Post election prediction

[TysonLPrice]

Thing is, he's talking about deporting legal ones. You know those Haitians who are eating cats and dogs () well they're currently in the US legally under Temporary Protected Status. Trump wants to revoke it.

And his idea of stopping wars is letting the aggressors have their way...

[sapator]

Thing is, he's talking about deporting legal ones. You know those Haitians who are eating cats and dogs () well they're currently in the US legally under Temporary Protected Status. Trump wants to revoke it.

Good good more food on the table for discussion if he gets elected.
With if's and but's there is no solid subject for conversation, that is why I say when he gets elected. Not too long now anyway. It's...Oh 5 days give or take.

Let's look at the bets also.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/bet...2024/president

OK he was 61 now he is at 62.8 . Is it possible that the bets are so off ? The scam of the century will be if he knows that he will not be elected and best every penny he's got to Harris!

[FunkyDexter]

With if's and but's there is no solid subject for conversation

It's what he's saying, among some other quite disturbing things, and if people are deciding where to put their support that's all they have to go on.

As for who's likely to win, betting odds don't mean much so I wouldn't bother looking at them. Polls run by media organisations (e.g. CNN and Fox) don't mean much more because the motivation behind their production isn't prediction accuracy, it's about pandering to the audience of that media. Probably the best yardstick available is independent polls, e.g. YouGov, because the motivation to produce those is predictive accuracy - if they get it right this time their stock goes up because people are more likely to believe them next time. But even independent polls are less than reliable because forecasting is an inherently unreliable problem space.

Personally, looking at the indie polls, I think Harris is going to win but I wouldn't want to imply much confidence in that. The polls are neck and neck, let alone within the margin of error, across the battle ground states. This election isn't going to come down to the number of supporters each side has, it's going to come down to how many of those supporters actually go out and vote. My Harris prediction is based on two factors: 1. Trump overperformed his polls in 2016 but has been underperforming ever since. The Dems over performed in 2018, 2020 and 2022. 2. I think turnout is going to be heavily driven by each side's fear of what the other represents. My gut feeling is that Harris supporters are somewhat more fearful of what Trump would do than Trump supporters are fearful of what Harris would do... it is only a gut feeling though.

[wes4dbt]

I think turnout is going to be heavily driven by each side's fear of what the other represents. My gut feeling is that Harris supporters are somewhat more fearful of what Trump would do than Trump supporters are fearful of what Harris would do... it is only a gut feeling though.

I agree, I hope the Dem's are focusing on the turnout. It sounds like they are.

[dilettante]

The reality is getting out to voters. They are seeing even newspeople get fed up.

Conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt storms off Washington Post stream, quits newspaper



A longer clip shows Ruth Marcus sputtering and then going offline, leaving only Uncle Tom there on the WaPo plantation to gradually fizzle out.

This sort of thing is really turning heads among the fence-sitters.

[FunkyDexter]

...Uncle Tom...

Let's not start reaching for the racist epithets. That won't end well. It also seems uncharacteristic for you.

Other than that, you're point is that a Trump supporter stormed off when pressed. I think I might be misunderstanding you.

[TysonLPrice]

Let's not start reaching for the racist epithets. That won't end well. It also seems uncharacteristic for you.

Other than that, you're point is that a Trump supporter stormed off when pressed. I think I might be misunderstanding you.

Somehow the original character got twisted to be an insult:

"Uncle Tom is the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The character was seen in the Victorian era as a ground-breaking literary attack against the dehumanization of slaves. Tom is a deeply religious Christian preacher to his fellow slaves who uses nonresistance, but who is willingly flogged to death rather than violate the plantation's code of silence by informing against the route being used by two women who have just escaped from slavery."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Too bad...

[wes4dbt]

Somehow the original character got twisted to be an insult:

"Uncle Tom is the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The character was seen in the Victorian era as a ground-breaking literary attack against the dehumanization of slaves. Tom is a deeply religious Christian preacher to his fellow slaves who uses nonresistance, but who is willingly flogged to death rather than violate the plantation's code of silence by informing against the route being used by two women who have just escaped from slavery."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Too bad...

That's interesting.

[dilettante]

Such predictable overreach and overreaction.

Uncle Tom:

1. a Black person who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)

2. a person who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority:

"the worst floor managers and supervisors by far are women … Some of them are regular Uncle Toms"

—Jane Fonda

But surely anyone raised in the US outside of lily-white suburbs already knows that.

[dilettante]

Other than that, you're point is that a Trump supporter stormed off when pressed. I think I might be misunderstanding you.

The guy was not a Trump supporter, and has criticized him many times. That's why he was a Washington Port employee.

The real point is that he refuses to lie in the service of acting as a DNC operative any more. Basically he's been pushed too far to deliver fake news any more, his conscience won't allow it.

But again, surely you already knew all of that.

[TysonLPrice]

Such predictable overreach and overreaction.

Uncle Tom:

1. a Black person who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)

2. a person who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority:

"the worst floor managers and supervisors by far are women … Some of them are regular Uncle Toms"

—Jane Fonda

But surely anyone raised in the US outside of lily-white suburbs already knows that.

You missed the point...he was written as an outstanding character, twisted into a disparaging term in modern times. I was also a little surprised you posted that. It does seem out of character.

I'm guessing you didn't look at the link or you would know how wrong you are...but, I don't look at yours either

[Peter Porter]

Let's not start reaching for the racist epithets. That won't end well. It also seems uncharacteristic for you.

Other than that, you're point is that a Trump supporter stormed off when pressed. I think I might be misunderstanding you.

Hugh wasn't pressed. He just didn't like what Jonathan was about to say about his reporting.

Jon should've kept his cool and not jump on Hugh like that. He should've discussed more about those lawsuits that won instead of getting personal.

[TysonLPrice]

Down to the wire...I'm curious if anyone here thinks Trump will accept the election results if he loses?

[Peter Porter]

The guy was not a Trump supporter,

Hugh voted for Trump in late 2016, and a month ago stated in his vlog that he's voting for Trump again.

The real point is that he refuses to lie in the service of acting as a DNC operative any more.

I'm guessing you never read Hugh's column, or listened to him before.

He walked out because it got personal in that live stream.

Basically he's been pushed too far to deliver fake news any more, his conscience won't allow it.

Fake news? Hugh is 100% conservative. His radio show, vlog, and Washington Post column is pro GOP for over 8 years.

Why would you spin this as if he's switching sides now?

[Peter Porter]

Down to the wire...I'm curious if anyone here thinks Trump will accept the election results if he loses?

He wont lose. Have you seen the latest polls?

[Peter Porter]

Um... you don't have to look at the polls.

What have you been up to programwise?

[wes4dbt]

Down to the wire...I'm curious if anyone here thinks Trump will accept the election results if he loses?

Of course he wont accept a lose. He's still claiming he didn't lose 2020. lol

[FunkyDexter]

Such predictable overreach and overreaction.

Uncle Tom:

1. a Black person who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)

2. a person who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority:

"the worst floor managers and supervisors by far are women … Some of them are regular Uncle Toms"

—Jane Fonda

But surely anyone raised in the US outside of lily-white suburbs already knows that.

When you apply it to the only black guy it's pretty clearly racist. Especially when you accompany it with "on the WaPo plantation". This is not up for debate. Don't go down that route.

[dilettante]

You missed the point...he was written as an outstanding character, twisted into a disparaging term in modern times. I was also a little surprised you posted that. It does seem out of character.

I'm guessing you didn't look at the link or you would know how wrong you are...but, I don't look at yours either

No, I didn't miss the point. Wikipedia is known for its far-left bias.

[dilettante]

When you apply it to the only black guy it's pretty clearly racist. Especially when you accompany it with "on the WaPo plantation". This is not up for debate. Don't go down that route.

That's a pretty desperate attempt at demonization.

A reference to one's race is not automatically "racist" nor is the description inappropriate. Edgy? Maybe. But it does make the point.

[TysonLPrice]

No, I didn't miss the point. Wikipedia is known for its far-left bias.

You are flat out wrong. This is ChatGPT:

In Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the main character, Uncle Tom, is portrayed as a deeply compassionate, morally upright, and gentle Christian man who endures unimaginable hardships under the brutal system of slavery. Stowe crafted Uncle Tom as a symbol of resilience and faith, intending to elicit empathy and provoke outrage at the injustice of slavery.

Tom is depicted as self-sacrificing and forgiving, often prioritizing others’ well-being above his own. His steadfast religious convictions serve as his guiding force throughout his life, even when faced with severe cruelty and oppression. Despite suffering under different slave owners, including the benevolent Mr. Shelby and the ruthless Simon Legree, Tom maintains his integrity and kindness, embodying a moral ideal.

[dilettante]

Pretty faithful impression:

[dilettante]

You are flat out wrong. This is ChatGPT:

I suggest you try asking a black American friend what the term means today (and for many decades). Or look in a dictionary as I already cited for you.

[FunkyDexter]

A reference to one's race is not automatically "racist" nor is the description inappropriate. Edgy? Maybe. But it does make the point

It wasn't merely a "reference to one's race" it was a reference to an insult specifically bound to race. This is the last time I'm going to say this before I issue a ban: This is not up for debate, don't go down this route.

[sapator]

Let's all call down with the racist stuff.

Also, I was constantly looking the other way but I would ask admins to issue a ban to people constantly calling Trump Nazi or Fascist. I think it''s only fair.

[TysonLPrice]

I suggest you try asking a black American friend what the term means today (and for many decades). Or look in a dictionary as I already cited for you.

You seem to be missing the point "he was written as an outstanding character, twisted into a disparaging term in modern times". Yes, it is used that way now, it was not originally. But as suggested/directed, I'm dropping it.

[FunkyDexter]

Let's all call down with the racist stuff

I actually agree. As I said, it seemed utterly out of character so let's put it down to a misunderstanding and move on. But nobody should be doubling own on it either. It is considered a racist term and does need to be defended

Also, I was constantly looking the other way but I would ask admins to issue a ban to people constantly calling Trump Nazi or Fascist. I think it''s only fair.

I wouldn't have a problem with "fascist" though I do think it's simply incorrect. I would have a problem with Nazi, given its historical context, if I felt it was part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour or if someone persisted when asked to stop.

What we've see on this forum is some members mention it once or twice, which I don't like but felt was understandable given that it's been used by Trump's own general (though he didn't actually apply it to Trump), then stop when challenged. It probably isn't a useful comparison and, yeah, it's offensive. I'll admit that my concern is more for the offence likely to be caused by survivors and their relatives by it's flippant use rather than for the offence caused to Far-Right Activists but it is offensive either way. I don't feel it's risen the level of meriting a ban but I agree that it's a comparison that should be avoided because it might head that way.

Aside: on the Nazi thing, I think people often miss the difference between Nazi and Neo-Nazi. The former existed at a particular point in history and refers to members of a particular political party. It's the actions they undertook that make flippant comparisons to them so offensive. Neo-Nazi is a catch all term for far right activists who embrace the imagery and ideology of the former but they haven't carried out atrocities on anything like the same scale. I'd still be pretty damn cautious before I call anyone a Neo-Nazi but it doesn't come with the same baggage as Nazi.



^I edited this a few times to (I hope) get my point across. If I've crossed over with anyone's responses and made theirs read wrong, it's probably my fault.

[sapator]

I on the other side do not need to over explain it.
If someone calls Trump a Nazi or Fascist should get a ban warning.
No need for all your explanation, that of course don't mind you doing so but I wouldn't feel the urge to protect a person when his is doin the racist.
Or, we can flip the door both ways. I can certainly say some things for Harris, which I haven't done yet.

[FunkyDexter]

If you're going to double down on this you may want to go back through the thread and see where discussion of Nazis started. It was Niya, in post 143. To be clear, he did not call anyone a Nazi, he said that "the Left wing" were calling Trump a Nazi but, notably, nobody on this forum had at that point. (Aside: They may be, I don't know but I don't think so. Trump was quoted as saying he wished his generals were more like the Nazi Generals which, as a military history nerd, I can kinda get - they were very good at their jobs, but that's not the same as calling him a Nazi. Wouldn't surprise me if some Left Wing talking heads have picked it up and run with it but I haven't heard them).

The closest anyone on this thread has come to calling Trump a Nazi was Wes, in the following post, who pointed out that Trump does meet part of the definition. He did not call Trump a Nazi.

Unless you feel it is the responsibility of the VBF Mods to police the entirety of the media you're tilting at windmills of your own creation.

[sapator]

As per black guy posts my friend.
Be just or don't it's up to you (plural) but it wasn't that hard to spot the racial post and warn people. Granted we did not warn people for Nazi comments as we where not looking at them but I propose to look for Nazi or Fascists from now on.
I certainly don't want wes to get a warning or anyone else but if we decide some "terms" that get a warning we have to implement it.
I don't get the : "VBF Mods to police the entirety of the media" , if you mean the entire of the posts created here then yes, it's you responsibility. Or you mean something else?

[TysonLPrice]

If you're going to double down on this you may want to go back through the thread and see where discussion of Nazis started. It was Niya, in post 143. To be clear, he did not call anyone a Nazi, he said that "the Left wing" were calling Trump a Nazi but, notably, nobody on this forum had at that point. (Aside: They may be, I don't know but I don't think so. Trump was quoted as saying he wished his generals were more like the Nazi Generals which, as a military history nerd, I can kinda get - they were very good at their jobs, but that's not the same as calling him a Nazi. Wouldn't surprise me if some Left Wing talking heads have picked it up and run with it but I haven't heard them).

The closest anyone on this thread has come to calling Trump a Nazi was Wes, in the following post, who pointed out that Trump does meet part of the definition. He did not call Trump a Nazi.

Unless you feel it is the responsibility of the VBF Mods to police the entirety of the media you're tilting at windmills of your own creation.

Personally I don't see what is wrong with calling someone a Fascist or a Nazi if that is what they claim to be. Or if their beliefs are in line with those political positions you should be able to point that. They are political beliefs, right or wrong. I'm pretty sure people from both of those old beliefs are still alive.

Should we start banning people for calling others "democrats?". Well some may think so

[FunkyDexter]

I don't get the : "VBF Mods to police the entirety of the media"

The point was that nobody in this thread has called Trump a Nazi. So your outrage is entirely manufactured. If you're looking for people who have called him a Nazi then you'd have to be looking outside of this forum, we are not responsible for policing that.

As for the Fascist thing, I'm not planning on acting on that. Nazi refers to a particular set of people who carried out heinous atrocities, the survivors and relatives of which are still alive today and merit your (and everyone else's) consideration. Fascist is a political position. I believe it's misapplied to Trump but it is not offensive in the same way as Nazi, they are not equivalent. If I were to ban the word Fascist I would also ban "Socialist" which is equally misapplied. That's just silly on it's face.

I will say this, I'd ban calling people Pedos a whole lot sooner than I'd ban calling people Fascist.

And there we should end the discussion. It's not providing anything useful.

[sapator]

Good.
The Democrats are WOKE fascists.

[FunkyDexter]

^And that is something you're fine to say.

You're wrong, but that's a different conversation

Edit> well, some of them probably are.

[wes4dbt]

And there we should end the discussion. It's not providing anything useful.

I found it entertaining. lol

[FunkyDexter]

I aim to please

(...and get the last word...)

[dilettante]

It feels like a lot of tap dancing and "killing the messenger" to avoid facing the issue.

The fact is we had a news commentator get fed up enough to walk off camera live and then quit over a media outlet's production of campaign ads for a candidate in lieu of news. A clear example of propagandizing and election influencing.

While not unprecedented, that's a pretty darned rare event. It carries more than undertones of "television's finest half-hour" (Edward R. Murrow). Maybe even more so his immediate predecessors who paid a steeper price for calling out McCarthyism.

But before that, Murrow took part in WW II propagandizing:

Edward R. Murrow's WWII "fake news" battle revealed


Much later Murrow reached a breaking point, his conscience winning the battle.

[sapator]

^And that is something you're fine to say.

You're wrong, but that's a different conversation

Edit> well, some of them probably are.

Agreed.
All Fascists are Democrats but only some Democrats are fascists.

[dilettante]

Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian World War II survivor, gives her account of Hitler's takeover of Austria. The similarities to today's left and their "progressive agenda", are staggering! This is a MUST WATCH!

But of course nobody will listen to her. Personal experience and inconvenient facts are irrelevant.


This is an eight year old re-upload.

[TysonLPrice]

In this "tiny" slice of history, in the corner of the world I live in, and other corners of the world, tomorrow is a pivotal point in history. The majority of people are voting red or blue with low information. I worry about the US experiment in democracy.