But again, please feel free to leave that context off the table.

(head slap emoji)

(08-20-2020 08:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

If you didnt already know, those two are lifelong Democratic donors in St Louis.

Now being prosecuted by the St Louis DA for having the temerity facing off a rather decent sized mob of of your all's 'peaceful protesters' who had happened to tear the gate to their house down its hinges, some of whom were armed, and were making threats against the couple.

But please, leave that context off the table.


The St Louis DA has gotten ***** slapped by the Missouri AG for her prosecution, not just for the crystal clear defense of defending against a threatening mob, but also in which she is reported to have had altered evidence (the handgun, which had a reversed firing pin rendering inoperable, the techs were told by the DA office to put the firing pin in the proper position) to sustain a higher charge (use of a deadly weapon).

But again, please feel free to leave that context off the table.

(head slap emoji)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-m...democrats/

Quote:What's True
Over the past 20 years, Mark McCloskey has made political contributions to both Democratic and Republican political campaigns. Between 2004 and 2012, FEC records show he donated to Democratic candidates, and more recently McCloskey has donated to a few Democrats on the local level.

What's False
However, the majority of McCloskey's political donations since 2012 have gone to Republicans, including many contributions to U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Yes, true blue, lifelong Democratic donors...

(headslap emoji)

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

They don't look that scared to me.

I don't see what the colour of their skin has to do with anything?

But maybe my perspective is flawed (?). Would you respond differently if they had been non 'white'?

(08-20-2020 08:26 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

They don't look that scared to me.

I don't see what the colour of their skin has to do with anything?

But maybe my perspective is flawed (?). Would you respond differently if they had been non 'white'?

Weird - if they were not scared of the protesters in the street, on their way to the mayor's house, why did they come out of their house holding guns? They just felt like pointing them at people? If so, that's even more concerning than them being scared that the crowd could turn violent...

The color of their skin was noted for two reasons - they brandished the guns as BLM protestors walked by who were predominantly black (and not violent in this instance per videos) and they're being asked to speak at the RNC for some reason (and the RNC is a rather racially homogeneous group still).

(08-20-2020 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

If you didnt already know, those two are lifelong Democratic donors in St Louis.

Now being prosecuted by the St Louis DA for having the temerity facing off a rather decent sized mob of of your all's 'peaceful protesters' who had happened to tear the gate to their house down its hinges, some of whom were armed, and were making threats against the couple.

But please, leave that context off the table.


The St Louis DA has gotten ***** slapped by the Missouri AG for her prosecution, not just for the crystal clear defense of defending against a threatening mob, but also in which she is reported to have had altered evidence (the handgun, which had a reversed firing pin rendering inoperable, the techs were told by the DA office to put the firing pin in the proper position) to sustain a higher charge (use of a deadly weapon).

But again, please feel free to leave that context off the table.

(head slap emoji)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-m...democrats/

Quote:What's True
Over the past 20 years, Mark McCloskey has made political contributions to both Democratic and Republican political campaigns. Between 2004 and 2012, FEC records show he donated to Democratic candidates, and more recently McCloskey has donated to a few Democrats on the local level.

What's False
However, the majority of McCloskey's political donations since 2012 have gone to Republicans, including many contributions to U.S. President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Yes, true blue, lifelong Democratic donors...

(headslap emoji)

I guess what actually happened at the house is of utterly no consequence to you in your need to make a comment.

Fine, they contributed to both. How does that affect anything in their actions and the actions of the mob above? Another 'correction' without a difference. Goes hand in hand with those distinctions without a difference we see on a somewhat oft basis.

The important thing is what happened there, which to repeat, you seemingly dont give a flying whit about in your race to knock them. Good job.

(08-20-2020 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:26 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

They don't look that scared to me.

I don't see what the colour of their skin has to do with anything?

But maybe my perspective is flawed (?). Would you respond differently if they had been non 'white'?

Weird - if they were not scared of the protesters in the street, on their way to the mayor's house, why did they come out of their house holding guns? They just felt like pointing them at people? If so, that's even more concerning than them being scared that the crowd could turn violent...

The color of their skin was noted for two reasons - they brandished the guns as BLM protestors walked by who were predominantly black (and not violent in this instance per videos) and they're being asked to speak at the RNC for some reason (and the RNC is a rather racially homogeneous group still).

If you bothered to read of the incident, the 'protestors' knocked through an iron gate to move into their yard.

I dont give a flying fk if a group is black, brown, mixed or purple. If they literally feel the need to break through an iron gate to get into my house, there is enough of an issue there for self-defense. Except, I guess, in lad world where the urgent need is to *only* state the fact that the mob that broke down the was 'predominantly black' and the people that had the temerity to defend were white.

I thought at one point you *werent* a typical identity politics kneejerk type --- perhaps I was mistaken.

So now we have lad as the 'Feds should never defend their property from the mobs', and now 'lets mock a couple for having the temerity to defend themselves from a mob that broke through an iron gate to get into their yard'. That is quite the record you are piling up on your respect of the ability of oneself to defend themselves from mob action.

That is, unless the mob is white nationalists, then you seemingly blame *everyone* in the mob for the actions of even the one.

(08-20-2020 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:26 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(08-18-2020 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bunch of commies.

Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

They don't look that scared to me.

I don't see what the colour of their skin has to do with anything?

But maybe my perspective is flawed (?). Would you respond differently if they had been non 'white'?

Weird - if they were not scared of the protesters in the street, on their way to the mayor's house, why did they come out of their house holding guns? They just felt like pointing them at people? If so, that's even more concerning than them being scared that the crowd could turn violent...

The color of their skin was noted for two reasons - they brandished the guns as BLM protestors walked by who were predominantly black (and not violent in this instance per videos) and they're being asked to speak at the RNC for some reason (and the RNC is a rather racially homogeneous group still).

Weird - you need to research the shopkeepers in Korean Town during the LA riots. I don't think those 'Koreans' were scared and unbelievably few, if any, of their shops were looted or burned.

Did the McCloskeys 'point' their firearms only at black protestors? That would be racist regardless of the threats they made or represented?

(08-20-2020 08:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 08:26 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2020 06:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2020 11:22 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Next week -- bunch of fascists!

C’mon, that’s hyperbole. It’s going to be a bunch of scared, gun toting white folks.

They don't look that scared to me.

I don't see what the colour of their skin has to do with anything?

But maybe my perspective is flawed (?). Would you respond differently if they had been non 'white'?

Weird - if they were not scared of the protesters in the street, on their way to the mayor's house, why did they come out of their house holding guns? They just felt like pointing them at people? If so, that's even more concerning than them being scared that the crowd could turn violent...

The color of their skin was noted for two reasons - they brandished the guns as BLM protestors walked by who were predominantly black (and not violent in this instance per videos) and they're being asked to speak at the RNC for some reason (and the RNC is a rather racially homogeneous group still).

If you bothered to read of the incident, the 'protestors' knocked through an iron gate to move into their yard.

I dont give a flying fk if a group is black, brown, mixed or purple. If they literally feel the need to break through an iron gate to get into my house, there is enough of an issue there for self-defense. Except, I guess, in lad world where the urgent need is to *only* state the fact that the mob that broke down the was 'predominantly black' and the people that had the temerity to defend were white.

I thought at one point you *werent* a typical identity politics kneejerk type --- perhaps I was mistaken.

So now we have lad as the 'Feds should never defend their property from the mobs', and now 'lets mock a couple for having the temerity to defend themselves from a mob that broke through an iron gate to get into their yard'. That is quite the record you are piling up on your respect of the ability of oneself to defend themselves from mob action.

That is, unless the mob is white nationalists, then you seemingly blame *everyone* in the mob for the actions of even the one.

The gate that protestors walked through (photos show it wasn’t broken) was the entry way to the neighborhood. These people live on a private street that the mayor lives on...

Do we have reports of other people on the street pointing guns at the protestors?

(08-20-2020 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  and the RNC is a rather racially homogeneous group still).

Self-selection, not exclusion. That goes directly to why I posted the video of the Baltimore candidate - she was making a point that black people don't have to vote Democrat. Yet many of them never even consider the alternatives.

Two anecdotes:

I played in the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas several times. The field was 93% male. Democrats, misusing their proportionality rule, would just point to the raw numbers and take this to mean the WSOP was sexist. Nope. Anyone over 21 who showed up with the entry fee was taken. The women self-selected themselves into a tiny minority. Self-selection.

Many years ago a friend was running for Justice of the Peace. He ran into a woman he knew at the store and asked her to vote for him. She gushed, "pOf course, gene, I would vote for you in a heartbeat!" He then gave her his card, and when she saw that he was running as a Republican, she said. "Oh, no, Gene, I can't vote for you, my daddy would turn over in his grave if I ever voted for a Republican!". Inability to consider the alternative.

Until the black community starts listening to both sides, they will keep electing leaders like the ones who have made Baltimore such a wonderful place to live. And maybe both sides will pay more attention to courting them.