Sean Mooney

Horseman once linked here to a gay porn site so if anyone would know "gay sources" it is him. It's most likely the only thing he knows

Yeah...where is Horseman to show outrage over that stuff?

As I said in the other thread- I thought both her and Baier came off well in the interview as they pushed enough from either side for the interview to be challenging but also for her to hit some key points she needed to hit. I'm with you too on the Biden question. She isn't going to throw him under the bus. And really what good would it do her to say "Yeah I noticed he was senile in June of 2023." It is just going to lead to more questions and it will piss off voters in the Democrat party which she doesn't want to do.

The FOX interview I thought both Kamala and Baier came out of it looking good. For Baier- he was taking heat almost immediately for the idea he was going to lob softball questions (some from pundits, some from idiots here). Trump's campaign also put out something saying that FOX News was "bought" by the Kamala team. Baier did not lob softballs. He went at Kamala on her positions, he challenged her with video clips of things she said and tried very hard to get her to lock in on answers. At times he came off a little too combative- like he was more determined to get his question in as opposed to letting her answer and I think he did the one thing you don't do at a journalist which is look at a condensed time frame and try to fill that space up. By throwing too much in it became cluttered at times. But still- he made a good showing of himself as a journalist which is why many people view him as one of the only reasons to pay attention to FOX News. One spot where I think they erred- and I'll blame the FOX News producer for it and not Baier- is that they did play only a portion of the clip on what Trump said about the DOJ stuff to Faulkner. They played the full clip earlier in the day but only played part of the clip here. Not sure if it was done with malicious intent but Kamala was right to point out that it was not the full clip and Baier did seem to let it go. For Kamala- she had some weak moments obviously. But she didn't tilt into random stream of consciousness stuff. She stayed sharp and focused on what she was trying to get out. Her strongest moments were in definitively stating she would not be a continuation of the Biden presidency. She presented herself as having different ideas and goals and pledging to work with Republicans across the aisle is a nice reach out moment. Also, for those that questioned her toughness she went right back at Baier in the interview and as they tried to talk over one another she met the challenge and rose above his voice to finish out points. The answer on Biden's mental acuity was about as good as you can get on that topic. I know it's what people want but she isn't just going to throw Biden under the bus. That would turn off as many people as it would bring to her side I'd imagine. She also did a good job in painting Trump as someone who doesn't like when people disagree with him. The strong part was when Baier asked "Are you saying the people who don't support you are wrong?" And she pretty emphatically answered No and that "this is for the presidency of the United States. It isn't supposed to be easy." Again- obviously there were bad moments. She didn't really have a good answer for the 3 and a half years thing. She should have explained the Trump point of running for a decade without saying to Baier, "You get what I'm saying..." But she didn't come off poorly and she should really offer to do another interview or two there. She did a good thing too at the end to make sure to credit Baier for his journalism chops. Trump would be firing missives off all night calling Anderson Cooper or Nicole Wallace a nasty person for the interview. She came off as sane and presidential.....I'm not sure that's enough though at this point.

If she is ahead by 5 and it is her largest lead it is currently the outlier. That's how these things work.

A Fox News poll has her ahead in battleground states across the board but behind nationally overall. Just for the chaos it'd be hilarious to see her lose the popular vote but win the electoral college. Role reversals would be hilarious.

I still say Trump wins with like 282-286 electoral votes

This must be that lying MSM people always talk about here....

I mean you could've put a lot of names of posters on this board in the middle there

Here is another bottom line: Twitter user "BlackInsurrectionist" is a babbling idiot and anyone who buys his garbage is a drooling, booger eating moron.

Ponderosa/Bonanza Steakhouses closed a bunch of stores by 2002 and the loss is still felt. Thanks Biden!

So it isn't the fault of politicians for attempts on Trump then correct?

For the second time now...yes. I've only spoken to January 6th. It is my belief that you can't just say "no one suggested to them anything..." because that would indicate Trump is not aware of the power of his words whether implicitly or explicitly stated. I think he is aware and should have known how some people there would take what he was saying.

Target could've been used in my example as well. From my house- Walmart is a 5 minute drive. Target is a ~12 minute drive....I'll take the 5 minute drive even if Target is a nicer store in general.

I already see where this is going....but I'll play along to give you another chance here. You were excusing away the 01/06 mob as seeing what BLM did and thinking they could do it too. You also said no one suggested anything to them, yet they felt empowered to take such action. I said this- which essentially is saying Trump has to take some blame for January 6th at least because he knows how some of those people in that crowd were going to take his words. He isn't an idiot.

You could turn this all around, swap Biden and Trump's names and post it towards a vast number of posters here.

Exactly....and that gas station might at some point give way to the Walmart that will open another mile down the road which allows you to do all that as well without feeling like you might need to be hyper cognizant of your surroundings.

So am I reading this correct that you want to absolve Trump of blame?

And again- Walmart has a pharmacy. Target has a pharmacy. Costco has a pharmacy. Wegmans does. Hell Giant does. I can go into Giant, give them my refill stuff, go grocery shopping, and grab my script on the way out. Long gone are the days of "Go to Walgreens, drive a half a mile down the road through traffic to go grocery shopping. Drive a half mile back and cut across traffic to grab my script." Americans want convenience and the system has given us that. Unfortunately a byproduct of that is some places becoming relics.

If we want to we can. To do that we also need to acknowledge the role of things said- again either implied or explicitly laid out- as influencing certain pockets of citizens. Are you prepared to apply that logic evenly to both situations?

Be it January 6th, the BLM, or any other event in history like those things there are obviously people there for true blue reasons of expressing outrage. There will of course always be people who use that as the jumping off point for causing chaos. People did it in the summer of 2020, people did it January 6th. Here's where I differ. Trump is not a dumb person. He recognizes what he is saying- despite it being implied or as coded as possible- and had to know some people were going to take what he said in a wild direction. I just do not believe he is completely unaware that he has devotees who will walk the ends of the earth for him when he says things like "I could shoot someone and people would still support me."- paraphrasing that comment obviously. But let's say he is unaware of that.....once everything started happening on January 6th you can see how people are taking your words. Why wouldn't you step in quicker to try and diffuse it? This all is the equivalent to me of someone planning an outside picnic despite storm clouds rolling in. You ignore it, and ignore it and set out food only for it to being pouring down rain and you think "Oh man...now it's raining." And I'm sure you will say now "BLM, Summer 2020." And yes- I agree there were politicians saying stuff there that either implicitly or explicitly- that they should've known how it would've been taken.

Social media has ruined political discourse in a lot of ways. People make up stories, share them for likes and views, they get watched and it conditions someone's world view by shrinking what they see. Then people have to go above and beyond the first crazy story to keep getting views and likes. This is pretty much me too and I feel your pain. I am a Republican at heart as that is what I registered as when I could first vote and I was for many of their policies even up through the beginnings of Trump (like up through the first few months of his Presidency) but the complete fealty to Trump has turned me off from them. On the flip side- I appreciated Obama and what he was trying to do but then as the Democrats far left started pushing further into crazy town they lost me. Give me a moderate candidate on either side and I could be swayed away from being an independent as I am registered right now. Jerry- let's say you don't parrot what Trump says. I'm willing to accept the premise. But would you agree there are plenty of posters here who accept what Trump says at face value at all times and/or spread nonsense stories from the far right and pass them off as gospel?

Sears was pretty famously mismanaged too leading to its demise. It's a shame that people are so beholden to businesses anymore that a business declining has to be the politician's fault and not the fault of bad management.

Walmart has it..Target has it....usually cheaper than at Walgreens

Using betting market odds to determine who is "in the lead" is almost as equally as dumb as using polls.