Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

Lots of things Trump does would be insane, or considered as such, by any other candidate.

Spouting discredited racist vomit about pets being eaten in a National TV debate.

It was a Nazi rally, led by Nazis. The Nazi flags were a dead giveaway. This was all confirmed by Snopes.
If you turned up to that rally, and stayed there while Nazi scum waving Nazi flags chanted about Jews replacing 'us', then newsflash, you are Nazi scum too.

And we also have Trump spouting Nazi sounding racist vomit about immigrants poisoning the blood of the nation.

His campaign tweet racist memes about immigrant mobs taking over neighborhoods - no white faces present.

So what would be insane is the notion that Trump wouldn't dog whistle to racist scum.

Since no poster has ever been able to a fine person among the Nazis, I think it's fair to say that Trump was either criminally uninformed about an event that he was briefed on or he was dogwhistling to white supremacists. Both scenarios make him pretty unfit to lead the US.

In fairness, he seems to apply the same fine people logic to Russia invading Ukraine.

Perhaps one of the worst posts ever on boards. "Worked for the Democrats in 1944." When did that war start? What were the reasons? Why was Antisemitism an issue in the War for the Allies? Who were the allies? Who ran in the 1944 US Presidential election besides Roosevelt? What was his position re: the ongoing world war?

And the Italians, Greeks etc etc and every other out group who was not at all convenienced by what they experienced. History isn’t a deflection.

thats an assumption isnt it, assuming there were even a few local Black people or Jewish people or even White people there that just had an interest in history the assumption was that they were white supremacists too very convenient circular argument

How can't you point to anyone so? Also worth repeating cause you keep avoiding, the rally was not arranged by concerned citizens, it was two prominent neo Nazis. The groups represented weren't the Charlottesville Historical society, it was neo Nazi and white supremacist groups.

So once again, the burden of proof is on you but you can't prove anything. You were happy to cite snopes until you copped it differed from your unproven claim. No credible news outlet is pointing to any concerned non Nazi citizens cause it was a bunch of extremists present. The big assumptions are coming from you.

Just to add, the average concerned Jewish or black citizen is unlikely to attend a rally arranged by Neo Nazi and White supremacist rally. It's fair to assume they'd prefer to remain safe from such a rally. But you're bizarrely assuming they'd choose to attend.

It's perfectly possible there were people in Charlottesville who were on the side of not taking the statues down just from the perspective of not liking change. Just ordinary folks with not much knowledge of history or who really don't think deeply about political issues.

But when someone ploughs their car into a throng of people, killing one, you don't need the President of the United States, of all people, making any equivocational statements. No one from the side who were broadly in favour of taking the statues down murdered an innocent on that day. That was the other side. It should be a slam dunk for any president of the US to flatly condemn that action without being tempted to muddy the moral waters in the same speech or presser. It, at best, makes Trump an ignoramus for saying what he said, and at worst he was knowingly trying not to alienate part of his voter base. Both represent a precipitous drop off in the standard of character and statecraft normally expected of a sitting US president.

The amount of whataboutery in American politics, particularly, is insane. It's like the whole country forget the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right." So, when it's pointed out how bad Jan 6th was, the usual heads go, "Well, what about the BLM riots?"

It may break their brain to hear that both of those things can be condemned and you can argue for offenders to get the full penalty of the law in both cases.

The point is the nature of the European regime that the Allies fought against. The Ayatollah wants to destroy the only Jewish-majority country - just like what was being done to Jews on the European mainland.

But, you stated the nature of the German government impacted events in 1944. Do you think that war just started in 1944? As a reminder, it started in 1939 and the US joined in 1941. The events of 1933+ forward indeed included obvious antisemitic policies by the German dictatorship.

Was the antisemitism of the German government impactful on the war? I think not - the US didn't join until attacked by Japan. The UK, France, etc. didn't get to fighting until the invasion of Poland in 1939.

None of this had anything to do with destruction of European Jewry, which was underway by 39, but the dramatic rampup came a little bit later, in 1941.

So, what's this got to do with 1944? What exactly 'worked' for the Democrats in 1944? Why did you choose 1944?

You kinda buried the lead there…

Harris holds a 66-electoral vote lead over Trump… By basic electoral math, says Miller, Harris as of today holds a lock on most of the big swing states, looking like a sure winner in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. He adds that Harris also had Georgia in her column when she reached 337 EVs at the apex of her post-debate climb on Sept. 20. Now, he says, the modest Trump bump has put the Peach State back in play, and Trump also stands a good chance in North Carolina. But for now the states that have loomed as most pivotal since the race began remain beyond his reach.

I would add, not all bets are placed under that metric generally. Some people think at the odds given, it is worth betting on, there is a difference. But maybe it does apply to PredictIT, which is what Miller is basing it on.