Trump comes up with his own posts??? 🤯

pic.twitter.com/RmcjuPntQw

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 7, 2024

These were the people behind Trump's social media accounts.

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

---

I can't believe a political campaign would say misleading things about their opponent! Truly unprecedented.

Civil Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

312 electoral votes. 5 million popular vote lead. House. Senate. Folks, a landslide. pic.twitter.com/GvLlFBRDOr

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 7, 2024

Even your Democrat friends voted for Trump.

---

All my friends are Democrats and none of them voted for Trump. I will say this: If I had a friend who voted for Trump, he would still be my friend.

Anybody calling this election a "landslide" doesn't know what the term means. If you want to call it a "clean sweep" or something like that, fine. What was the popular vote, 51%-47%? Both houses of Congress are fairly evenly split. That's not a landslide, no matter who says it is.

---

Not a single republican friend? Is that true for most dems?

---

I should walk that back a bit, as I remembered my Republican friend from high school and Cal (he moved out of state some years ago, so I forgot). I presume he voted for Trump. He's a great guy. If we ever talk politics, we just end up laughing.

I have two cousins back east who are big Trumpers. We don't communicate regularly, but I would love to see them. I would avoid talking politics with them, but if we did, I would try and find some common ground, which I can almost always do.

As for my friends here, no, I think they are all Dems and I'm almost positive that none of them voted for Trump. Wait, can I count the late helltopay1? We grew to be kind of "BI PM friends" the past few years, until he passed away.

I absolutely do not automatically dislike somebody personally if they are Republicans or even MAGA Republicans. Part of the "problem" is that there are just not a lot of Republicans where I live. Back in the day, there used to be a lot of lawn signs for the Republican candidate for President, but no more, since Trump.

bear2034 said:

---

Yes, Trump won young men under 30. But get this...

Young women under 30 also shifted 11 points toward Trump in 2024.

🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/hWFfKCcOQf

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 9, 2024

Compared to 2020, the Trump campaign was more successful with young women than young men (under 30 yrs).

---

I cannot wait to see the white female tears flow when poor Becca or Lizzie made a mistake in college and need to "fix it". Or if they can't conceive and need IVF. Oh, the irony.

Big C said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

312 electoral votes. 5 million popular vote lead. House. Senate. Folks, a landslide. pic.twitter.com/GvLlFBRDOr

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 7, 2024

Even your Democrat friends voted for Trump.

---

All my friends are Democrats and none of them voted for Trump. I will say this: If I had a friend who voted for Trump, he would still be my friend.

Anybody calling this election a "landslide" doesn't know what the term means. If you want to call it a "clean sweep" or something like that, fine. What was the popular vote, 51%-47%? Both houses of Congress are fairly evenly split. That's not a landslide, no matter who says it is.

---

Not a single republican friend? Is that true for most dems?

---

I should walk that back a bit, as I remembered my Republican friend from high school and Cal (he moved out of state some years ago, so I forgot). I presume he voted for Trump. He's a great guy. If we ever talk politics, we just end up laughing.

I have two cousins back east who are big Trumpers. We don't communicate regularly, but I would love to see them. I would avoid talking politics with them, but if we did, I would try and find some common ground, which I can almost always do.

As for my friends here, no, I think they are all Dems and I'm almost positive that none of them voted for Trump. Wait, can I count the late helltopay1? We grew to be kind of "BI PM friends" the past few years, until he passed away.

I absolutely do not automatically dislike somebody personally if they are Republicans or even MAGA Republicans. Part of the "problem" is that there are just not a lot of Republicans where I live. Back in the day, there used to be a lot of lawn signs for the Republican candidate for President, but no more, since Trump.

---

(Sorry to reply to my own post... )

Gotta seriously walk back the "no Republican friends" thing, as I just remembered two of my Cal friends are Republican (one I only see about once a decade lately; the other one, a couple of times a year). Both of them may have voted for Trump, or they may be never-Trumpers, I dunno. They are my friends and always will be.

Nah, its "your body, my choice" in Merica now.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

---

I can't believe a political campaign would say misleading things about their opponent! Truly unprecedented.

---

You're on this schtick lately that everything bad a democrat does is just "normal bad" behavior. Why is it so hard for you to just agree its bad?

Beyond that, what this group did was beyond what ever norm you are suggesting. That is the larger point which for some reason you want address.

---

Is it really beyond the norm? You're saying the Trump campaign didn't run any ads about Kamala Harris that didn't stretch or exaggerate claims about her? Be honest now.

Of course it's all "bad" on a moral level, but for most of my life it's also been the norm in political advertising for all sides. Why single out the Harris team here?

---

I'm saying the official trump campaign twitter did not routinely and intentionally edit video clips in a false and misleading way and then present it for public consumption in a way that was completely out of context.

I know that because if they had, the media would have justifiably ripped them a new one.

To be clear, I'm sure lots of people on the right did that. But not the official campaign. Honestly, Daniel Dale is a trump hater, 99% of his articles are anti republican/trump. He has probably written 5 articles in his entire life criticizing the left (yes that's an exaggeration, but likely not by much). The fact that he is calling out this group speaks volumes.

---

Maybe if you're referring specifically to the official Trump twitter account then they didn't. I don't know; I haven't followed that. But I highly doubt that the Trump campaign never did anything like that. Trump tosses around lies like Halloween candy. It's just that everyone is inured to it now, so it's not a story.

---

You (and lots of your tribe) just cannot call out bad behavior by your candidates without minimizing or saying "but trump." It diminishes your credibility.

---

My argument is that it is bad but also that it is standard practice on all sides. Was that not clear? Should I say it again?

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

---

I can't believe a political campaign would say misleading things about their opponent! Truly unprecedented.

---

You're on this schtick lately that everything bad a democrat does is just "normal bad" behavior. Why is it so hard for you to just agree its bad?

Beyond that, what this group did was beyond what ever norm you are suggesting. That is the larger point which for some reason you want address.

---

Is it really beyond the norm? You're saying the Trump campaign didn't run any ads about Kamala Harris that didn't stretch or exaggerate claims about her? Be honest now.

Of course it's all "bad" on a moral level, but for most of my life it's also been the norm in political advertising for all sides. Why single out the Harris team here?

---

I'm saying the official trump campaign twitter did not routinely and intentionally edit video clips in a false and misleading way and then present it for public consumption in a way that was completely out of context.

I know that because if they had, the media would have justifiably ripped them a new one.

To be clear, I'm sure lots of people on the right did that. But not the official campaign. Honestly, Daniel Dale is a trump hater, 99% of his articles are anti republican/trump. He has probably written 5 articles in his entire life criticizing the left (yes that's an exaggeration, but likely not by much). The fact that he is calling out this group speaks volumes.

---

Maybe if you're referring specifically to the official Trump twitter account then they didn't. I don't know; I haven't followed that. But I highly doubt that the Trump campaign never did anything like that. Trump tosses around lies like Halloween candy. It's just that everyone is inured to it now, so it's not a story.

---

You (and lots of your tribe) just cannot call out bad behavior by your candidates without minimizing or saying "but trump." It diminishes your credibility.

---

My argument is that it is bad but also that it is standard practice on all sides. Was that not clear? Should I say it again?

---

Yes. Try to say it again without "but . . . . . "

That is my point - you insist on minimizing it because it is your tribe.

philly1121 said:

---

Nah, its "your body, my choice" in Merica now.

---

That was back during the pandemic. Some women are still suffering from the vax.

BREAKING: 64% of Native Americans voted for Trump. pic.twitter.com/OT5qNKsvEx

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) November 8, 2024

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

---

I can't believe a political campaign would say misleading things about their opponent! Truly unprecedented.

---

You're on this schtick lately that everything bad a democrat does is just "normal bad" behavior. Why is it so hard for you to just agree its bad?

Beyond that, what this group did was beyond what ever norm you are suggesting. That is the larger point which for some reason you want address.

---

Is it really beyond the norm? You're saying the Trump campaign didn't run any ads about Kamala Harris that didn't stretch or exaggerate claims about her? Be honest now.

Of course it's all "bad" on a moral level, but for most of my life it's also been the norm in political advertising for all sides. Why single out the Harris team here?

---

I'm saying the official trump campaign twitter did not routinely and intentionally edit video clips in a false and misleading way and then present it for public consumption in a way that was completely out of context.

I know that because if they had, the media would have justifiably ripped them a new one.

To be clear, I'm sure lots of people on the right did that. But not the official campaign. Honestly, Daniel Dale is a trump hater, 99% of his articles are anti republican/trump. He has probably written 5 articles in his entire life criticizing the left (yes that's an exaggeration, but likely not by much). The fact that he is calling out this group speaks volumes.

---

Maybe if you're referring specifically to the official Trump twitter account then they didn't. I don't know; I haven't followed that. But I highly doubt that the Trump campaign never did anything like that. Trump tosses around lies like Halloween candy. It's just that everyone is inured to it now, so it's not a story.

---

You (and lots of your tribe) just cannot call out bad behavior by your candidates without minimizing or saying "but trump." It diminishes your credibility.

---

My argument is that it is bad but also that it is standard practice on all sides. Was that not clear? Should I say it again?

---

Yes. Try to say it again without "but . . . . . "

That is my point - you insist on minimizing it because it is your tribe.

---

Sorry, I'm not going to limit my commentary to only what you would like to hear.

And anyway, you made a specific claim that the Harris Twitter was doing something "beyond the norm." Hence my further commentary that it is not.

Breaking: The NYT calls Arizona for Donald Trump.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

clearly and intentionally take things out of context or post maliciously edited clips.

---

Seems to me like that's just playing the Twitter game.

---

Perhaps yes. But unlike other troll accounts, they were affiliated with Kamala's campaign.

They were so bad that Daniel Dale at CNN (!!) called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-campaign-social-media/index.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/15/kamala-harris-social-media-misleading-videos/

Certainly nothing they should be proud of.

---

I can't believe a political campaign would say misleading things about their opponent! Truly unprecedented.

---

You're on this schtick lately that everything bad a democrat does is just "normal bad" behavior. Why is it so hard for you to just agree its bad?

Beyond that, what this group did was beyond what ever norm you are suggesting. That is the larger point which for some reason you want address.

---

Is it really beyond the norm? You're saying the Trump campaign didn't run any ads about Kamala Harris that didn't stretch or exaggerate claims about her? Be honest now.

Of course it's all "bad" on a moral level, but for most of my life it's also been the norm in political advertising for all sides. Why single out the Harris team here?

---

I'm saying the official trump campaign twitter did not routinely and intentionally edit video clips in a false and misleading way and then present it for public consumption in a way that was completely out of context.

I know that because if they had, the media would have justifiably ripped them a new one.

To be clear, I'm sure lots of people on the right did that. But not the official campaign. Honestly, Daniel Dale is a trump hater, 99% of his articles are anti republican/trump. He has probably written 5 articles in his entire life criticizing the left (yes that's an exaggeration, but likely not by much). The fact that he is calling out this group speaks volumes.

---

Maybe if you're referring specifically to the official Trump twitter account then they didn't. I don't know; I haven't followed that. But I highly doubt that the Trump campaign never did anything like that. Trump tosses around lies like Halloween candy. It's just that everyone is inured to it now, so it's not a story.

---

You (and lots of your tribe) just cannot call out bad behavior by your candidates without minimizing or saying "but trump." It diminishes your credibility.

---

My argument is that it is bad but also that it is standard practice on all sides. Was that not clear? Should I say it again?

---

Yes. Try to say it again without "but . . . . . "

That is my point - you insist on minimizing it because it is your tribe.

---

Sorry, I'm not going to limit my commentary to only what you would like to hear.

And anyway, you made a specific claim that the Harris Twitter was doing something "beyond the norm." Hence my further commentary that it is not.

---

Don't do it for me. Do it for yourself. The truth will set you free.

And I already explained to you why it was beyond the norm. A point you did not refute. You're just talking in circles now.

As I recall, you also insisted Kamala was a strong candidate. I believe you said we'd circle back on that after the election. Care to revise your assessment?

---

Yes, you gave a kind of explanation about it being beyond the norm. I just don't agree. Was that not clear either? It's okay to just respectfully disagree on this.

On to the next point: I also don't believe I ever said Kamala was a great candidate; most of my commentary here has been along the lines of "she's fine." But if you want my full assessment:

She's about average for a Democratic nominee. Not terrible, not great. Certainly better than Biden would have been at his current advanced age. I know, you're going to come at me with "but she lost to a terrible candidate like Trump!" So I'll elaborate:

First off, I don't think we should keep thinking of Trump as a terrible candidate. He has plenty of weaknesses, but clearly something about him drives turnout from parts of the electorate who are ordinarily not engaged with politics. It's happened three times now, and other Republicans who try to copy his approach don't do the same. I don't personally get the appeal, but it's there.

Secondly, I think in thinking Kamala could win, I was underestimating just how much the national environment was tilted against the ruling party. Just about every county or state shifted right vs. 2020, including places where neither party spent much time campaigning. Given that Harris was only the nominee for about three months, I don't think that can all be laid at her feet. The poor popularity of the Biden administration, global anger about the lingering effects of COVID (inflation, etc.) . . . these were pretty rough headwinds for any Democratic nominee.

But if you look at the swing states and districts where Harris actively campaigned (like in the Rust Belt), you saw less of a red shift than elsewhere, which indicates that her campaign was at least somewhat effective at blunting the damage. The polling went from looking like a sure Biden loss to roughly a dead heat during her short campaign, and the ultimate results do look like those toss-up polls were basically correct: if one candidate wins by 1-2 points then that was a legitimately close election. So yes, she lost, but her campaign did make up ground in a short period of time.

Again, don't think she's great. Probably wouldn't nominate Kamala Harris again; she had to be pushed in this time as an emergency measure because Biden took too long to drop out. But she also wasn't terrible.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I really don't understand how abortion had any impact in this election. First off, Kamala couldn't legalize abortion, because the question has already been settled by the supreme court. That the states will decide. It will take another case brought before the court to change it, so it has nothing to do with the executive branch. Trump can't do anything either, but he took the smart path and told people that he has nothing to do with it and it's the states decisions. Kamala was desperate to make it an issue though.

---

The theoretical case is that if Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, they could pass a national abortion ban. It's something that some GOP politicians have advocated before. What Dobbs did was remove the barrier to abortion restrictions; the federal government could still now pass its own law restricting the states in the other direction.

That said, yes it was smart for Trump to make a statement against this early in the campaign, which blunts the attack. (And honestly, with such a narrow House majority I doubt they will have the votes for it anyway.)

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I really don't understand how abortion had any impact in this election. First off, Kamala couldn't legalize abortion, because the question has already been settled by the supreme court. That the states will decide. It will take another case brought before the court to change it, so it has nothing to do with the executive branch. Trump can't do anything either, but he took the smart path and told people that he has nothing to do with it and it's the states decisions. Kamala was desperate to make it an issue though.

---

The theoretical case is that if Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, they could pass a national abortion ban. It's something that some GOP politicians have advocated before. What Dobbs did was remove the barrier to abortion restrictions; the federal government could still now pass its own law restricting the states in the other direction.

That said, yes it was smart for Trump to make a statement against this early in the campaign, which blunts the attack. (And honestly, with such a narrow House majority I doubt they will have the votes for it anyway.)

---

A Congressional race near me had a Republican candidate who was on tape saying he wanted a national ban. In a very Red year in a +6 Trump district, he lost by 4 points.

---

Yeah, Trump's advantage is that there is no tape of him saying this. Also probably part of the reason downballot Repubs usually did worse than him.