UPDATE: Donald Trump Takes Office as the 47th US President
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
PA and MI are the two main states he has to worry about..
..and she already talking about contesting the results if Ruben Gallego wins
Bernie Sanders was a shit candidate that when he lost ran around telling everyone it was rigged. He was the same candidate that happily said that the most important voting group was white working class voter which led to his movement doing exactly what caused it to be crushed.....ignoring Black voters. Oh and then when realizing Black voters were the reason they were losing they started saying a bunch of racist shit about Black people and Black voters. Sounds familiar doesn't it?? Sounds just like another political party.
Sanders has been a failure at everything he does and we got to see it first hand. Culminating in his second try where he was ready to beg Elizabeth Warren for her endorsement and she told him no cause of the actions of his Bernie Bro movement. The movement that Sanders spent years acting like they didn't exist. Acting like his crew of assholes young white progressives that would harass everyone never existed until he admitted that they did......snd Warren still told him no.
Never forget that before Republican ever thought of doing it Sanders and his leftist wing were the ones constantly screaming how elections were rigged cause they wouldn't win. I bet that also sounds familiar. Just like another political party is doing now and has been doing since 2020.
What's the over/under that if it's about Puerto Rico, he rambles about Roberto Clemente?
Your giving that pimple of a man way to much credit like he actually knows Clemente was Puerto Rican.
I say that because his handlers would let him know about historically-loved Puerto Rican people he can just bring up for seemingly no reason.
He, himself wouldn't know shit about him, but when has that ever stopped Drumpf from rambling on and on?
The most misogynistic ad in the history of politics
|
Elon Musk created America PAC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election. Through the end of September, Musk spent $75 million to fund the PAC's activities. More recently, Musk began giving away $1 million per day to registered voters who signed a petition sponsored by America PAC — even though such an offer likely violated federal law. The total amount Musk will spend on America PAC will almost certainly reach nine figures.
Musk seized the handle @America on X to promote America PAC's activities supporting Trump and has repeatedly amplified the account.
On Friday afternoon, America PAC posted a video ad attacking Trump's opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. "America really can't afford a 'C-Word' in the White House right now," America PAC posted, adding a laughing emoji. "Kamala Harris is a ‘C word,’" the narrator of the ad says. "You heard that right. A big ole ‘C word.’"
|
The "joke" of the ad is that Harris is a "communist." Of course, Harris is not a communist. And the ad makes no effort to show she is a communist. The line is only included as a pretext to repeatedly use a crass, misogynistic slur against Harris.
The ad had no apparent impact on the relationship between Musk and the Trump campaign, which coordinates directly with America PAC. On Sunday night, Musk was featured at Trump's high-profile rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City.
The event featured more sexist attacks on Harris. Businessman Grant Cardone appeared before Trump and described Harris as a prostitute. Cardone said that Harris "and her pimp handlers will destroy our country."
Trump has used a variety of gendered insults to attack Harris during the campaign. On Fox News, Trump said that world leaders would "look at" Harris and use her "like a play toy," adding "I don’t want to say as to why. But a lot of people understand it." On Truth Social, Trump has targeted Harris with crude sexual insults, suggesting her career is based on sexual favors. In August, the Associated Press reported that Trump refers to Harris as a "bitch" in private, citing two sources.
On Monday, America PAC deleted the ad attacking Harris from X. Neither America PAC nor Musk explained — or even acknowledged — the ad's removal from the platform. As of Monday afternoon, the ad remains available on America PAC's Facebook account.
Trump called on Samantha Bee to be fired for using the C-word
In 2018, comedian Samantha Bee used the C-word on her TBS show to describe Ivanka Trump and her complicity in the Trump administration's child separation policy. Bee acknowledged that her words were inappropriate and apologized. Trump nevertheless called on Bee to be fired.Over the years, several women have accused Trump of verbally attacking them with the C-word. In 2016, former Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Jennifer Lin said that, after she wrote an article about Trump's Atlantic City business dealings in 1988, Trump called her and told her she had "shit for brains." After that call, Lin alleges that Trump called her editor and "referred to me as the c-word." Lin's editor, Craig Stock, confirmed Lin's story to CNN.
In 2023, Jessica Leeds, who alleges Trump assaulted her on an airplane in the 1970s, testified under oath in a defamation trial against Trump that, two years after the alleged assault, Trump recognized her and called her "that c*** from the airplane."
Roberta Kaplan, an attorney, said that "Donald Trump used a coded expression to call her the C-word" at the conclusion of a deposition. "See you next Tuesday," Trump said, using a thinly veiled code for the C-word.
Musk's ad concludes with a similar code: "See you nationwide, Tuesday."
Media largely ignores Musk's ad
Unlike Musk, Bee was not spending tens of millions of dollars supporting a presidential candidate, did not have billions of dollars in federal contracts, and was not the CEO of a public company. Nevertheless, within 24 hours, her comments were covered by nearly every major media outlet, including the Associated Press, the LA Times, CNN, CNBC, and many others.Days after Musk launched his crude attack on Harris, none of those outlets has covered the story. The repeated use of the C-word by Musk's PAC has received almost no coverage, meriting only brief items from ABC News, the Washington Post, and a few online outlets. Late Monday, the New York Times mentioned the ad as part of a larger story, incorrectly reporting that it was no longer available online.
^^^^
WP Exclusive
On Elon Musk’s X, Republicans go viral as Democrats disappear
A Washington Post analysis found that Republicans are posting more, getting followed more and going viral more now that the world’s richest Trump supporter is running the show.
By Drew Harwell and Jeremy B. Merrill
October 29, 2024 at 6:10 a.m. EDT
The top political accounts on X have seen their audiences crumble in the months before the election, a signal of the platform’s diminishing influence and usefulness to political discourse under billionaire owner Elon Musk, a Washington Post analysis found. ... Politicians on both sides of the aisle have struggled to win the attention they once enjoyed on the platform formerly known as Twitter, according to The Post’s review of months of data for the 100 top-tweeting congressional accounts, including senators, representatives and committees, equal parts Democrat and Republican.
But some of their tweets are still going mega-viral — virtually all of them from Republicans, the analysis shows. The Republicans have also seen huge spikes in follower counts over the Democrats, and their tweets have collectively received billions more views. ... X has seen a dramatic exodus of users since Musk took over in 2022, according to independent analysts such as Edison Research, which said in March that X’s usage in the United States had dropped 30 percent since last year. The investment firm Fidelity this month estimated that X’s value has plunged by about 80 percent since Musk’s takeover.
But the viewers that have stayed on X now largely see posts that skew toward the political bent of Musk himself, an avid booster of former president Donald Trump who has jumped onstage with him at rallies, donated $118 million toward his bid for a second term and launched a daily $1 million giveaway for registered voters in swing states. Musk, the world’s richest man, paid $44 billion to buy X and has since become its biggest user, with 200 million followers.
It’s almost impossible to say whether X is explicitly suppressing Democrats, as some liberals have speculated: The Post’s analysis turned up no evidence of direct manipulation. The shift in attention could reflect changing attitudes among users who have stuck around, given that many left-wing users have said they left the platform of their own accord, annoyed by Musk’s antics and X’s redrawn rules.
He's going to give a speech about being endorsed by the great Puerto Rican Roberto Clementine
< 2 years in, Trump surrogate Elon Musk has remade X as a conservative megaphone
October 25, 20245:00 AM ETListen· 4:544-Minute ListenPlaylist
- Download
- Embed
- Transcript
JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
It has been nearly two years since Elon Musk purchased Twitter. Since then, he's renamed the social media site X and turned many parts of the site upside down. Perhaps the biggest change of all is how the billionaire is using the platform as a megaphone to send former President Donald Trump back to the White House. NPR's Bobby Allyn and Shannon Bond have been covering Musk's remaking of X, and they join us now. Welcome to you both.
BOBBY ALLYN, BYLINE: Hey, Juana.
SHANNON BOND, BYLINE: Hi, Juana.
SUMMERS: Shannon, over to you first. Elon Musk used to support Democrats, but recently, he's become one of Trump's most high-profile supporters. Help us understand how that happened.
BOND: Yeah. Well, Musk has been leaning more conservative in his personal politics since the pandemic. Even back in the 2022 midterms, you know, he posted on what was then Twitter that people should vote for Republicans. But this year it's really been an acceleration. He has gone all in on Trump, endorsing him after the July assassination attempt. He's founded America PAC, backing Trump. He's put $75 million into that. And he's funding get-out-the-vote operations, including offering million-dollar prizes to registered voters who sign a petition, which may or may not be legal. Musk is also stumping for Trump, you know, on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania. And as you said, he's using X as a megaphone to boost Trump. I spoke with Eddie Perez, who led Twitter's election integrity work before Musk takeover. Here's how he put it.
EDDIE PEREZ: This is a textbook example of the influence that, I think it's fair to say, an oligarch can have in a way that really is impactful to the entire body politic.
BOND: Perez says, you know, it's really this combination of Musk's money and his control of a major communications platform that really stands out this year.
SUMMERS: Bobby, over to you. Elon Musk himself is the loudest voice on X. He's even tweaked the site in order to amplify his own posts. Give us some examples. How is he using this platform that he owns to boost Trump?
ALLYN: Yeah. Well, Musk gave Trump a friendly two-hour interview on X that millions of people watched. That was back in August. Now, just two weeks away from the election, I think anyone who uses X, Juana, will tell you that Musk's posts and many about Trump are just unavoidable, right? Even if you don't follow Musk, you're likely to see his pro-Trump content filling up your timeline. And part of this is because X's feed includes a mix of people you follow and stuff from people you don't follow that is trending on the site. And since Musk's 200-plus million followers make him the most popular user on the site, his posts are often going viral. I called up Erik Berlin about this. He left X last year, but he used to manage a group of software engineers at X. And he said it is true that Musk's pro-Trump politics are just inundating everyone's feeds.
ERIK BERLIN: I mean, I think there's no doubt that Elon has a political bent. I don't know if that's sort of encoded into the algorithm. You know, largely, I think it's just a reflection of the user base - Elon fans, Trump fans.
ALLYN: Yeah. Berlin is saying that since Musk is the biggest user on the site, his views are just shaping the entire platform, and as I've mentioned these days, Musk is tweeting a lot about Donald Trump.
SUMMERS: Right. Shannon, tell us. What have these changes meant for the site as a place where people come to gather information?
BOND: Well, as Bobby says, you know, he's tweeting about Trump. He's setting the tone here. But in addition to that, he's also trafficking in unverified rumors, misleading claims, sometimes outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories, both through what he is posting himself and then also what he is resharing or replying to from other users. And Musk has really emerged recently as a leading booster of these baseless claims that Democrats are bringing in immigrants to illegally vote for them. You know, and many people are saying that may be one way Trump could challenge election results.
Musk has also amplified debunked rumors about Haitian immigrants and made false claims about the government not aiding victims of the recent hurricanes. He shared anti-Ukraine memes that actually turned out to be Russian propaganda. And, Juana, this is all turned off people. You know, there are many users who have left X. Advertisers have pulled out. Overall, the site is just seen as a much less reliable source of information these days.
SUMMERS: Right. And this raises a question about what this has done to hurt X's bottom line. When Musk bought the site for $44 billion, didn't he have really big plans, like, to boost its business?
ALLYN: He did. Musk had all sorts of grandiose plans when he bought the site back then. You know, he was talking about turning the platform into a so-called everything app - so, like, ride-sharing, online shopping, money transfers all in one. That never happened. He also hoped, you know, people would buy his paid subscription, but most users did not sign up. The brokerage firm Fidelity was a major investor when Musk took over Twitter, and it recently estimated, Juana, that the value of its stake in the site has dropped nearly 80%. And look. Advertisers just aren't rushing back to the site that is effectively a partisan platform whose CEO is cheering loudly for one presidential candidate.
SUMMERS: NPR's Bobby Allyn and Shannon Bond. Thanks to both of you.
ALLYN: Thanks, Juana.
BOND: Thank you.
* FUNNY HOW IT ALL CHANGES IN JUST A FEW MONTHS
nymag.com
Kamala Harris, falling star. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Seems like in most competitive presidential nominating contests, there’s a candidate who looks great on paper but rapidly loses altitude even before voters start voting. Democrat Wesley Clark had that quickly fading buzz in 2004, as did Republican Rudy Giuliani in 2008. In 2012, Tim Pawlenty made all the sense in the world as a consensus candidate — until he quit the race after a poor showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. And immediately after that, Rick Perry took off like a rocket only to be felled by his own words in two candidate debates. In 2016, Scott Walker terrified liberals with the potential power of his presidential bid — and then dropped out for lack of interest four years ago this week.
This year’s Democratic front-runner for Greatest Wasted Potential is currently Kamala Harris. From the get-go, she was a smart-money favorite. She was telegenic, well-spoken, and multiracial (half-Asian-American, half-African-American, and married to a white Jewish guy to boot), with a solid résumé of federal, state, and local offices — and nary an electoral defeat. She didn’t lean too far to the left or to the center. And she had an entirely plausible path to the nomination, one that had been successfully road-tested by none other than Barack Obama — though she had the added bonus of an early primary in her home state of California, perfectly scheduled to boost her into the lead if she achieved the planned breakthrough in South Carolina. On top of everything else, she had a boffo performance in the first candidate debate by beating up the candidate who represented the greatest obstacle to her strategy. You’d have to guess her people could just about taste victory at that point.
Yesterday, like a one-two punch to the solar plexus, two California polls were published showing how far Kamala Harris has fallen. One, from Capitol Weekly, has her at a weak fourth place with 11 percent of the vote, just a third of the percentage garnered by front-runner Elizabeth Warren. Worse yet, Emerson College’s latest survey has her in fifth place in her home state, with an anemic 6 percent, and running a point behind Andrew Yang.
Her fading prospects are also evident in the only recent survey from her supposed breakthrough state, South Carolina, conducted by YouGov, which shows her running a poor fourth behind Biden, Warren, and Sanders, with 7 percent of the vote. And nationally, in the RealClearPolitics averages, she’s at 6 percent, less than half her level of support two months ago.
What happened? Well, most obviously, Harris’s performance in subsequent Democratic debates did not match her impressive breakout showing in the initial tilt. But as Nate Silver noted at the time, Harris lost about a third of her first-debate polling “bounce” before the second event even arrived. And in that second debate, Tulsi Gabbard’s efficiently brutal critique of Harris’s record as California Attorney General put her back on her heels.
Speaking strategically, Harris just hasn’t found much oxygen in the race thanks to Biden’s durable support — particularly among the African-American voters Harris was counting on in places like South Carolina — and Warren’s growing strength. Indeed, Warren is looking more and more like the unity candidate Harris probably saw in the mirror when she was riding high.
Could Harris turn it all around? Sure. Her weak position in South Carolina and in California would change very quickly if she exceeds expectations in earlier states. One relevant precedent is John Kerry’s 2004 resurrection in New Hampshire, where he was badly trailing Howard Dean, after an upset win in Iowa. That’s almost certainly why she made a big investment in an Iowa field operation in August. But there are a lot of world-class ground games whirring along in Iowa; aside from Warren’s strong organization and Sanders’s army of volunteers, Booker got a good head start there and, more recently, Buttigieg poured money into the state. The only recent Iowa poll, from CBS/YouGov, gave Harris just 6 percent, a point behind Mayor Pete and far behind the Big Three of Biden, Sanders, and Warren.
Yes, Harris could again kick out the jams in the October and future candidate debates, but so could someone else. Her once big and broad royal road to the nomination is now a nearly imperceptible footpath through dense foliage. What she probably needs more than anything else is a stumble by Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.
Kamala Harris Really Needs to Turn Things Around
The once-promising campaign of the Californian is in trouble. She needs a reboot, and also needs Biden or Warren to stumble.
nymag.com
Kamala Harris Really Needs to Turn Things Around
By Ed Kilgore, political columnist for Intelligencer since 2015
Kamala Harris, falling star. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Seems like in most competitive presidential nominating contests, there’s a candidate who looks great on paper but rapidly loses altitude even before voters start voting. Democrat Wesley Clark had that quickly fading buzz in 2004, as did Republican Rudy Giuliani in 2008. In 2012, Tim Pawlenty made all the sense in the world as a consensus candidate — until he quit the race after a poor showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. And immediately after that, Rick Perry took off like a rocket only to be felled by his own words in two candidate debates. In 2016, Scott Walker terrified liberals with the potential power of his presidential bid — and then dropped out for lack of interest four years ago this week.
This year’s Democratic front-runner for Greatest Wasted Potential is currently Kamala Harris. From the get-go, she was a smart-money favorite. She was telegenic, well-spoken, and multiracial (half-Asian-American, half-African-American, and married to a white Jewish guy to boot), with a solid résumé of federal, state, and local offices — and nary an electoral defeat. She didn’t lean too far to the left or to the center. And she had an entirely plausible path to the nomination, one that had been successfully road-tested by none other than Barack Obama — though she had the added bonus of an early primary in her home state of California, perfectly scheduled to boost her into the lead if she achieved the planned breakthrough in South Carolina. On top of everything else, she had a boffo performance in the first candidate debate by beating up the candidate who represented the greatest obstacle to her strategy. You’d have to guess her people could just about taste victory at that point.
Yesterday, like a one-two punch to the solar plexus, two California polls were published showing how far Kamala Harris has fallen. One, from Capitol Weekly, has her at a weak fourth place with 11 percent of the vote, just a third of the percentage garnered by front-runner Elizabeth Warren. Worse yet, Emerson College’s latest survey has her in fifth place in her home state, with an anemic 6 percent, and running a point behind Andrew Yang.
Her fading prospects are also evident in the only recent survey from her supposed breakthrough state, South Carolina, conducted by YouGov, which shows her running a poor fourth behind Biden, Warren, and Sanders, with 7 percent of the vote. And nationally, in the RealClearPolitics averages, she’s at 6 percent, less than half her level of support two months ago.
What happened? Well, most obviously, Harris’s performance in subsequent Democratic debates did not match her impressive breakout showing in the initial tilt. But as Nate Silver noted at the time, Harris lost about a third of her first-debate polling “bounce” before the second event even arrived. And in that second debate, Tulsi Gabbard’s efficiently brutal critique of Harris’s record as California Attorney General put her back on her heels.
Speaking strategically, Harris just hasn’t found much oxygen in the race thanks to Biden’s durable support — particularly among the African-American voters Harris was counting on in places like South Carolina — and Warren’s growing strength. Indeed, Warren is looking more and more like the unity candidate Harris probably saw in the mirror when she was riding high.
Could Harris turn it all around? Sure. Her weak position in South Carolina and in California would change very quickly if she exceeds expectations in earlier states. One relevant precedent is John Kerry’s 2004 resurrection in New Hampshire, where he was badly trailing Howard Dean, after an upset win in Iowa. That’s almost certainly why she made a big investment in an Iowa field operation in August. But there are a lot of world-class ground games whirring along in Iowa; aside from Warren’s strong organization and Sanders’s army of volunteers, Booker got a good head start there and, more recently, Buttigieg poured money into the state. The only recent Iowa poll, from CBS/YouGov, gave Harris just 6 percent, a point behind Mayor Pete and far behind the Big Three of Biden, Sanders, and Warren.
Yes, Harris could again kick out the jams in the October and future candidate debates, but so could someone else. Her once big and broad royal road to the nomination is now a nearly imperceptible footpath through dense foliage. What she probably needs more than anything else is a stumble by Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.
JD Vance is ‘so over’ people getting offended at racist jokes amid Hinchcliffe row
The Ohio senator weighed in on the widespread backlash to Tony Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico
www.independent.co.uk
Trump claims he’s ‘opposite of a Nazi’ ahead of Mar-a-Lago press conference: Live
Donald Trump to host latest Mar-a-Lago media event on Tuesday before Kamala Harris speaks in Washington DC at site of his ‘fight like hell’ speech prior to the Capitol riot
www.independent.co.uk
Last edited:
^^^
this is a BIG f**king deal and will be a turning point in history.
“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one,” Bezos wrote. “I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.”
QUESTION: If all these rich White male billionaires are so SCARED of Trump being elected president because he will seek revenge etc.
why don't they organize to get him out?
I thought all this was "rigged" illuminati anyway?
The same way "THEY" manipulate elections and the media why don't they do that with Trump?
why don't they organize to get him out?
I thought all this was "rigged" illuminati anyway?
The same way "THEY" manipulate elections and the media why don't they do that with Trump?
