I had a nightmare last night where I dreamed that Donald Trump won the election. Then I woke up and found out and realized it was more than a dream. He won the election 277 to 224 electoral votes.
Trump was elected by the will of the people, and democracy demands we accept that.
The most troubling promise Trump has made is that he will immediately begin a massive deportation of undocumented people.
Even worse the GOP now will have control of both house of Congress. U.S. Senate 42 Democrats 52 Republicans. U.S. House 181 Democrat 201 Republicans
I anticipate that Donald Trump will implement all the things he promised during the campaign. That includes deportation of millions of undocumented people, outrageous tariffs, lowered taxes for corporations and the wealthy, withdrawal from NATO, refusal to aid Ukraine, refusal to aid South Korea, refusal to provide protection for Taiwan, national anti-abortion law, no LGBT protection.
The GESTAPO is coming after you if you resist his directions.
Fed up with U.S. politics, some Californians are making plans to move abroad was a headline in today’s print edition Los Angeles Times. I am in that category.
The owners of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times fear the retribution of a Trump presidency and refuse to endorse Kamala Harris. The NYT has no fear as it has been owned by the same family for more than 100 years.
Democratic nominee Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States and beat Republican rival Donald Trump on Election Day, or so historian and election forecaster Allan Lichtman still predicts.
Known for correctly predicted the results of the last nine out of 10 presidential elections, Lichtman said on his YouTube channel Tuesday night that his prediction has not changed, despite Democratic nominee Harris’ leads in battleground states shrinking and polls being nail-bitingly close.
Lichtman has come under fire for his predictions, notably with political pollster Nate Silver last month calling the American University modern history professor’s keys “totally arbitrary” in a post on X.
He emphasized Tuesday the 13 keys he uses to make his predictions have not changed and criticized the prevalence of polling in the media, saying that governing, rather than campaigning, is indicative of who will win the 2024 race for the White House.
“I don’t have a crystal ball, I’m not Speaker Mike Johnson who thinks he has a pipeline to the Almighty, my system is based on history, it’s very robust, but it’s always possible, you can’t know it in advance that that there’d be something so cataclysmic and so unprecedented to break the pattern of history,” Lichtman said, but that “doesn’t mean my prediction is invalidated.”
Lichtman’s son Sam interviewed his father during the 90-minute live video, where the election prognosticator argued that democracy itself is at stake in this year’s White House race.
Before every election, Lichtman said he gets butterflies, but this year is different.
Then-President Donald Trump holds a roundtable with tech executives at the White House in 2017. From left, Apple CEO Tim Cook; Trump; Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella; and then-Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Many billionaires watching the polls fear that Donald Trump, if elected to a second term as President, will identify them as the “enemy within.”
In a conversation with CNN‘s Jake Tapper on Sunday morning before the Madison Square Garden rally, Trump’s VP running mate J.D. Vance denied that Trump’s “enemy within” rhetoric was referring to the Democratic Party. “He did not say that, Jake,” Vance responded when Tapper asked about Trump’s words. “He said that he was going to send the military after the American people? Show me the quote where he said that.” (During a Fox News town hall earlier this month, Trump specifically pledged to use either the National Guard or the military against “the enemy within,” whom he described as “radical left lunatics.”)
The Democratic Party is not the only “enemy” for Trump. As he’s said many times previously, he also places the press in that camp — a profession whose freedom is protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, in case Trump needs reminding. While in the midst of calling Harris a liar, saying she lied about working at McDonald’s, without any evidence, and claiming she’s said he doesn’t want fracking, without evidence, he went after the press.
Is it any wonder that Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times, and Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, stopped endorsements of Kamala Harris?
Mariel Garza, the editorials editor of the Los Angeles Times, resigned on Wednesday after the newspaper’s owner blocked the editorial board’s plans to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president.
“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza in a conversation with Columbia University School of Journalism. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”
Terry Tang is Executive Editor, Los Angeles Times.
Terry,
Ever since Dr. Soon-Shiong vetoed the editorial board’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for president, I have been struggling with my feelings about the implications of our silence.
I told myself that presidential endorsements don’t really matter; that California was not ever going to vote for Trump; that no one would even notice; that we had written so many “Trump is unfit” editorials that it was as if we had endorsed her.
But the reality hit me like cold water Tuesday when the news rippled out about the decision not to endorse without so much as a comment from the LAT management, and Donald Trump turned it into an anti-Harris rip.
Of course it matters that the largest newspaper in the state—and one of the largest in the nation still—declined to endorse in a race this important. And it matters that we won’t even be straight with people about it.
It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist. How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?
The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.
Seven years ago, the editorial board wrote this in its series about Donald Trump “Our Dishonest President”: “Men and women of conscience can no longer withhold judgment. Trump’s erratic nature and his impulsive, demagogic style endanger us all.”
I still believe that’s true.
In these dangerous times, staying silent isn’t just indifference, it is complicity. I’m standing up by stepping down from the editorial board. Please accept this as my formal resignation, effective immediately.
I hate to write this but JD Vance won the debate. Scott Jenings confirms what we all knew as the debate proceeded.
By Scott JenningsOct. 1, 2024 8:57 PM PT
As the candidates for vice president took the stage in New York on Tuesday night, the state of North Carolina was under water, Israel was under siege, the American supply chain was under threat of disruption by an East Coast port strike and the American people were under the impression that there was a leadership void in the White House.
In other words, the conditions existed for Ohio Senator JD Vance to stick it to the incumbent party, represented by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
And Vance delivered in spades. From the opening bell, Walz was nervous, overmatched and out of his depth, especially when dealing with foreign policy matters such as the ongoing attacks on Israel.
Walz simply wandered into the wrong bar. And as the night wore on it became evident that Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, made a lousy choice. Somewhere, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — perhaps the most talented young communicator in the Democratic Party and the running mate that Harris should have chosen — must’ve been laughing hysterically (or screaming into a pillow).
On issue after issue, Vance delivered smooth, well-constructed arguments while Walz often answered haltingly, like an online video struggling to buffer on a slow Wi-Fi connection. There hasn’t been a vice presidential candidate this out of his depth since Adm. James Stockdale delivered his famous “who am I and why am I here?” line in the 1992 campaign.
Vice presidential debates don’t often leave a lasting impression. The only thing anyone can remember from the 2020 version was that a fly landed on Trump running mate Mike Pence’s head. And 2016? I’ve yet to meet anyone in my travels this year who remembers that Tim Kaine was the Democratic nominee for vice president, let alone anything he said in a debate.
And before Tuesday night’s tilt, I wasn’t expecting the 2024 vice presidential debate to be much different. I know Vance is good on TV, and I know Walz has virtually no idea what he’s doing at this level of politics. But I was shocked — shocked — at just how ill-prepared Walz was for his one and only big ticket task in this campaign.
There isn’t much Vance or anyone else can do to change perceptions of Donald Trump at this point. He’s run for president three times, serving one term that’s now viewed as a success by most Americans, according to CNN’s latest polling. He’s been impeached twice. Shot in the ear once, and targeted by a second gunman. He’s been criminally indicted for numerous things and convicted in New York City, basically, for hooking up with a porn star 18 years ago.
And yet, Trump, by some measures, has never been more popular, mostly because Americans are remembering his term in office far more fondly than they are experiencing the Biden-Harris administration.
But Harris is a different story. She’s known, but people don’t know her as well as they know Trump. Opinions are still being formed about the vice president, and whether she’s earned a promotion to president. And one of the most consequential political decisions a presidential candidate makes is choosing a running mate.
The political media have run with the narrative, to date, that Trump made a terrible choice and Harris made an inspired pick. After this debate, there’s no way they can keep up this charade. Walz isn’t appealing to moderate Republicans. He’s not reassuring conservative white males that Harris isn’t a progressive in moderate’s clothing.
He was barely functional over the 90-minute show, having perfected a look of sheer terror and complete bafflement all at the same time.
Walz’s performance must have made everyone wonder how Harris came to choose him for the national ticket, and whether Harris herself possesses the executive decision-making capacity to serve as president. Walz’s meandering and mendacious answer to why he lied about the nature and timing of his trips to China would’ve gotten the former teacher kicked out of any high school debate club in Minnesota.
And for Vance, who has been pilloried for past comments made on old podcasts and before he became a believer in Trump’s leadership style, it was a night of redemption and validation. The 40-year-old Ohioan, a scant two years into his first term in the U.S. Senate, showed the Republican Party how to communicate calmly and with compassion. He admitted some shortcomings when he needed to and pressed attacks when it made sense.
Vance even won the exchange with Walz on abortion in a masterful pivot, admitting that his views have changed on the topic because of a referendum in his own home state. Walz, for his part, sidestepped questions about any restrictions that he and Harris would support.
After last night, it is hard to imagine Gov. Walz sitting in the Situation Room as some national or international emergency unfolds.
But Vance? He passed the test and proved that he belongs at this level of American politics.
Scott Jennings is a contributing writer to Opinion, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and a senior CNN political commentator.
Donald Trump can’t help himself. He calls Kamala Harris names. Obviously he believes that name calling is the path to winning in November. It’s more fun than talking about the economy, immigration and other issues.
By COLLEEN LONG Updated 9:33 AM PDT, September 29, 2024Share
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Sunday sought to distance themselves from Donald Trump’s latest insults of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris during a rambling weekend rally in Wisconsin in which he called her “mentally disabled.”
Trump escalated his personal attacks on the vice president during what was billed as a speech on immigration following Harris’ trip to the U.S.-Mexico border.
“Joe Biden became mentally impaired,” Trump said. “Kamala was born that way. She was born that way. And if you think about it, only a mentally disabled person could have allowed this to happen to our country. Anybody would know this.”
Trump has already falsely claimed Harris “turned Black” and regularly insults her as “stupid,” “weak,” “dumb as a rock” and “lazy.” With just over a month left before the presidential election, his allies pushed him publicly and privately to talk instead about the economy, immigration and other issues.
While I am sad to read of the landslides in Palos Verdes apparently the people living there want the government to fight mother nature. The On January 10, 2005, a landslide struck the community of La Conchita in Ventura County, California, destroying or seriously damaging 36 houses and killing 10 people. This was not the first destructive landslide to damage this community, nor is it likely to be the last reported the U.S. Geological Survey. From a landslide in Sonoma County to intense floods in San Diego the cliffs and hills near the beach communities are common. Amtrak announced the tracks are unexpectedly closed due to debris on the rails in the San Clemente area. A landslide caused by recent weather events was identified as the culprit, as reported by the L.A. Times. Anger will not solve this problem. If there was a solution to the landslides in Palos Verdes the government would have already taken that action.
I noticed that one news outlet called Palos Verdes the richest area in the country so money to fight the landslides is not an issue.
I am going with the prediction of Allan Lichtman. Lichtman is a historian who has correctly predicted the outcome of nine out of the past 10 presidential elections, has confirmed his prediction on which candidate will reclaim the White House.
Since 1984, Lichtman has published his “Keys to the White House” manuscript, in which he predicts which candidate will claim the presidency.
He’s made the correct prediction in 10 recent presidential elections, except for the razor-thin George W. Bush victory in the 2000 election over Al Gore, who Lichtman predicted would be the winner.
He bases his prediction on thirteen keys, or “big picture true-false questions that tap into the strength and performance of the White House Party.”
The keys include whether:
The White House party gained House seats during the midterm elections.
The sitting president is running for reelection.
The White House party is avoiding a primary contest.
There is a third-party challenger.
The short-term economy is strong.
The long-term economic growth has been as good as the last two terms.
The White House party has made major changes to national policy.
There is sustained social unrest during the term.
The White House is untainted by scandal, the incumbent party is charismatic.
The challenger is uncharismatic.
The incumbent is charismatic.
The White House party has a major failure in foreign policy.
J.D. Vance warns calling a candidate a ‘fascist’ can lead to violence but doesn’t mention that’s what Trump calls Harris. Trump also called Harris a communist.
Presidential historian on Monday’s CNN NewsNight panelist Tim Naftali suggested in the aftermath of the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump that Trump made himself a bigger target by “using the rhetoric of the 30s.” Fortunately, New York Post reporter Lydia Moynihan and CNN commentator Scott Jennings were also there to recall the violent rhetoric and “bunch of lies” directed towards Trump over the past several years.
Naftali declared, “I remember so well July 13th. And I remember the conversations in the days that followed. I remember President Biden’s speech about toning down the rhetoric, and I saw the rhetoric toned down on both sides and then 20 minutes into his acceptance speech, Donald Trump turned up the volume.”
Both Vance and the former president, who said Democrats calling him (Trump) a “threat to democracy” is “what is causing me to be shot at,” have been cited for the hypocrisy of their pleas to deescalate incendiary discourse.
Could someone get shot and killed? The answer is YES! There has already been two efforts to kill Donald Trump.
Coast Contact 