Mark Davis

I think you're wrong here. I doubt this debate makes a difference, but Walz has stumbled multiple times and got caught in a lie looking very awkward. Vance whether you like him or not is quite smooth and intelligent. You can dislike his views, but he's winning this debate so far. I have to admit Harris won the other debate, but Vance is winning this one quite handily so far.

Let me know if you ever hear the number that fair share represents. I've asked and listened, never heard a politician who says this give what that number is.

He just said it, bingo!

here comes "fair share"

He's definitely that. He also was on the front line of the Dems replacing Biden immediately after the debate. I think he realizes what some of the woke stuff does to her chances in some of the swing states.

I always liked Carville and found him entertaining but he's gotten crotchety in his old age. They've had him on News Nation a few times and he doesn't like to hear dissent.

To me the most disqualifying thing in the whole story is this guy went onto a site called Nude Africa and used his actual name to post.

Gotta love the guy doing nothing wrong and his parents footing the bill for the house and she wants 100% of it. My cousin ran into this but switch the husband/wife side. My uncle paid for his daughter and her husband a home, after their kids got college age the divorce came and the husband fought for every dime he could get out of it. I tried to tell my uncle to schedule him a visit from the Welcome Wagon but he really isn't vindictive to that degree.

Totally missed it. Been a long day!

Hamas and Hezbollah are big on blending into the population and not wearing uniforms. If anything, this was the most targeted way to attack them.

Damn, you can't even go to a terrorist's funeral these days without the fear of random violence.

To say he voted for Trump is a little misleading given his social media posts. It would be like describing my politics because I voted for Clinton at some point. I doubt you see me to the left today. He obviously had moved far away from Trump given what has come out and was certainly not a Trump supporter now. Giffords was in 2010 (perhaps early '11 I just remember it because I was flying to AZ when it happened), Scalise is at least a few years back now, Pelosi a couple. All of these disturbed individuals but I don't think any were triggered by any one candidate or talking point. I don't think any of these acts were done because they perceived an immediate threat to the country, but more so just some disturbed viewpoint of politics or even just people who are flat out disturbed. I agree that's way too many instances and I'm sure there are others I left out, and the rhetoric overall needs to be tamped down and these type individuals are triggered periodically by the overall tone. You can go back and find where I was critical of the 1/6 actors and support prosecuting them. There is no equivocation. Just because one side did one thing doesn't make the other ok or normalized. Trump uses harsh rhetoric, much of that is why I didn't vote for him in the primary. Yes, I wish he would tone it down and I think to some extent that would help him politically as well. But the facts are that it's his life that has had attempts on it multiple times in the past few weeks. We can say "both sides" all we want, but the reality is that it hasn't been both sides as far as plots on people's lives go.

Not to the degree they are now I don't believe so. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 so I wasn't all in tune with it and honestly could not be remembering the entire thing. The democracy on the ballot, I think that's fairly new or more of a rallying cry this cycle. We can have differing opinions and that's fine. But statistically this period is obviously an outlier for assassination attempts, both have been directed at Trump. I just find it odd that the man people are trying to kill is the one that the narrative is being spun towards blaming. If the man is so awful and his followers are so awful, it seems like the worst acts are being attempted against him.

I understand your meaning. However, I'm 50. Just a couple months ago in my entire lifetime, there had been one attempt on a President or presidential candidate's life in that entire time. There have been two on Trump's life since then in just this short window. If what you are saying is true and they are equally bad, then where are all the attempts on Biden and Harris? Factually the two things aren't equal. When democracy is on the line, our democracy is ending, a dictatorship on day one, is what they are telling you will happen if Trump wins, it shouldn't be a surprise that some people act on those hyperbolic statements because they take them at face value.

I have not

You're kind of agreeing with me. It's not absolute. There's a scale to people who only use it as hyperbole to those who accept it as 100% factual. The majority of people who support Harris are falling in between those two points. My thinking is though that when you examine that spectrum, the people on that endpoint of believing he's a dictator, Hitler, the end of our democracy, all things that have been said, it's easy to see why people who take it as factual try to act. In their mind they are doing the right thing.

Because it's to be expected. Apparently the would-be gunman has tweeted that "Democracy is on the ballot". The hyperbole of Trump being a dictator, losing our democracy, etc is bound to illicit these type actions. If people truly believe that, of course they are going to take action. The rhetoric justifies it in and of itself. Deep down most people who say it know that at least to some various levels of extent, it's hyperbole. We know that because if they didn't, there would be even more of this. But you have those who truly believe it as totally factual, and in that context they will view themselves as patriotic actors.

He's probably overqualified. I hadn't thought about this in years but I remember this same guy swung on and hit our elementary PE teacher while in elementary school. The PE teacher was a younger guy. I'm talking about he got one of the worst paddlings I ever saw. This was the early 80s but somehow he had some early video camera to record, made a tape of the guy crying at the end of it to show off. Stuff you'd be fired and prosecuted for today. Hard lesson to learn, but nobody F'd with that teacher after that.

It's like the guy I went to high school with who never turned in any work. I was up at the Civics teacher's desk one day, a class that was required for everyone and not advanced, and saw in the grade book a line of zeroes, then under final grade "60". Just wanted the problem out of there.

Anyone who needs a celebrity to tell them who to vote for should sit it out. Whether that’s Taylor Swift or Curt Schilling. I wouldn’t let either run my investment portfolio so I don’t really need their advice beyond their area of expertise.

I think neither side has the hold on low IQ voters. Just look at our cities who continue to elect the same leadership while their citizens are mired in poverty and whose schools can't do much of anything on grade level.

Yep. The few politicians I know are some of the biggest lowlifes I've ever met. I don't have some kind of moral hope for them. I view them like attorneys, all with contempt but sometimes necessary to do what you want or represent you. Not that they are doing it for the right reasons, but that you can align their end goals with yours.

I'm not telling him anything. I'm asking both Putin and Zelensky questions, questions about what they can live with to end this with the parameters being Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The alternative is an endless stalemate of endless dollars and lives lost. I don't think you want that but surely you don't think Russia is just going to suddenly turn around and go home. We have to find some way to incentivize them, whether that's acknowledging land in Crimea, the Donbas, whatever it may be. And yes, Zelensky and Ukraine will have a say in that. But ultimately I think Zelensky also knows, regardless of what he must say openly in public, concessions are going to have to be made.

Shockingly for all our bickering I agree with most of this.

We agree it's well spent, but it shouldn't be in perpetuity. We need to help, but we need to have a realistic objective. Just throwing money into a stalemate is not a long term plan.