• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Dude, not even a chance. Even without seeing the results of all the mainstream polls showing them both hovering around 50%, it would still be obvious to us that any poll done On Twitter is under bullshit and worthless. So, no, we wouldn't have the opposite reaction. Unlike some, we aren't ignorant sycophants and we'd call a spade a spade.
I mean if an Musk poll on twitter between Harris and Trump returned a 75 to 25 result in favour of Harris I would be pretty shocked/impressed
 
Saying that in a time when video games is a multi-billion dollar industry, and when celebrities (Henry Cavill being one) being fine with making their love of video games part of their public persona, really shows how in-touch you are.



1724277380234.png
 
I mean if an Musk poll on twitter between Harris and Trump returned a 75 to 25 result in favour of Harris I would be pretty shocked/impressed
Are you suggesting the majority of Musk's 195 million followers are all MAGA? Or is it likely there are a large number of centrists and left leaning folks also following the former darling of science and the environmental movement?

His final poll result of over 5.8million voters is 73% Trump to Harris' 27%.

This is not nothing.
 
Are you suggesting the majority of Musk's 195 million followers are all MAGA? Or is it likely there are a large number of centrists and left leaning folks also following the former darling of science and the environmental movement?

His final poll result of over 5.8million voters is 73% Trump to Harris' 27%.

This is not nothing.
Are those 5.8 million voters all American? What percentage is American of voting age? It means nothing if anyone on X who follows him can vote - they could be not of voting age, not American, or both.

I would also suggest that Musks’s leanings for the past few years (specifically, after he bought Twitter) have alienated most of the left-leaning folks who liked his original sci/env stance. He is not the darling of the left anymore.
 
Are you suggesting the majority of Musk's 195 million followers are all MAGA? Or is it likely there are a large number of centrists and left leaning folks also following the former darling of science and the environmental movement?

His final poll result of over 5.8million voters is 73% Trump to Harris' 27%.

This is not nothing.
A great many Twitter users think Musk is a complete clown, and have him muted or blocked and won’t engage with him or his polls. Many users are bots, a great many aren’t American. You basically couldn’t find a less rigorous method of polling American political sentiment that a poll posted by Musk open to all Twitter users.
 
Are you suggesting the majority of Musk's 195 million followers are all MAGA? Or is it likely there are a large number of centrists and left leaning folks also following the former darling of science and the environmental movement?

His final poll result of over 5.8million voters is 73% Trump to Harris' 27%.

This is not nothing.
Tell us you don’t understand polling without telling us.

5.8 million of 108 million American users. Now one has to understand how those users actually use X. So 5% of the total user population. Decent sample size but likely too big (polls skew when they go too big or too small).

Most Republican users of Xare likely to respond on X than democrat who are likely more likely to retweet or share.

Accurate polling requires methodology to capture the right demographics and correct for any variances. I doubt that Musk did any of that. So quite likely this is all an echo chamber poll that captured who might actually be following musk and motivated to answer his poll.

5 million dollars is not nothing, but 5 million dollars in bananas is.

This is mostly bananas.
 
You don't need to get nasty.

Harris has never polled above 5% in anything related to the presidency or past primary - within her own party. To suggest she is now somehow the star DNC candidate is bizarre at best. There were plenty of options to choose from.
It would seem that 40% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think you’re wrong.

 
Interesting.

So his campaign in 2006 tried to explain it away. But in 2018 he himself gave the more accurate version.

They fact checked him on what was said by his campaign in 2006 which he corrected in 2018 which is what seems to be consistant with the actual facts.

Not sure how this hurts him much.
 
Interesting.

So his campaign in 2006 tried to explain it away. But in 2018 he himself gave the more accurate version.

They fact checked him on what was said by his campaign in 2006 which he corrected in 2018 which is what seems to be consistant with the actual facts.

Not sure how this hurts him much.
I think most voters are already decided. I don’t think a very dated DUI pled down to reckless driving by the VP candidate on the Dems’ ticket will weigh much on people’s minds. It’s not to the Republicans’ advantage to make much noise about a misdemeanor conviction from the mid 1990s given their candidate’s current legal woes.
 
It's not about the DUI. He lied about a legal matter and tried to cover it up. It goes to honesty, integrity and trust. Can he be trusted to tell the truth? Confirming the facts and walking back your lies, after you've been exposed doesn't cut it. Not in politics. The millstone will always be there. Many are of the mind that a skunk can't change his stripes.
 
It's not about the DUI. He lied and tried to cover it up. It goes to honesty and trust. Can he be trusted to tell the truth? Confirming the facts and walking back your lies, after you've been exposed doesn't cut it. Not in politics. The millstone will always be there.

Yeah, the Republicans are in even more danger if they try to make a big issue of honesty and trustworthiness, but they’re welcome to go for it.
 
It's not about the DUI. He lied and tried to cover it up. It goes to honesty and trust. Can he be trusted to tell the truth? Confirming the facts and walking back your lies, after you've been exposed doesn't cut it. Not in politics. The millstone will always be there.
how does that benefit the Republicans given who their candidate is?
 
Yeah, the Republicans are in even more danger if they try to make a big issue of honesty and trustworthiness, but they’re welcome to go for it.
Yeah, but what about Walz. Do you not think that his mistruths and omissions make him suspect? Are you willing to accept whatever he says without reserve?
 
It's not about the DUI. He lied about a legal matter and tried to cover it up. It goes to honesty, integrity and trust. Can he be trusted to tell the truth? Confirming the facts and walking back your lies, after you've been exposed doesn't cut it. Not in politics. The millstone will always be there. Many are of the mind that a skunk can't change his stripes.
Except he used a long tradition of having his campaign do all of that not him. He can claim his campaign was mistaken or what not.

In 2018 however HE owned up to it. Not his campaign.

The republicans should tread lightly on lies and that being the barometer…
 
Yeah, but what about Walz. Do you not think that his mistruths and omissions make him suspect? Are you willing to accept whatever he says without reserve?
I don’t take anything any politician says without reserve. However he also later took ownership, pled guilty, did his time, and all of that is now a great many years ago. He’s also only the VP candidate, making all of this much less significant electorally than the candidate for president.

I hardly need to go into any of Trump’s litany of blatant lies and integrity failings; we’re all well aware already. I believe I’m correct to point out that Trump’s own much more recent and severe history of dishonesty and lack of integrity makes it hazardous to try to push any such narrative with regards to Walz. It’s risky to highlight a perceived character deficit in the other guy if it’s much more profoundly present and severe in yours.
 
Except he used a long tradition of having his campaign do all of that not him. He can claim his campaign was mistaken or what not.

In 2018 however HE owned up to it. Not his campaign.

The republicans should tread lightly on lies and that being the barometer…
Really? The buck stops with him. If his campaign lied, he knew about it. If not, he shouldn't be in office. He hired them.

As far as him correcting himself, I already addressed that. Coming clean, after you've been exposed, isn't correcting. It's trying to cover your ass and begging forgiveness for getting caught in a lie.

Let's just stick,to the subject and quit trying to whataboutism this to the opposition.
 
I don’t take anything any politician says without reserve. However he also later took ownership, pled guilty, did his time, and all of that is now a great many years ago. He’s also only the VP candidate, making all of this much less significant electorally than the candidate for president.

I hardly need to go into any of Trump’s litany of blatant lies and integrity failings; we’re all well aware already. I believe I’m correct to point out that Trump’s own much more recent and severe history of dishonesty and lack of integrity makes it hazardous to try to push any such narrative with regards to Walz. It’s risky to highlight a perceived character deficit in the other guy if it’s much more profoundly present and severe in yours.
Because he got caught. That's the only reason he changed his story. It not excusable 'because he's only the VP.'

But I see you and Remius want to switch the narrative back to the Mean Orange Man and absolve Walz, so go ahead. I've made my point and can leave this discussion be.
 
Really? The buck stops with him. If his campaign lied, he knew about it. If not, he shouldn't be in office. He hired them.

As far as him correcting himself, I already addressed that. Coming clean, after you've been exposed, isn't correcting. It's trying to cover your ass and begging forgiveness for getting caught in a lie.

Let's just stick,to the subject and quit trying to whataboutism this to the opposition.

I mean, if you want to make the subject to be about how much the VP pick matters in a presidential election, that could be fun for the Democrats too. Vance isn’t exactly a stellar choice.

Whether the Republicans like it or not, any criticism they apply to the Democrats, any attempt to highlight potential flaws, real or perceived, has the potential to backfire badly if those flaws are not unique to the Democrat candidate. That’s a reality of electoral politics when you form a strategy of focusing on personal qualities and behaviour.

By all means focus on things Walz has said or done that betray deficiencies in character. Just be cognizant that if you make (insert subject here) matter in the campaign, you likely can’t keep it to mattering only in the case of the other guy. Being hoisted by one’s own petard can suck.
 
Back
Top