Gross. All these war lovers I grew up disliking are voting for Harris and the Democrats aka the new neocon party.
I unpaused the block to see the tweet. These aren’t polls, but forecasts. Also, I’m not sure who InteractivePolls is, but they seem to be mixing up the forecasts and attributing them incorrectly. I’m not going to comment further on that, other than to say it’s confusing how they’re presenting it and I’m not sure why they’re doing it that way. Forecasts are unreliable (but can be useful for trends). I wouldn’t pay much attention to them. Polls are generally good, and if you actually look at the polls, you’ll notice that no one (with a few exceptions) has over 50% among the swing states (that's why they are swing states). As long as that’s the case, there are uncommitted voters who can swing either way. Forecasters often just split these voters 50/50. Anyway, the point is, while polls are fairly accurate (yes, even in 2016 and 2020 if you understand how they work), you can’t rely on them too much unless someone is consistently ahead with over 50%. For example, if you look back at Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in 2016, Clinton was almost always a few points ahead of Trump but never once polled at or above 50%. Michigan was similar, with just one poll showing Clinton at 50%. Although I can’t recall the details now, when I looked at the data, Clinton's results were pretty much in line with the polling average (some were exactly on the average). The difference was that most undecided voters broke for Trump. If they had broken 50/50, as most forecasts ASSUME (what else can they do but to assume this), Clinton would have won. Back to blocking tweets.
Looks like one of the Republicans best just joined the Democrats. There might be hope for the Republican party after all.
As I said in another thread I don’t welcome Dick Cheney’s endorsement. This idea though they Trump is the peace candidate ignores that while President he did fight wars and US soldiers did die on his watch. As President he not only abandoned Kurdish allies but redeployed US troops in Syria to protect Syrian oil fields. He also ordered the assasination of an Iranian general that also led to a US airbase being hit with missiles. It’s particularly ironic for those who support Trump because you believe he will fully support Israel in its conflict with Palestinians, Hezbollah and Iran to argue that Trump is the peace candidate.
A great example of how MAGA doesn't get it. Harris never came around to the foreign policy positions of these people. It is that the Republican party became so extreme that they'd rather support the person opposed to their positions because she's better for America. It isn't that Harris has changed. It's that the party has abandoned America in favor of one person who expressly acts against the constitution.
What exactly do you mean by that? Please explain clearly and try to not sound like a neo Nazi racist POS.
The tweet you shared about Cheney switching parties was actually funny. So is this, but what's funny about it is that Trump, despite what he claims today, was initially in favor of attacking Iraq. What Trump actually said before the war In his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” Trump argued that a military strike on Iraq might be necessary. Trump wrote that the US still did not know the true status of Iraq’s nuclear program. He then wrote, “I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.” He continued: “Am I being contradictory here, by presenting myself as a deal-maker and then recommending preemptive strikes? I don’t think so. There’s nothing really comparable to unleashing a squadron of bombers, but in the world of business sometimes you have to make quick, secret, decisive moves in order to gain a negotiating advantage.” When radio host Howard Stern asked Trump in September 2002 if he is “for invading Iraq,” Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.” Trump did not express a firm opinion about the looming war in a Fox interview in January 2003, saying that “either you attack or don’t attack” and that President George W. Bush “has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps.” https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/poli...-false-claim-opposed-iraq-invasion/index.html
