Media propagandist scrubbing their own references

[Bradskii]

No, I'm being judged as a Trump supporter simply because I post critically of Democrats. Try to find something that I've posted in support of Trump. Go ahead. I'll wait...

What I will find is that all your posts are critical of the left. Nobody would consider you to be sitting on the fence. Or sitting anywhere near it.

 

[probinson]

What I will find is that all your posts are critical of the left. Nobody would consider you to be sitting on the fence. Or sitting anywhere near it.

Explain to me how being critical of the left indicates that I'm a Trump supporter.

 

[Bradskii]

Explain to me how being critical of the left indicates that I'm a Trump supporter.

I didn't say that you were. I said that all your posts are critical of the left. You are not equitable in your criticisms. You are not, as I said, anywhere near that fence. There's a gargantuan amount of options that you have to be critical of the right in general and Trump (and now Vance) in particular. If someone were to make a list of people with views that balance positions on the right and the left (there are a few on the forum) then you wouldn't be on it.

 

[probinson]

I didn't say that you were.

No, but others have. They assume that because I am critical of the left that must mean I support Trump. Just look at the responses, talking about how "my guy" does much worse. Trump isn't "my guy" and he never has been. So why do people just assume that someone critical of Democrats is a Trump supporter?

I suspect this is because the best rebuttals require them to try to play with whataboutisms. But they tend to fall flat when the person you're speaking with doesn't support EITHER candidate.

I said that all your posts are critical of the left.

I'm not a fan of absolutes, but I will grant you that as a conservative-leaning moderate, I am far more vocal in my criticism of the left than the right.

You are not equitable in your criticisms.

Neither are you.

You are not, as I said, anywhere near that fence.

I guess it depends what "that fence" is.

There's a gargantuan amount of options that you have to be critical of the right in general and Trump (and now Vance) in particular. If someone were to make a list of people with views that balance positions on the right and the left (there are a few on the forum) then you wouldn't be on it.

And neither would the majority of the US electorate.

There are far more Independents than either Republicans or Democrats.

Further, independents tend to have a slightly more conservative leaning.

So it should come as no surprise that an independent, such as myself, has conservative-leanings yet does not support Trump nor Harris. I suspect that many Independent voters feel the same way.

 

[Bradskii]

No, but others have.

Take it up with them.

I'm not a fan of absolutes, but I will grant you that as a conservative-leaning moderate, I am far more vocal in my criticism of the left than the right.

That's all that was said.

Neither are you.

I'm pretty certain that no-one is confused about my political leanings.

So it should come as no surprise that an independent, such as myself, has conservative-leanings yet does not support Trump nor Harris. I suspect that many Independent voters feel the same way.

From Pew: 6 facts about U.S. political independents

'Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.'

Those 7% are the Independents. Although it really has me beat that anyone could be in two minds about the options being given to them today. I guess they're 'A pox on both your parties' types. There's rarely a third option other than not voting. Whereas in places such as Australia there are rafts of Independents in every election. It's never a two horse race. I think there were around 15 options I had last time out for the Senate and House of Representatives.

 

[probinson]

Take it up with them.

I have.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but this is a public forum, where lots of people are talking. You opted to respond to a post I made where I wasn't even speaking to you, which is certainly your prerogative in this public setting, but it's a bit disingenuous to interject yourself into a conversation and then try to tell me to take it up with "them".

That's all that was said.

No, that's not all that was said.

This exchange started when I got this response.

Oh, no. We see that you guys care. A whole lot. Being convicted of felonies, adjudicated a rapist, cheating on pregnant wives with adult film stars, not so much, but using a politically effective label for the opposition? Oh yeah. You care about that.​

Clearly this poster is referencing Trump in their response to me. So I corrected them to let them know that I don't support Trump. This diatribe 1) doesn't address the issue I have with the media trying to engage in historical revisionism re: Harris being the "border czar" and 2) is misdirected, because I don't support Trump and never have. In fact, Trump is the reason I changed my voter registration in 2016 from Republican to Independent.

I'm pretty certain that no-one is confused about my political leanings.

Clearly.

From Pew: 6 facts about U.S. political independents

'Only 7% of Americans overall don’t express a partisan leaning, while 13% lean toward the Republican Party and 17% lean toward the Democratic Party.'

Yes, just about everyone leans one way or the other. Some of those "leans" are harder than others. That doesn't make them any less Independent.

Those 7% are the Independents.

No, as the historical graph I posted showed, roughly 43% of the electorate identifies as Independent. That doesn't mean they don't lean one way or the other, but they are not loyal to any political tribe.

 

[Bradskii]

No, as the historical graph I posted showed, roughly 43% of the electorate identifies as Independent. That doesn't mean they don't lean one way or the other, but they are not loyal to any political tribe.

In this current political environment I personally doubt that there are many truly independent voters who are just waiting to be persuaded one way or the other. I could certainly understand that there were people who could never vote for Trump and were concerned enough about Biden to not vote for him. But the situation has changed.

I get the feeling, not just from this forum but from watching and reading a lot about the election over the last few weeks - from all sources, right and left, that there has been a considerable change. And that those 7% as I mentioned earlier will end up in the Harris camp. Now whether they actually get out of the house and vote is another thing. But you've seen how many volunteers that the Harris campaign picked up last week. There appears to me to be a groundswell of support, not just for Harris, but how can I say it...a groundswell of relief that they at last have someone who they can vote for.

And it's now Harris and any one of the leading contenders (Buttigieg?) versus a convicted felon and Vance. Any disinterested independent would call it a no contest.

 

[probinson]

In this current political environment I personally doubt that there are many truly independent voters who are just waiting to be persuaded one way or the other. I could certainly understand that there were people who could never vote for Trump and were concerned enough about Biden to not vote for him. But the situation has changed.

Not really. Harris has pretty much the same policies as Biden, and she is actually much more to the left that Biden was. This is the main reason her campaign flopped in 2020.

I get the feeling, not just from this forum but from watching and reading a lot about the election over the last few weeks - from all sources, right and left, that there has been a considerable change.

The excitement is palpable. It's also mostly manufactured. As I've pointed out, just days before Biden dropped out, the media was calling Harris the least electable candidate for the Democrats. Suddenly, she's an unstoppable juggernaut. It's laughable that anyone thinks that there was this massive transformation in just a few days.

And that those 7% as I mentioned earlier will end up in the Harris camp.

What makes you say that? Some will, no doubt, but others won't.

Now whether they actually get out of the house and vote is another thing. But you've seen how many volunteers that the Harris campaign picked up last week. There appears to me to be a groundswell of support, not just for Harris, but how can I say it...a groundswell of relief that they at last have someone who they can vote for.

Yes, Democrats are positively giddy. Others, not so much.

And it's now Harris and any one of the leading contenders (Buttigieg?) versus a convicted felon and Vance. Any disinterested independent would call it a no contest.

Right now the polls show Trump with a slight edge. Within margin of error, it's a statistical tie. You'd think if it were that cut and dry Harris would be running away with this thing. But, the Democrats chose the "least electable" candidate from their pool. So she's got that working against her.

 

[Bradskii]

Not really. Harris has pretty much the same policies as Biden...

Of course she does.

The excitement is palpable. It's also mostly manufactured. As I've pointed out, just days before Biden dropped out, the media was calling Harris the least electable candidate for the Democrats. Suddenly, she's an unstoppable juggernaut. It's laughable that anyone thinks that there was this massive transformation in just a few days.

There was a guy in his eighties who was starting to show signs of what we'd expect in someone of that age. Notwithstanding that the finish line wasn't November, but 4 years from there. Now we have a relatively young, smart, well spoken woman, with policies that match what the majority of Americans want (women's rights, gun control, education etc). You better believe that the excitement is palpable. And the fact that this is going to be a (relatively) short campaign is to her benefit. She'll work up momentum and it will take her to the finish line.

Yes, Democrats are positively giddy. Others, not so much.

Yes. Democrats that might not have voted for Biden are excited. Others can see some light at the end of what has been perceived generally as a dark and dismal tunnel.

Right now the polls show Trump with a slight edge. Within margin of error, it's a statistical tie. You'd think if it were that cut and dry Harris would be running away with this thing. But, the Democrats chose the "least electable" candidate from their pool. So she's got that working against her.

You are right. Trump with almost everything going for him as far as populist politics will allow, versus a rank outsider. Who was suddenly plucked from relative obscurity (as if the VP could be considered 'obscure'). And after less than two weeks, she's effectively neck and neck.

And let's be really honest here. Trump has picked a complete klutz as VP. Whoever Harris picks will be streets ahead. This is only going to go one way. The best option they have is to drag the campaign into the gutter. She's a woman! She's Asian! She's black! She's a liberal! The last of which isn't really gutter politics - it's stating the bleedin' obvious. An uber conservative who wants to take the US backwards. Or someone who wants greater freedom for all.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it is just tribal affiliation signaling.

Wearing the correct colored shirt on game day, as it were?

 

[probinson]

Of course she does.

Having the same policies as Biden is not an asset to her. It will be a liability for many voters.

There was a guy in his eighties who was starting to show signs of what we'd expect in someone of that age.

Just so we're clear, the Democrats noticed signs of cognitive decline in Biden as far back as 2021 and said nothing. So let's not pretend like this was a surprise. It wasn't.

Now we have a relatively young, smart, well spoken woman, with policies that match what the majority of Americans want (women's rights, gun control, education etc). You better believe that the excitement is palpable. And the fact that this is going to be a (relatively) short campaign is to her benefit. She'll work up momentum and it will take her to the finish line.

I agree that a shorter campaign will be to Harris' benefit. The more time people have to really listen to her positions, the further she'll sink. Just like in 2020, when she failed to secure a single delegate of her own volition.

Yes. Democrats that might not have voted for Biden are excited. Others can see some light at the end of what has been perceived generally as a dark and dismal tunnel.

I'm not sure why you're pretending to speak for "others". I've seen Republicans say they'll vote for Harris, and I've seen Democrats say they'll vote for Trump. No one really has any idea how this is going to shake out. We're in completely unprecedented territory.

You are right. Trump with almost everything going for him as far as populist politics will allow, versus a rank outsider. Who was suddenly plucked from relative obscurity (as if the VP could be considered 'obscure'). And after less than two weeks, she's effectively neck and neck.

And let's be really honest here. Trump has picked a complete klutz as VP. Whoever Harris picks will be streets ahead. This is only going to go one way. The best option they have is to drag the campaign into the gutter. She's a woman! She's Asian! She's black! She's a liberal! The last of which isn't really gutter politics - it's stating the bleedin' obvious. An uber conservative who wants to take the US backwards. Or someone who wants greater freedom for all.

Yes, let's be really honest here. A golden retriever could have pulled even with Trump in polling once they ditched Biden. Democrats are ecstatic to be rid of Biden. But they've chosen the candidate that the NYT dubbed "the least electable" of the potential Biden replacements. The reasons for that have not gone away.