wallstreetcappers

@StumpTownStu

 The drugs issue is not new it is not about the border it is about the acceleration of the damage that the drugs being manufactured is increasing. The border has been the way drugs have come into the country for 50 years plus and no wall or barrier is going to stop the border from being the path to this country. If you build a big wall then they will either go under it or over it or through it or use other methods like entry points or air or drones or whatever. The real issue is that citizens are using more and the drugs being circulated are more destructive not that the border is the only path because that is not the real crux of the problem. To me the issue about people living on the streets is that cities in the past would illegally and immorally force the homeless to vacate areas and that has been taken to task and the legalities have been challenged and through our legal system the rights of the homeless have been made more public and so the problem has gotten worse (again). About 30 years ago the city I grew up in and was living in had an image that the streets were clean and that the homeless were not out and sleeping or loitering during the day and people thought it was such a great thing. Well spring forward and it turns out that the mayor and the city council at that time did some pretty underhanded schemes to "clean" the downtown and make that great image at the harm of the homeless, they abused the rights of those people to make the downtown look clean and without the homeless hanging around.

Down here we have gone through a problem of the homeless AND people just scheming that will solicit at stop signs and traffic lights to an extreme level, they pan handle in parking lots and all over the place to the extent that the city council decided to pass ordinances banning the practice and have targeted tent city groups to try and shake out the homeless from camping and living in areas that are of risk to the general population. There is no easy partisan blame for the homeless and the drug problem, there really is no simple legal path that disposes of the elements of society we might not like to see and that cause harm to themselves and risk to the general population because those people have rights AND cities do not have the resources to attempt to tackle the issue as to housing or giving a place for people to be at and not in the general public. Taxpayers do not like to pay for homeless programs and are not in support of trying to improve the plight of those who are deemed as drug users and lazy. 

Lastly, as mentioned by me and others I see the vote shift in this election squarely in the demographic that is either racist or sexist and that makes sense to me. The core GOP voters are not going to budge without a massive reason and same goes for the general DNC voter...those bases are pretty stable and not really able to manipulate even with the lies and schemes politicians use. The segments which can be moved are those who have biases and are not the core base. Latin American men are biased against women candidates even more than white men are biased against women candidates AND the latin american voter group is biased against non-caucasian or latin american minorities let alone it being a female to boot. If the DNC candidate were a male I think Trump loses, if the candidate were a Latin American male that vote group would have completely supported that person and a female the numbers would have been strong but not as strong as a male. The vote differential is more about sexism and racism, there is a reason why this country is one of the worst with regard to women political candidates and minorities especially in a national general election.

@StumpTownStu

 Gains are not the reason for the electoral college difference, as it was noted the popular vote again was not a landslide it was quite close. My comment about drugs and border was that it was and IS an exaggeration meant to forward a political narrative...so credibility is lost how exactly? Were they eating the cats and dogs were the illegals taking all of the new jobs is all of the drugs and crime and ills due to the border? No...it was an exaggeration that has been used so many times nearly every cycle.

I more than most here have been witness to the sleezy scheme of blaming all social woes on the border...the GOP use it every single cycle it is a good old whipping tool used to scare voters and bring out the crazies. It works but it is a scheme, it is exaggerated and it is a lie. 

@kcblitzkrieg

My contention is the scheme worked, the change in voting stats that I saw were more regarding the gender and race difference between the two candidates, that to me is what seemed to be the "swing" that non-African American minorities were biased against Harris since she is both female and not from Latin America and as in most societies there is obvious biases that those men and non-African American voters have. The scheme is just quick change blame stupid talk...that all new jobs created went to illegals per Trump, that is a lie that the crime and drugs and ills of society are due to the border problems, that is a lie. Inflation is due to democrats, that is a lie..that we need to drill more when our national output is at historic highs during Biden, that is a lie. The exaggeration and exploitation of equity and inclusion as a narrative is a total lie. 

The combination of exaggeration and outright lies fed as a narrative and that Harris was both female and African American, that is what drove the outcome in his direction. Hate did and does and will exist going forward, the "left telling the rules" is a total exaggeration and partisan narrative..the "rules" now will be told by another political party and that narrative will insult and annoy many in the population in the same way that the extremist and erroneous narrative of the left was played to con the right and middle ground to believe the lies they were told. Blaming a political party for the ills of society is insulting and idiotic since society is the voting population, state and local elections shape local outcomes and even if you put Calif or Washington into the category of left those states are not draconian left, there is no state that has a complete political left monopoly, not even the extreme examples being lied about day after day here and in the extreme right media.

Americans are lazy, humans in general are blame oriented and lazy. Any citizen that listened to the nonsense Trump threw out is lazy and either partisan or are seeking answers to their own problems via a new face in the seat. Notice that almost every country is experiencing the same quick change political climate, inflation is not isolated to the US and in fact the US has lower inflation than many if not most countries. Politicians and parties do not create or erase inflation and especially in a capitalist market economy which we have here. Hate is a cute word, it is innate to all humans and all political parties. The voters that held their nose and picked Trump did so for a variety of reasons, one being that Harris is a woman AND of a different race than Latin American men/women. There is hate and that will not change the only difference is in the flavor of the hate. 

Reactionary blame oriented decisions rarely work out and this will be the same result. Until people take responsibility for their own lives and not rely on an idiotic politician things cannot get better. Quick change politics is always in fashion, Trump is the king of the con and the scheme, he played your side to perfection and knew that Latin American men would not vote for an African American woman, there is a SOLID reason why the US is one of few countries to not elect a woman and one of the slowest to elect a non-whitie man. 

Oh hate is still here, good thing that this flavor of hate got their say because the lack of social violence this trip is better for society and not having maniacal lunatics ranting in the media like last time is also a positive. Notice the cause and effect, notice that when the crazies got their way there is no violence and the raging blaring blasting hate is not plastered all over and people are not seeking a violent retaliatory attack and this 100% has to do with party vs party.

What I have found is if I am using a product like Zoom in windows and then try to access Fanduel I get that restriction error. You might do a google search and find what triggers the location restriction. Outside of using Zoom I never get that error. You also might try and use Edge or Firefox for the betting sites and not the browser you are getting the error on. I use Chrome for most things.

@Raiders22

 Why are you making multiple messages to reply to a single message I made? I am not going to reply to multiple messages that are just a continuation of a single tangent you are going on.

You keep saying you think she is not a good speaker...ok congrats you think that, I am not asking you to prove that she is either bad or good I am saying I do not find fault or laugh at her for whatever her speaking style is. I also said that there are MANY politicians who have quizzical public speaking styles that could be seen as peculiar and different. There are many politicians who are great public speakers and many who are not. We had three of the last four individuals as POTUS that are not good public speakers and that is just fine, who cares? You can care and you can ramble on about how her handlers this and needs practice that and try to minimize me by again saying I do not nave experience..your style of conversation is not welcoming it is not really conversation it is interrogation and insulting as a style. You cant suggest to ME anyway that you are seeking discussion by laying out the platform and requirements for HAVING discussion. I am not an employee or a student I am not seeking to be educated by you or have to prove with a research paper that I do not agree with your conclusions. The same goes in the other direction I am not and will never seek for you to follow my required outline to have discussion, I dont care if you have a different opinion and conclusion that is your right as a human being and good for you. I do not find any fault with her speaking skills, I am not criticizing or looking for faults in her as a person, my conclusion has zero to do with anything political it is only an observation as to her SPEAKING skills nothing else.

@Raiders22

 Why do I need to qualify my comment? I am not asking you for a thesis paper on what you find fault with her. I do not laugh AT people even if I disagree and especially in a derisive unkind way. I just do not agree with your view on her public speaking skills but I am not interviewing to be a pocket expert with you nor do I want to be so spare me the diatribe about having to prove why I disagree with you. At some point there has to be the ability to have a difference of subjective opinion, but be certain that I am not going to require you to prove to me why you dislike her speaking skills. If you want to find flubs and flaws and human characteristics of ANYONE you can do so, nobody is perfect few are even highly proficient to the level that you feel she needs to be to qualify for your approval.

Ive never had an issue with her oratory skills even when there are moments of pause or replies that are not perfect. Again the comment that brought me to the discussion is so bizarre that I had to say something. I dont care if you dislike Harris or her speaking skills or that you want to belittle her by laughing AT her...the part of the message that I had to comment on was so poor that I replied to it. The rest of your partisan spin you can continue doing, I dont really care actually.

@kcblitzkrieg

 Big difference between laughing with and laughing at. This difference is much more about the quality of the individual than the human you are getting the laughter from.

@Raiders22

 So quote me then...quote where I said I laugh at his oratory skiils? Then quote me five or ten times, you made the claim so back it up. I dont belittle or laugh at people even when I disagree or find fault. Pointing out blaring issues is not making fun or laughing at. I find the jabs and attacks, the belittling and put downs person to person as juvenile and of no value, but you want to laugh at someone go ahead its your life so go be you!

When have I said I laugh at him? Can you quote me when I said I laughed at his oratory skills? I said he is terrible at it and his zero ego thinks he has no need to improve but laugh at him? Nah I am not going to laugh at people when I think they are lacking.

I do not see it as your side does, few humans are able to be highly skilled at impromptu delivery there are not many who have this skill across all humanity. I do not agree with your contention and the quote that brought me in was not word salad it was taken out of context and intentionally misconstrued to form a partisan narrative. Her saying that people need to find options to deal with the stresses and complaints and uncertainty and depression I understood in 1 second after reading and yet for people like you and your side who want to put her down you make it into something it is not.

I just do not at all share your viewpoint or your criticism of her.

Laughing at...well that is poor of you but hey that is your choice to try and put down a decent woman. Her technique is fine to me and flawed to you I just do not make the conclusions your side does and not sure the value in doing so at any point.

@Raiders22

 Trump is the incoming POTUS and was a direct opponent of Harris, the content your side faults is largely in the arena involving Trump.

@Raiders22

You obviously take issue with her it has been multiple times you have tried to debase her but you are not the worst here in making digs towards her. I look at the person and their qualities not just how they handle curve balls from time to time. There are few humans who can be outstanding all of the time or even most of the time at impromptu deliver. This for sure is yet another one of the subjective categories, I am not looking to nit pick and find fault with a decent respectful person like Harris.

@UNIMAN

 So how is this different than the list I made? Why do you and Mugg and others target Harris when there are so many other similar and worse examples out there? I do not find her speeches or communications lacking but unlike you and several others here I am not looking to find reasons to insult and put her down. The repeated need to attack Harris who is a great politician, decent person and extremely respectful at the end here is just off to me. People who want to target and debase can always find ways to do so even when the subject and target are not at all what several of you are describing.

@Raiders22

 Notice that I did not fault or be critical of those others nor of people like Dan Quayle or Ross Perot etc but you did to Harris. I think Harris is a great speaker and she communicates just fine in fact better than most. I'd take a Harris speech over a Trump or a Vance speech any minute of the day. I think a few of you are so partisan that you seek out opportunity to find fault and minimize others who are of a different political perspective. 

I find Trump to be an awful speaker, he does not prepare and thinks his off the cuff approach is folksy and endearing, I find it useless and lacking much value of any kind. I have never felt that Harris was off in her speaking abilities no more than another say news reporter who gets thrown a question and has to improvise where sometimes it might be less than canned speech quality but the message is communicated. At least Harris does not pontificate about eating cats and dogs or peeking at Arnold Palmer in the locker room.

Your side likes to take shots at people and in this case Harris when there is little reason for doing so and it is not like she is an outlier, next week we will have another four years of the WORST speaker this country has ever been forced to endure and you want to complain about Harris over and over?

@Raiders22

 Its funny you fault her for how she comes across verbally, in this case I completely got it without needing to watch any further clip or research a thing and that is because I know context around the situation so with her own style she is communicating and her communication was clear and understood even from your slighted approach. It is funny because she is not the worst orator or communicator, we have experienced many politicians who are unique. I find that guy in PA to be odd and strange, but many like his style and while it might come off as different it is not used to judge him. I found Christie to be odd in his approach, brash and a bit obtuse to understanding other people but to those who know him and are from there its like any other person you might run into. I found Bush Lite to be horrible at oratory, he was brutal at communication and came off as clumsy and out of touch many times and yet he got a pass most of the time and people did not judge him.

Harris communicates just fine, just like Palin communicates just fine...both are unique and not like a newscaster but that does not mean she is lacking or should be faulted. Ive seen you guys and many in the ultra conservative media try and soil her for those unique qualities she has and I found it to be hollow and weak to try and find fault in that way. Harris was and is a great politician and a decent person. The way she has communicated with this situation is just fine I dont get the need to try and be critical at all but especially now.

@Raiders22

 You cannot rationalize or minimize an action based on a comparison action. There was zero need to call the member and his comments as chat gpt, it was an insult and not the first time he has been insulted for his style of comments. It was not said to make positive conversation, it was not provoked. That member has almost zero history of member to member insults and provocation. Stick to the item and then you will be stepping in the right direction, there is no need for you to try and minimize or rationalize an insult because YOU feel another did the same or worse. 

I suggest IF you feel a member is making a direct member to member attack or insult to please report it using the site tools and do your very very best to add value in discussion, make things better not try and play lawyer ball to defend someone in that way. Everyone needs to try and avoid insults, add value and make for good conversation whenever possible.

@Raiders22

 An expert is subjective, you are subjective I am subjective any human is subjective.

@Raiders22

 I understood what she meant with the second phrase, it makes sense to me in context. If you take a few lines out of context it can seem like something completely different than when it the proper context.

What she said made total sense, when I read your complaint/commentary bolded part I got it and it was not that difficult.