aurum

Maybe. We can nitpick about what we think tips the scales, but the reality is it’s going to be an extremely close race. Kamala is no longer surging in the polls like she was. We’re back to almost a statistical tie.

Debate seems to have been almost irrelevant so far: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/video/enten-harris-trump-poll-debate-digvid https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4x71znwxdo.amp

That Lankford interview was months ago, and he got ripped by a lot of the right-wing for that. There is no big backlash still to come from the right, they have mostly all fallen in line around the decision. A more recent FoxNews article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-run-border-bill-republicans-say-was-never-designed-solve-problem.amp So it doesn’t matter whether Trump did or did not kill the bill for political reasons. What matters is that people don’t believe he did. I won’t say it has no impact though. I just think a 10 point swing is way too much.

But you do realize how many people make this claim, correct? Which one of you right? It can’t be all of you.

Have you looked into MAT? A practitioner *might* be able to help with some of that tightness. https://muscleactivation.com/

I was commenting specifically about the effects of the bill itself. Going from +25 to +15 I think is way too much. +10 overall in the polling on this issue could certainly be right.

That seems very generous in Kamala’s favor. Here’s my argument: How many people even know about that bill? And of the people who know about it, how many of them also believe that Trump killed it for political reasons? I expect her to lose quite badly on this issue. “How can she protect the border if she’s not an angry white male? -> unconscious voter logic

That one only works if you’re an intelligent person who votes on policy. For most people, Trump seems like the guy who will save people from immigration. So they will still vote for him.

Saying it was “planned out” I think gives them too much credit. Trump is not that smart. Rather, the story went viral because it hit a lot of people’s buttons. And Trump and team just ran with it because they saw the popularity and that it played into their right-wing platform.

No. This is progressive nonsense. Racism is about survival. And survival is the most natural thing there is.

Try thinking about it like this: Infinity must be what is contained within it because “transcendental” is a duality you are making. You imagine there is this “transcendental thing” and then all this stuff that is “not transcendental”. But that violates what it means to be Infinity. Reality is, and must be, One. Such that reality simply is itself, with nothing else. And yes, it is tautological. That’s not a mistake.

I’m not saying you’re a right-winger. I imagine you have an open mind. But dude, take the feedback. I’m not looking to attack you. I’ve posted plenty of cringey stuff on here. It happens. Our political discourse is hot garbage right now, and politics itself is notoriously hard to understand. The purpose of being here is learning. So just stay open.

No, that’s not how this works. I offered my explanation. But there is no “proof” for this I can just give you. This is not a mathematical formula.

Because then infinity wouldn’t be infinity. It would be less-than-infinity, since there are things that are not it. For infinity to be infinity at all, it must be Total. You don’t have to agree with my logic. Discover for yourself.

In my experience, that’s not how I would describe it. Infinity is not “surrounded” by nothing. It’s not an object in space somewhere.

@Spiritual Warfare your second definition is wrong because if infinity is “something beyond or surrounding” everything, than everything would necessarily need to be included in infinity. Otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite. Edit: reinterpretation

You can justify the necessity of it all you want. Won’t change the fact that it’s poisoning your mind.

There can be. But you have posted some cringe right-wing takes though.

Left-wingers would have a lot of egg on their face as well. Just maybe not as much as right-wingers.

If right-wingers actually participated in an unbiased debate, it would collapse their entire worldview.

Claims of ABC bias are almost entirely right-wing cope. Don’t buy it. Right-wingers have no interest in an unbiased debate.

Almost anyone who is decided is not going to change their mind at this point.

We’ll see. It’s still an open question. But this is why I keep trying to emphasize not just looking at the debate from a progressive POV. It will skew your interpretation. There should be nothing mind-blowing about realizing that last night was not enough to move many undecided voters.

It ultimately doesn’t matter if people polled think she won the debate. What matters is whether it moved actual voters. And the data on that still remains to be seen.

Let’s wait for the election polling numbers to come in. What I don’t like is seeing progressives jump on this narrative of how “obvious” it was that Kamala crushed Trump, when really they’re just looking at it from their progressive POV. Which includes how they think average voters behave. Critique out of the way, I do think it was Kamala’s night. The baiting was real and Trump walked into it perpetually. She slammed him on Putin and he slammed himself with fake election nonsense. Definitely one of his worst debates, while she looked ready. My guess is she will get a decent polling boost from this + Taylor.