I wonder if they will be cheering if they are devasted in November's election? They are alienating women and the LGBT communities which together represent many many votes.I'm sure the right wingers will be cheering for their success at the SC today.
10-year-old girl denied abortion in Ohio
A 10-year-old girl was denied an abortion in Ohio after the Supreme Court ruled last week that it was overturning Roe v. Wade, demonstrating the tangible impacts that the high court’s decision is h…thehill.com
USSC strikes down Roe v Wade
- Thread starter Darts
- Start date
Thought it looks like the SC may set it up so the states can ignore democracy and send in GOP electors.
Nancy: call your contact at the CNN and see if we can avert this abortion. Aid: we'll do, ma'am, they always play along.
So your position is that it's all made up?
Just pinning you down for future reference.
Those were the only other people running?
I seem to remember a bigger field.
I just think you are misremembering things.
Trump was ahead in the polls incredibly quickly.
Sure lots of pundits thought he was a joke and would flame out, but he went into that first debate in August leading Bush by 7-10 points.
He had been gaining momentum the whole time.
And that first debate Bush said going into Iraq was a mistake. (Mealy mouthed, sure, in a "if we had known then what we know now then it shouldn't have happened" kind of way, but he says it was a mistake.)
Trump barely talks about Iraq. He says he was against the war all the way back in 2004 because it was going to destabilize the Middle East.
He was already in front and saying that he called it a mistake in that first debate is what got him there is just wrong.
In one of those later debates he had a big showdown with Bush about it on stage and maybe that's where you noticed, but the overall premise you're pitching here doesn't seem to hold up.
Quick side note.
How much of a fan of wrestling are you and what do you mean by "shoots" here?
I agree with some of this that drove his appeal, sure. People wanted someone who would "shake things up" and he was already a celebrity, he is good at TV. The Press *LOVED* him and gave him lots and lots of free air time because it was "better TV" and happily participated in the kayfabe for the most part. (Not all - the Press was pretty divided but the people calling the shots about airing him loved it.)
Prove it.
Obama was using opposition to the war in his campaign. "The Iraq war was a mistake" was not an uncommon position.
Megyn Kelly had been trying to get Bush to say it for weeks before the first debate, which is why it came up and why she insisted Bush give an answer on stage. Which he did - he said it was a mistake.
Which is why I don't understand why you are saying that Trump copying what was common wisdom at the time was what scared military folks.
I agree.
Everyone could tell he was chaos and most people dislike chaos - not just contractors.
But that's a totally different argument than saying him saying the Iraq war was a mistake worried the contractors.
Him being unstable and corrupt worried the contractors, sure.
He came off as unpredictable (even though he turned out to be fairly predictable after all, despite his temperamental nature and was easy to put into the pocket of anyone as long as they let him wet his beak) and incompetent.
That worried everyone who didn't want all kinds of things to get broken up, good and bad.
But him being unstable had little to do with him saying Iraq was a mistake and that certainly wasn't what made him the front runner because he was leading the polls almost from the start.
July 1st 2015 polling shows Bush at 19% Trump at 12%, according to CNN. So your spread is reversed. As the Debates were one month later and the announcements had only come in one montb before I'm betting these numbers held leading up to the debate.
A Wrestling shoot are the interviews/rants/tirades that set up the storylines, tell character stories, promote talent, or just to say shit to rile up and engage the crowd. Its what made the likes of Hogan, Stone Cold, The Rock etc. The best went off the cuff, no script and could do 20 minutes easy.
And "Lock her up" had the same cadence and feel as any wrestling catchphrase.
The rest is just a difference of opinion. Proof will never happen.
If you really mean 2015, then no one took Donno's candidacy that seriously. If you mean 2016, Trump had a huge lead by March.
As soon as he emerged as a serious candidate and not just a PR stunt, he had a huge lead.
I just double checked and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch already are on the record supporting this.
You have to remember that the point of this isn't that particular case and its result. The point is to get the "independent state legislature doctrine" onto the books in a majority opinion.
Once it is there, the Supreme Court can just uphold anything the state legislatures do that they agree with and not even listen to arguments or explain their reasoning.
I have no reason to think ACB is going to resist this push. She doesn't strike me as having any great principled belief in voting.
One question seems to be Roberts. Roberts has led the charge on crushing voting rights and disenfranchising people since he got in.
That's his main deal. He has said he wouldn't go for the ISLD but that seems more like he would try and finesse it.
He might go for the same thing as with Dobbs - uphold the decision but say he isn't supporting the doctrine. The doctrine will still be majority but he will get his ass covering.
Last edited:
OK. I often criticize you for being dumb or ignorant about politics, but I don't think I've ever accused you of being dishonest.
But here you are deliberately picking a July 1 polling number when just about every news story you would ever look up will point out that Trump was leading the polls going into the August 6, 2015 debate.
You don't even have to go to the Real Clear Politics poll average (found here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html#!) and look at the numbers there.
You wouldn't even have to make that minimal effort. Just read ANY news story about the debate with a simple Google search.
But you instead went back to beginning of July to try and present a false narrative here and it is hard for me to think that was just laziness in this case since the lazy approach would have given you the pre-debate numbers.
OK.
So you aren't a wrestling fan and don't know what you are talking about.
That's an interview or a promo.
A shoot is one where you break the storylines and reveal something real and truthful that doesn't follow the script or the kayfabe. (Kayfabe is the fake conflict and storylines.)
This comes from "shooting" on someone which wasn't about the interviews at all, but about using real moves in the ring to win when you weren't supposed to. ("Shooting" being legitimate pro style before everything was fixed. A "shooter" was someone who knew how to actually wrestle real competitive professional style, which was needed in case someone went off-script and you needed to keep them in line back when the territories would often try to fuck each other over.)
So if you want to say that Trump was cutting promos on people... sure.
If you want to say he was "shooting" -- more iffy. He certainly went off the accepted script of what was expected for debates and speeches, but he sure as fuck wasn't breaking script by being true (maybe for the racism and authoritarianism I suppose) - he was just replacing their kayfabe with his own bullshit.
Not really.
That he said what he said is documented.
But I do agree that like most of your narratives about these things, it is impossible to prove since you like to just assign motivations to people that you can't possibly know.
Well yes.
They rule on this next session, and it is in place for 2024.
No point in ruling on it afterwards, you can't use it to steal the election as easily.
What was happening were numerous polls daily with low person contacted averages with high margins of error. And wildly fluctuating leaders based on who was in the news that day.
Trump solidified his support by knocking out Bush. Thats just a fact.
And the Shoots, interviews, promos have all blended now. And have for decades. Trump took that off the cuff style to 1 hour+ long rallies as opposed to the canned speeches of opponents. You just didn't watch him.
This is insanity!!
metro.co.uk
10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio after Supreme Court ruling
The overturning of Roe v Wade is already having profound impacts on women and girls.
metro.co.uk
Yes, this is what happens when right wingers get their way.This is insanity!!
10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio after Supreme Court ruling
The overturning of Roe v Wade is already having profound impacts on women and girls.
I put the actual link and the actual polls for a reason.
I completely agree that he consolidated support by knocking out Bush.
That's how elections with large numbers of candidates work - people drop out and the support coalesces to the people remaining.
What I am objecting to is your weird insistence that him saying to Bush he thought Iraq was a mistake in the first debate was "The Thing".
- He had already passed bush in the polls and had momentum before the first debate. So much so that he was center stage at that debate - which is given to the person leading the polls.
- He had been attacking Bush for all kinds of shit (remember "low-energy Bush"?) so the idea that was the key thing doesn't make sense. If anything on national security, I would say Trump attacking Bush by saying his brother failed to protect the US on 9/11 was a bigger deal in terms of "breaking away from the accepted script".
- He didn't confront Bush about Iraq seriously at that debate anyway. At that debate Bush said it was a mistake and Trump didn't particularly mention it, other than saying he was the only one who knew it was a bad idea and would lead to destabilizing the middle east back in 2004.
- None of the specifics of how he beat Bush make your "the military contractors were against him because he thought Iraq was a mistake" more plausible. "He was unstable and they don't like unstable" is plausible, but has nothing to do with your original argument.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about. It doesn't matter that you don't know details about wrestling jargon or aren't a big fan.
It's actually beside the point you are trying to make, so using the jargon incorrectly just takes away from your point.
There! Was that so hard?
You wanted to compare Trump's "off the cuff" style to the boring speeches.
You can use "shoot" for that. "He made his speeches seem like a shoot, instead of a scripted promo."
I would argue that Trump did a really good job of the "worked shoot" style of cutting a promo.
You could also just argue that he knew how to cut a promo and make it entertaining, while the others were bad on the mic.
The fact he always used the same catch phrases and call and response argues against him even trying to make it a shoot or even pretend it was a worked shoot, he just knew how to cut a promo and they didn't.
Being good on the stick is an art form, not just in wrestling.
(I still argue "worked shoot" because part of his appeal was pretending he was going against the establishment and saying things he wasn't supposed to say. Some of that was also true, which is always needed for a worked shoot.)
