20M watch first night of DNC, down 22% from 2016 https://t.co/xIEwrwhItP

— Axios (@axios) August 21, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

20M watch first night of DNC, down 22% from 2016 https://t.co/xIEwrwhItP

— Axios (@axios) August 21, 2024

---

What we're all curious about is who won Georgia in 2020 & the size of his crowd on Jan 6

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Donald Trump says he would be open to RFK Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out and endorses him https://t.co/kbXnS8tMyX

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 20, 2024

---

wonder where he will choose.. atty general? Head of FDA?

---

Interior

whiterock said:

---

NM was trending toward toss-up before Biden bowed out........

New Mexico is in play. We see the numbers.

There is going to be massive support from Republicans now.

Come join us as we open yet another Logcabin chapter! https://t.co/YqJXIeLTkI

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2024

---

LOL

If by some miracle Trump carries New Mexico, he will have won the election by such a huge margin that the states electorial votes wouldn't matter anyway.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

4th and Inches said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Donald Trump says he would be open to RFK Jr. playing a role in his administration if the independent candidate drops out and endorses him https://t.co/kbXnS8tMyX

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 20, 2024

---

wonder where he will choose.. atty general? Head of FDA?

---

President's fitness council

The amount of Riot Police tonight in Chicago is truly Insane, the Small Crowds of Pro-Hamas and Palestinian Demonstrators are already Totally Encircled. pic.twitter.com/Y2q6CBneNF

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) August 21, 2024

Looks like J.R. finally replaced the Biden/Harris sign in his yard with a Harris/Walz one.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

NM was trending toward toss-up before Biden bowed out........

New Mexico is in play. We see the numbers.

There is going to be massive support from Republicans now.

Come join us as we open yet another Logcabin chapter! https://t.co/YqJXIeLTkI

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2024

---

LOL

If by some miracle Trump carries New Mexico, he will have won the election by such a huge margin that the states electorial votes wouldn't matter anyway.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

---

Yea for that to happen it would be a "Nixon in in '72" kind of landslide…

Gap is growing

Trump’s lead in the odds is up to 5%. pic.twitter.com/uDguZkd116

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 21, 2024

Was looking at the polls in some detail today, interesting to see what each thinks is/are the most important issue(s). A lot of them did not ask what the major issues were, but I found four that did: TIPP, CBS, WaPo/ABC/Ipsos, and FOX News.

If I use a point system where #1 gets 10 points and so on down to 1 point for #10, here's how the issues played out.

1. Economy (#1 in all polls) 40 points
2. Inflation (2nd in CBS, WaPo/ABC/Ipsos, included in Economy in TIPP) 28
3.Immigration/Border (#2in TIPP, tied for 2nd in FOX) 28 points
4. Abortion (Tied for 2nd in FOX, #3 in TIPP) 23 points
5. Healthcare (Tied for 3rd in WaPo/ABC/Ipsos) 21 points
6t. Threat to Democracy (3rd in CBS, tied for 3rd in WaPo/ABC/Ipsos) 16 points
6t. Crime 16 points
8. Gun Violence/Gun Control 14 points
9. Climate Change 10 points
10. Election Integrity 7 points (only listed in FOX News)
11. National Debt/Spending 6 points (only listed in TIPP)
12t. Foreign Policy 4 points (only listed in FOX News)
12t.Supreme Court 4 points (only listed in WaPo/ABC/Ipsos)
14t. Israel/War in Gaza 1 point (only listed in WaPo/ABC/Ipsos)
14t. Race Relations 1 point (only listed in WaPo/ABC/Ipsos)

Trump led in Economy in all polls, as well as handling Inflation, Crime policies, National Debt, Election Integrity, Foreign Policy and half of gun issues.

Harris led in Abortion, Healthcare, 'Threat to Democracy, Climate Change with slight advantages in Supreme Court, Israel and Race Relations.

Old enough to remember Democrats snarking that George W. Bush's War on Terrorism was stupid because "terrorism is a tactic and you can't war on a tactic."

But now we are going to hunt down and exterminate an emotion. https://t.co/nTm3ZgyGPh

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) August 21, 2024

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

---

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, southern Democrat elites did

---

We have a civil war thread for this stuff....

But yes Lincoln started the war in 1861....his call for 75,000 volunteers and marching them into the Southern States started the war. And sent more States fleeing out of the Union

[His action spurred four of the "holdout" states-Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas-to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy.]

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession by the States and it does not authorize the President to make war on States.

---

Lincoln certainly initiated the Civil War.

But the winners write the vast majority of the history books and our public doesn't care irregardles.

---

It's easy to say the winners write the history books and that might even be true most of the time, but it's curious that most of the civil war history written in the decades immediately after the war take a pro-southern view. Reality is more complicated than the simple slogans that we are used to.

And I already explained how Lincoln did not start the war. That's a popular myth, maybe, but still a myth. He was not anywhere near Ft Sumter when those first shots were fired.

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).

---

Buddy, he tried to get funding from Congress....they refused to act (but they did authorize billions for Israel and wars in the 3rd world)

He went around them and tried to use discretionary funding to build the Wall.

They sued him to stop it....and the Federal courts sided with the Regime to prevent the border wall from being built.

What else did you want him to do? Declare martial law and use the army to throw the bums out of Congress and install some actual Patriots that would build the wall?

I imagine if he did that you would be screaming about how it was un-Constitutional

[SAN FRANCISCO The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to divert $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border wall is unlawful. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Sierra Club v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging President Trump's use of emergency powers to build a border wall using funds Congress explicitly denied.]

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/appeals-court-rules-trumps-border-wall-illegal-blocks-further-construction

---

The strongest critique of Trump's effort on the border wall is that it took him +2yrs to figure out how to do it with existing authorizations & funds.

I don't fault a businessman from the outside for not knowing that backdoor existed when he walked into the office. I can criticize his staff for taking so long to find it.

I also do not understand how anyone interested in stopping illegal immigration could find anyone in their lifetime who has done more to stop it. Not one politician of either party ever spent the kind of political capital Trump did on the issue. Not one politician of either party ever accomplished anything remotely close to what he did. They all spent their time & money facilitating/regulating the flow. Not. One. was interested enough in stopping it, for good, when all of them had the opportunity to do so. The DOD pathway he used has been there for a long, long time.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative, but there was definitely a nexxus between Authorization and use. We need more problem solving like that.

---

did that check from Mexico clear yet. He's full of **** and anyone who believes anything out of his mouth is just foolish. I have never in my life seen a more habitual liar that fat boy. How and why do some of you boys support a liar, ***** chaser, convicted felon and a sexual abuser? Ser/ious question. Please don't give me...I like his policies or he's better than the other choice. please tell me why

---

Doesn't matter what they say. Only matters what they do. Trump did more to achieve campaign promises than any Republican president since Reagan.

why don't you harp on something that matters?

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

NM was trending toward toss-up before Biden bowed out........

New Mexico is in play. We see the numbers.

There is going to be massive support from Republicans now.

Come join us as we open yet another Logcabin chapter! https://t.co/YqJXIeLTkI

— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) August 20, 2024

---

LOL

If by some miracle Trump carries New Mexico, he will have won the election by such a huge margin that the states electorial votes wouldn't matter anyway.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

---

The significance here is that the election is STILL being waged on the blue side of the battlegrounds, no the red side. Always a good sign that a blue light like NM is starting to flicker enough that both sides have to spend a little money there.

J.R. said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.

Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.

As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.

---

Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.

I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.

---

Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?

---

I hope not

Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters

That party would not even get 15% of the national vote…

---

Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.

But more fundamentally to your argument:

- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.

---

1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.

2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.

3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.

Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.

There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.

But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.

---

GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.

Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.

Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.

---

1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.

That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.

Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)

2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)

3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.

Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)

https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:

The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272

[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]

---

And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).

---

Buddy, he tried to get funding from Congress....they refused to act (but they did authorize billions for Israel and wars in the 3rd world)

He went around them and tried to use discretionary funding to build the Wall.

They sued him to stop it....and the Federal courts sided with the Regime to prevent the border wall from being built.

What else did you want him to do? Declare martial law and use the army to throw the bums out of Congress and install some actual Patriots that would build the wall?

I imagine if he did that you would be screaming about how it was un-Constitutional

[SAN FRANCISCO The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to divert $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border wall is unlawful. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Sierra Club v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging President Trump's use of emergency powers to build a border wall using funds Congress explicitly denied.]

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/appeals-court-rules-trumps-border-wall-illegal-blocks-further-construction

---

The strongest critique of Trump's effort on the border wall is that it took him +2yrs to figure out how to do it with existing authorizations & funds.

I don't fault a businessman from the outside for not knowing that backdoor existed when he walked into the office. I can criticize his staff for taking so long to find it.

I also do not understand how anyone interested in stopping illegal immigration could find anyone in their lifetime who has done more to stop it. Not one politician of either party ever spent the kind of political capital Trump did on the issue. Not one politician of either party ever accomplished anything remotely close to what he did. They all spent their time & money facilitating/regulating the flow. Not. One. was interested enough in stopping it, for good, when all of them had the opportunity to do so. The DOD pathway he used has been there for a long, long time.

---

Bingo....

If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.

But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.

He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue

---

I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative, but there was definitely a nexxus between Authorization and use. We need more problem solving like that.

---

did that check from Mexico clear yet. He's full of **** and anyone who believes anything out of his mouth is just foolish. I have never in my life seen a more habitual liar that fat boy. How and why do some of you boys support a liar, ***** chaser, convicted felon and a sexual abuser? Ser/ious question. Please don't give me...I like his policies or he's better than the other choice. please tell me why

---

you do know that Harris just said she wants you to pay 25% of unrealized capital gains on stuff you own landlord man.. right?

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

---

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, southern Democrat elites did

---

We have a civil war thread for this stuff....

But yes Lincoln started the war in 1861....his call for 75,000 volunteers and marching them into the Southern States started the war. And sent more States fleeing out of the Union

[His action spurred four of the "holdout" states-Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas-to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy.]

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession by the States and it does not authorize the President to make war on States.

---

Lincoln certainly initiated the Civil War.

But the winners write the vast majority of the history books and our public doesn't care irregardles.

---

It's easy to say the winners write the history books and that might even be true most of the time, but it's curious that most of the civil war history written in the decades immediately after the war take a pro-southern view. Reality is more complicated than the simple slogans that we are used to.

And I already explained how Lincoln did not start the war. That's a popular myth, maybe, but still a myth. He was not anywhere near Ft Sumter when those first shots were fired.

---

Lincoln brilliantly manipulated the South into 'firing first' on Fort Sumter. His actions are almost always ignored, or at the most, glossed over by generations of US high school history classes . As our educational system rarely has the time or motivation to exam the complexities involved.

This is the most interested I have ever seen Trump be in another human being pic.twitter.com/mJ3TBLY9Ry

— Helen Lewis (@helenlewis) August 21, 2024

4th and Inches said:

---

Democrat MAIL-IN Requests (on this date in 2020 vs 2024)

Philadelphia
2020: 129,652
2024: 92,824
-36,828 (28.5%)

Allegheny (Pittsburgh)

2020: 129,093
2024: 106,961
-22,132 (17.14%)

Thats not good for Dems

---

They will just print more to win

We are living in a simulation aren't we

CHICAGO: Two protesters who self identified as fascist, were once again seen near DNC, now holding "White Lives Matter" banner.

After speaking to press, a Pro-Palestine Protester ran up and threw a bag of stinky tomatoes at one of them, Rachel Siegel. pic.twitter.com/QgV25gWZvl

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) August 21, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

We are living in a simulation aren't we

CHICAGO: Two protesters who self identified as fascist, were once again seen near DNC, now holding "White Lives Matter" banner.

After speaking to press, a Pro-Palestine Protester ran up and threw a bag of stinky tomatoes at one of them, Rachel Siegel. pic.twitter.com/QgV25gWZvl

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) August 21, 2024

---

Pink hair, white female, and Patagonia brand clothing is not very rightwing coded....

I seriously doubt she cares about Whites being replaced in the Western World.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Preferably to another Lincoln, Roosevelt, Coolidge, or Reagan. Even another Ike would be preferable to any Dem we've had in the past 100 years except maybe Truman. And Truman had a radical agenda which included socialized medicine & giving more power to union bosses.

---

Is this the part where we have to remind everyone that the guy sparked off a war that killed 620,000-800,000 people...and cost a fortune....[In 1860, the year before the American Civil War started, the U.S. Government debt was $64.8 million. Once the war began, debt grew quickly. The financial cost of the war was significant, totaling an estimated $5.2 billion.]

And all of that on very dubious Constitutional grounds.

Lets hope we never see his like again in American history.

And the GOP has a lot better historical Presidents to highlight

---

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, southern Democrat elites did

---

We have a civil war thread for this stuff....

But yes Lincoln started the war in 1861....his call for 75,000 volunteers and marching them into the Southern States started the war. And sent more States fleeing out of the Union

[His action spurred four of the "holdout" states-Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas-to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy.]

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession by the States and it does not authorize the President to make war on States.

---

Lincoln certainly initiated the Civil War.

But the winners write the vast majority of the history books and our public doesn't care irregardles.

---

It's easy to say the winners write the history books and that might even be true most of the time, but it's curious that most of the civil war history written in the decades immediately after the war take a pro-southern view. Reality is more complicated than the simple slogans that we are used to.

And I already explained how Lincoln did not start the war. That's a popular myth, maybe, but still a myth. He was not anywhere near Ft Sumter when those first shots were fired.

---

Lincoln brilliantly manipulated the South into 'firing first' on Fort Sumter. His actions are almost always ignored, or at the most, glossed over by generations of US high school history classes . As our educational system rarely has the time or motivation to exam the complexities involved.

---

I wont mess up this thread with civil war talk....but Kali have a quote on that if you want hit this thread up...

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/138500

I will post it there for you

boognish_bear said:

---

Gap is growing

Trump’s lead in the odds is up to 5%. pic.twitter.com/uDguZkd116

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 21, 2024

---

These prediction markets are interesting. How do they solve for the idea that the ability and willingness to wager is vastly different than the ability and wilingness to vote?

My immediate take is that there are a lot more people who are willing to invest money in the idea of Donald Trump than in Kamala Harris, because the intensity of their support is so much higher. Thus, they buy his crap stock and anything that is red. But while the average Trump supporter might wager $10 he is going to win and the average Harris supporter might wager $1, they both only get one vote.

In other words, isn't it possible that the prediction markets on this issue are not actually prediction markets-they are an outlet for an expression of support.

Frank Galvin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Gap is growing

Trump’s lead in the odds is up to 5%. pic.twitter.com/uDguZkd116

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) August 21, 2024

---

These prediction markets are interesting. How do they solve for the idea that the ability and willingness to wager is vastly different than the ability and wilingness to vote?

My immediate take is that there are a lot more people who are willing to invest money in the idea of Donald Trump than in Kamala Harris, because the intensity of their support is so much higher. Thus, they buy his crap stock and anything that is red. But while the average Trump supporter might wager $10 he is going to win and the average Harris supporter might wager $1, they both only get one vote.

In other owrds, isn't it possible that the prediction markets on this issue are not actually prediction markets-they are anoutlet for an expression of support.

---

I think at this stage of the game there is some truth to that.

I followed the batting markets on election day in 2020 and that evening they were trending correctly in the direction of the winner ahead of what was being reported in the news. So I find it interesting to keep an eye on them the closer we get.

Talk about conspiracy theories!

There is no evidence of such manipulation.

It's all staged. A couple of fascists pretend to be "fascists", based upon the popular but inaccurate definition of the term, and they got some attention. It's lame political theater, lies, propaganda.

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We are living in a simulation aren't we

CHICAGO: Two protesters who self identified as fascist, were once again seen near DNC, now holding "White Lives Matter" banner.

After speaking to press, a Pro-Palestine Protester ran up and threw a bag of stinky tomatoes at one of them, Rachel Siegel. pic.twitter.com/QgV25gWZvl

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) August 21, 2024

---

Pink hair, white female, and Patagonia brand clothing is not very rightwing coded....

I seriously doubt she cares about Whites being replaced in the Western World.

---

Good point. She memorized her scripted "talking points" well but I she doesn't believe any of it and wasn't very convincing. Also, the other woman had a mask so no one could ID her. Very antifa of her. American brown shirts or black shirts. At least they weren't violent in this clip.

Maybe prediction markets are a different form of gambling.

historian said:

---

Maybe prediction markets are a different form of gambling.

---

Its not a different form, it is a sports book for current events. The idea is that it will be accurate because a wager market accounts for emotion and reveals the collective intelligence of the market. That collective intelligence is allegedly greater and more reliable than individual data points. My point is that I am not sure this particular wager market actually accounts for the emotion of the participants.

At its most basic level it's still gambling which is often likely to be a losing proposition. Maybe for the reasons you cite it cannot be accurate consistently and long term.

historian said:

---

Talk about conspiracy theories!

There is no evidence of such manipulation.

---

Of course there is.

Just one example……..

By refusing to give up possession of the fort to the newly sovereign state…..its dozens of cannons threatened all the shipping in the harbor.

The critically important port was effectively at risk of being indefinitely closed to all shipping.

And risk of such a closer was an intolerable economic threat to South Carolina and the entire region.

Lincoln knew this which is why he publicly announced his intention to te enforce the existing garrison of the fort.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Talk about conspiracy theories!

There is no evidence of such manipulation.

---

Of course there is.

Just one example……..

By refusing to give up possession of the fort to the newly sovereign state…..its dozens of cannons threatened all the shipping in the harbor.

The critically important port was effectively at risk of being indefinitely closed to all shipping.

And such a of closer was an intolerable economic threat.

Lincoln knew this which is why he publicly announced his intention to te enforce the existing garrison of the fort.

---

Since no one is going to move the talk to the civil war thread made for that....

Then I will put the quotes here.

"The forts in the South were partnership property; and each State was an equal party in ownership. The Federal government was only a general agent of the real partners the States which composed the Union. The forts were designed to protect the States, and in case of withdrawal of a State the forts went with the State. South Carolina could not deprive New York of her forts, nor could New York deprive South Carolina of hers. The seceding States were perfectly willing to settle matters in a friendly way. They were striving only to resume the powers they had delegated." -Horton's History, pp. 71-72

The [Federal] gov't has no business with the forts that were built for the protection of the States that have seceded, & as for the other property, the South will hold all that she has until a just arrangement is generally made, with a peaceful separation.-Julia Tyler, wife of President Tyler & First Lady of the United States,- 5/7/1861