American Politics: The Net is Neutral Again

[Jerzylvania]

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Biden leads Trump 48% to 45%, but when third parties are included, Trump leads 39% to 38%.

Biden is the one that benefits from this loss: in a two way race, he wins 94% of the Democratic vote; with third parties, it falls to 81%. 5% points go between Stein and West, both who almost certainly won't get that support come November. Kennedy gets 9% points, which makes him a prime target to get Democratic voters back. Trump goes from 92% of Republicans to 86%.

Third parties also hurt Biden's and Trump's standing with Independent voters: Biden leads Trump 48% to 41% and still does with Independent voters 33% to 31%, but that represents a 15% and 10% point drop for the candidates, with Kennedy getting 20% of Independents and Stein (5%) and West (6%).

This makes it paramount for both campaigns to not only retain voters, but to win them back, especially for Biden, who has more to lose here.

Interestingly, 52% support sending military aid to Ukraine but 52% oppose doing so for Israel (43% feel not enough is being done to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza). Immigration is the most important issue:

Given a list of 10 issues and asked which is the most urgent one facing the country today, immigration (26 percent) ranks first among voters followed by the economy (20 percent) and preserving democracy in the United States (18 percent). No other issue reached double digits. This marks the first time that immigration has ranked as the top issue in this election cycle.

I see Biden leading Trump with women voters: 60% - 35% but he's losing men 35% -56% to Trump. Fortunately there are more women voters.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/g ... rnout#NPGX

[Ifreann]

Ah, so you're proposing a decades long conspiracy involving the DA's office, state judges, and the general public, all working to set the guilty free because something something sjws. And this is a more plausible explanation to you than the cops just being assholes.

Conspiracies are secret.
And no. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of policies like eliminating bail, does not mean those problems do not exist. It simply means that you do not care about those consequences; probably because you have the privilege of insulating yourself from them... for now.

Oh of course, that must be it. This man was arrested 21 times but only convicted twice because of bail reform.

[Haganham]

Conspiracies are secret.
And no. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of policies like eliminating bail, does not mean those problems do not exist. It simply means that you do not care about those consequences; probably because you have the privilege of insulating yourself from them... for now.

Oh of course, that must be it. This man was arrested 21 times but only convicted twice because of bail reform.

We do not know the reasons behind why THIS man was arrested so many times. But it should not be surprising that releasing people without bond, or even without charges, results in many arrests that do not lead to lead to convictions.

[Page]

Ah, so you're proposing a decades long conspiracy involving the DA's office, state judges, and the general public, all working to set the guilty free because something something sjws. And this is a more plausible explanation to you than the cops just being assholes.

Conspiracies are secret.
And no. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of policies like eliminating bail, does not mean those problems do not exist. It simply means that you do not care about those consequences; probably because you have the privilege of insulating yourself from them... for now.

It's the people against bail reform who ought to examine their privilege. If you're white and financially well off, you have a much lesser chance of finding yourself in jail and a much greater chance of being able to post bail. But privilege only gets you so far. Even rich whites should be prepare for the eventuality of the system devouring them.

For what it's worth, even if I were likely to be robbed by people with charges on ROR, I'd rather be robbed a dozen times than end up the one in jail once, because even if I'm innocent, a lawyer costs more than a robber can take from me.

The kind of people who think they face more danger from criminals than the state often get rude awakenings.

[Ifreann]

Oh of course, that must be it. This man was arrested 21 times but only convicted twice because of bail reform.

We do not know the reasons behind why THIS man was arrested so many times. But it should not be surprising that releasing people without bond, or even without charges, results in many arrests that do not lead to lead to convictions.

Why would bail reform cause people to be arrested but not convicted? I can imagine the police growing spiteful and arresting more and more people on ever flimsier pretexts, but I suspect that's not what you're getting at.

[The Black Forrest]

It seems Liz Cheney is going to travel the swing states to campaign against trump. The twitter post showed a pretty large crowed.

”I certainly have policy disagreements with the Biden Administration. I know the nation can survive bad policy. We can’t survive a president who is willing to torch the Constitution,” Cheney said, to cheers.

[Elwher]

Conspiracies are secret.
And no. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of policies like eliminating bail, does not mean those problems do not exist. It simply means that you do not care about those consequences; probably because you have the privilege of insulating yourself from them... for now.

It's the people against bail reform who ought to examine their privilege. If you're white and financially well off, you have a much lesser chance of finding yourself in jail and a much greater chance of being able to post bail. But privilege only gets you so far. Even rich whites should be prepare for the eventuality of the system devouring them.

For what it's worth, even if I were likely to be robbed by people with charges on ROR, I'd rather be robbed a dozen times than end up the one in jail once, because even if I'm innocent, a lawyer costs more than a robber can take from me.

The kind of people who think they face more danger from criminals than the state often get rude awakenings.

Cash bail, except in the case of individuals who are a demonstratable flight risk, is a total violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. The fact that a person has been charged with a crime, no matter how heinous, is not a justification to lock them up before they are convicted.

If there is going to be cash bail, then a not guilty verdict should automatically grant the defendant a very generous settlement for their imprisonment; something on the level of $1000 per day.

[Zurkerx]

The No Labels cannot catch a break: former NJ Governor Chris Christie has now pulled his name from consideration.

[Haganham]

Conspiracies are secret.
And no. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the consequences of policies like eliminating bail, does not mean those problems do not exist. It simply means that you do not care about those consequences; probably because you have the privilege of insulating yourself from them... for now.

It's the people against bail reform who ought to examine their privilege. If you're white and financially well off, you have a much lesser chance of finding yourself in jail and a much greater chance of being able to post bail. But privilege only gets you so far. Even rich whites should be prepare for the eventuality of the system devouring them.

For what it's worth, even if I were likely to be robbed by people with charges on ROR, I'd rather be robbed a dozen times than end up the one in jail once, because even if I'm innocent, a lawyer costs more than a robber can take from me.

The kind of people who think they face more danger from criminals than the state often get rude awakenings.

Though I think New York City has clearly demonstrated that bail reform, race, or wealth is no obstacle to the state's ability to engage in punishment by process, if they choose to exercise it. The neglect in addressing criminal behavior is a form pivlage blinder in itself. It is not "social justice" to neglect "harmless" crimes because they only harm the worst off, and it is the poor that suffer when the government refuses to address people who engage in destruction, theft, fraud and assault.

Just because one perspective may come from a position of privilege doesn't mean the other does not have privilege blinders of their own.

[GMS Greater Miami Shores 1]

GMS: I got to go see this movie: President Ronald Reagan, the original Make America Great Again President of the USA: Ronald Reagan is a Gentleman, they don't make them like Ronald Reagan anymore: Starring Dennis Quaid and Jon Voight, Sets August 30 Opening with Distributor Showbiz Direct. Reagan, starring Dennis Quaid as the 40th U.S. president, is officially coming to cinemas.

The movie has set an August 30 opening under a partnership with new distributor Showbiz Direct, according to a Deadline report. Showbiz Direct is headed by Kevin Mitchell as well as former Lionsgate distribution president Richie Fay and the former co-president of distributor Open Road, Scott Kennedy.

Reagan will be the first big-screen movie to dramatize the life of Ronald Reagan and is expected to cover its subject’s entire life — from his beginnings in Illinois, to his career as a Hollywood actor, and ultimately his rise in politics.

Howard Klausner, one of the movie’s screenwriters, told Breitbart News: “His story is the story of the 20th century, and reminds us of who and what we are still.” (Klausner was a screenwriter on the 2000 Clint Eastwood movie Space Cowboys).

Dennis Quaid had the task of embodying the president’s distinctive look and congenial way of speaking.

“Portraying Ronald Reagan was an enormous challenge,” Quaid told Deadline. “This is an important movie, one of my most interesting roles and I am really excited to work with the ShowBiz team to get this film opened in theatres this summer.”

The movie, directed by Sean McNamara, will reportedly put an emphasis on the Cold War and will unfold in a flashback structure as told by a former Russian spy, played by Oscar-winner Jon Voight.

The cast also includes Penelope Ann Miller as Nancy Reagan; Mena Suvari as Reagan’s first wife, Jane Wyman; Lesley-Anne Down as Margaret Thatcher; David Henrie as a teenage Reagan; and Kevin Dillon as Hollywood mogul Jack Warner.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... iz-direct/

Show Biz Direct’s Kevin Mitchell told Deadline, “I’ve had my eyes on this movie for a while. Dennis Quaid does such an amazing job portraying Reagan.”

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... iz-direct/

[The Black Forrest]

The No Labels cannot catch a break: former NJ Governor Chris Christie has now pulled his name from consideration.

Well? Is it a serious party? It comes across as nothing more then a disrupter like the reform party.

[Zurkerx]

The No Labels cannot catch a break: former NJ Governor Chris Christie has now pulled his name from consideration.

Well? Is it a serious party? It comes across as nothing more then a disrupter like the reform party.

It's more of a political organization rather than a political party, which I guess they're trying to be classified as one, but they ain't finding success. I feel they won't have a ticket set up. Even if they do, it's going to have people on there that aren't known.

The biggest disrupter is RFK Jr.'s Campaign if we're being honest here, and he's an independent candidate.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

They have found Ammon Bundy if anyone would care to arrest him

[GMS Greater Miami Shores 1]

Well? Is it a serious party? It comes across as nothing more then a disrupter like the reform party.

It's more of a political organization rather than a political party, which I guess they're trying to be classified as one, but they ain't finding success. I feel they won't have a ticket set up. Even if they do, it's going to have people on there that aren't known.

The biggest disrupter is RFK Jr.'s Campaign if we're being honest here, and he's an independent candidate.

RFK JR, might seek the Libertarian Party nomination.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? Is it a serious party? It comes across as nothing more then a disrupter like the reform party.

It's more of a political organization rather than a political party, which I guess they're trying to be classified as one, but they ain't finding success. I feel they won't have a ticket set up. Even if they do, it's going to have people on there that aren't known.

The biggest disrupter is RFK Jr.'s Campaign if we're being honest here, and he's an independent candidate.

Ahh ok. Don’t follow nolabels that much.

As to RFL Jr.? I doubt he will do that much. He has too many wacky things and I suspect dirty laundry. Talking about Weinstein and about have Cosby and Roger Alles over for dinner?.

Still Let’s see when it’s over….

-edit-

Also, the hidden list of benefactors for nolabels doesn’t add to its credibility….

[The Black Forrest]

They have found Ammon Bundy if anyone would care to arrest him

Isn’t his 15 minutes over? Still spewing shit which gets people threatened and harassed?…yea jail time is warranted.

[Zurkerx]

It's more of a political organization rather than a political party, which I guess they're trying to be classified as one, but they ain't finding success. I feel they won't have a ticket set up. Even if they do, it's going to have people on there that aren't known.

The biggest disrupter is RFK Jr.'s Campaign if we're being honest here, and he's an independent candidate.

RFK JR, might seek the Libertarian Party nomination.

Maybe but he's not viewed fondly by the Libertarian Party; he wouldn't get the nod from them anyway: he's no Libertarian.

[Deblar]

RFK JR, might seek the Libertarian Party nomination.

Maybe but he's not viewed fondly by the Libertarian Party; he wouldn't get the nod from them anyway: he's no Libertarian.

No one in the Libertarian Party's a libertarian anyway, so it works out just fine /hj

[Zurkerx]

It's more of a political organization rather than a political party, which I guess they're trying to be classified as one, but they ain't finding success. I feel they won't have a ticket set up. Even if they do, it's going to have people on there that aren't known.

The biggest disrupter is RFK Jr.'s Campaign if we're being honest here, and he's an independent candidate.

Ahh ok. Don’t follow nolabels that much.

As to RFL Jr.? I doubt he will do that much. He has too many wacky things and I suspect dirty laundry. Talking about Weinstein and about have Cosby and Roger Alles over for dinner?.

Still Let’s see when it’s over….

-edit-

Also, the hidden list of benefactors for nolabels doesn’t add to its credibility….

No Labels are a sketchy group. They used to be more open but now they're viewed with suspicion.

As for RFK Jr., he currently polls around 10-15%, which is numbers similar to Ross Perot when he relaunched his campaign in 1992, but I suspect his numbers will eventually fall to the 5-7% range, especially after Democrats beat him over the head and highlight his controversial positions.

[Zurkerx]

Maybe but he's not viewed fondly by the Libertarian Party; he wouldn't get the nod from them anyway: he's no Libertarian.

No one in the Libertarian Party's a libertarian anyway, so it works out just fine /hj

This is unfortunately somewhat true...

[American Legionaries]

Maybe but he's not viewed fondly by the Libertarian Party; he wouldn't get the nod from them anyway: he's no Libertarian.

No one in the Libertarian Party's a libertarian anyway, so it works out just fine /hj

They can't even agree on what makes someone a Libertarian in the first place.

[Elwher]

Maybe but he's not viewed fondly by the Libertarian Party; he wouldn't get the nod from them anyway: he's no Libertarian.

No one in the Libertarian Party's a libertarian anyway, so it works out just fine /hj

It would appear you know nothing of Larry Sharpe of the NY Libertarian party.

[Elwher]

No one in the Libertarian Party's a libertarian anyway, so it works out just fine /hj

They can't even agree on what makes someone a Libertarian in the first place.

Neither can any other party.

[Stellar Colonies]

...

I see Biden leading Trump with women voters: 60% - 35% but he's losing men 35% -56% to Trump. Fortunately there are more women voters.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/g ... rnout#NPGX

In my opinion, to use an admittedly odd analogy, Democrats essentially need to court American men and lay out reasoned plans to resolve issues facing the demographic to demonstrate why it would benefit them to vote blue. Abandoning people to the seductive messaging of the Republicans and writing them off as an irretrievable antagonist would be a mistake.

[The Black Forrest]

...

I see Biden leading Trump with women voters: 60% - 35% but he's losing men 35% -56% to Trump. Fortunately there are more women voters.

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/voters/g ... rnout#NPGX

In my opinion, to use an admittedly odd analogy, Democrats essentially need to court American men and lay out reasoned plans to resolve issues facing the demographic to demonstrate why it would benefit them to vote blue. Abandoning people to the seductive messaging of the Republicans and writing them off as an irretrievable antagonist would be a mistake.

Which group of men? Maga and far right would be a waste of time.