Well, I think that’s incorrect, but neither of us will ever know.

The only quibble I have with this is that, as the article points out, projection is generally a subconscious things people do. I firmly believe Trump knows exactly what he’s doing and he accuses others first so if they accuse him it looks like “no, you are!” It’s just one strategy in his con man book.

If you read the article, it gets from the one to the other. It’s actually worth reading.

Nice thought, but it won’t matter. Trump will just have Ronnie Jackson say he’s never seen a man as healthy as Trump in all his years, and that Trump will likely live to be 250 years old, and even then he’ll only die because he’ll realize he’s solved all of the world’s problems and there’s nothing left to live for.

(There are too many “ands” in that sentence, but I can’t be bothered to fix it)

The flip side is that people who live in states with a big land area but relatively small population have a way oversized vote compared to people who live in high population states. Why should a small number of people in the Midwest be able to outvote the majority?

I was dumbfounded

There are just so many factors that go into a person’s experience of life. Even something as simple as being on the older side or the younger side when you first start school can have a giant impact.

When our youngest was just at the age where she was allowed to get up and turn on the TV by herself and watch something while we were sleeping, 9-11 happened. I left the house early for work that morning. When my wife got up, our daughter was terrified. They had repeatedly interrupted Nickelodeon to show the planes hitting the buildings, and she was too young to understand that it was the same planes being shown over and over - she thought planes were falling out of the sky all over and crashing into buildings. She was waiting for one to hit our house. It took a long time before we realized that’s what she was thinking. At 27, it’s still left lasting issues. If she had been younger, she wouldn’t have seen it, and if she had been older she would have likely understood better.

I only partially agree. Yes, with the recent debates featuring Trump frothing at the mouth and saying completely insane and hateful stuff, if a debate doesn’t have that it’s worth connecting on. But people do care about content.

With this debate as an example, lots of people commented on the “sanewashing” that Vance was doing - trying to give plausible explanations for things Trump has said or done - but it’s just not as outrageous as what we’re used to. And the Republican base was largely happy with that he said, even when it was demonstratively false.

I think people care, but it’s twigs being added to a pile of logs.

Seems hard to believe that this debate moved the needle much on either side. They both performed well, there were no big gotcha moments, and each said the stuff that their base would want them to say. Neither seemed unhinged, both were well spoken.

Vance said some stuff that was total crap, but that’s not a problem for anyone considering voting for Trump. I just don’t see that there’s any way anyone’s mind was changed.

You know, it was very different than I expected. There were quite a number of times when one of them said “Well I agree with most of that he just said.” Vance is pretty smooth, too. Much of what he said was total crap, but it wasn’t the Trump-style hateful vomit. It was the most cordial debate I’ve seen in a while, though there were some strong disagreements.

As other people have said, it would be way worse to have him him assassinated. If it’s looking like he’s going to lose, I could see the people who want the US unstable to prefer assassinating him instead.

I wish more thought had gone into the legend and the categories were either mutually exclusive or they used multiple dots. For instance, the very first item on the list -an Obama birtherism - is a blue dot for a public statement, but it also should have been a black dot for racism.

He’s so disingenuous. He says “I’m just a dumb guy asking questions,” but his show is clearly slanted and he gives sure time to people who wouldn’t and shouldn’t reach that kind of audience without him.

Yep, exactly. And Republican talking points encourage that kind of ignorance.

I’ve been careless with a delicate man

I’m not understanding. I’m saying there are people who think things are better now, and I think that’s crazy - the only ones who legitimately had it better before are insurance companies, who could just cancel you if you were costing them money.

It’s so crazy that anyone aside from the people who own insurance companies thinks things were better before the ACA. I had a friend who got bone cancer and had a leg amputated at 17. For that type of cancer, it’s nine years before they consider you in full remission, so he was essentially uninsurable for nine years because of the pre-existing condition.

There were people who had insurance that covered almost nothing because that’s all they could afford - the ACA got rid of plans that didn’t actually provide a benefit.

Our healthcare system is really, really terrible, but it’s so much better than before the ACA.

Exactly. He lies so much to inflate his “greatness” that it’s just a habit at this point. It’s never mattered to his base whether the things he said are true or not, never any consequences to him lying, so he just does it at every opportunity. If he was telling you that he took a dump, he’d add something like “…and all the people in the bathroom were very impressed - they’d never seen such a great dump before. They were cheering.”

I always hear about people lamenting that they lost their boomer parents to Fox News or Facebook or whatever, but I’m a boomer parent who lost a son to Rogan. He’s always quoting absolute nonsense he heard on that show about Kamala or liberals. It’s so sad - he’s a pretty smart guy.