mspart

Hopefully he's on to something. Perhaps making the paper profitable is top on his priority list. I don't see him addressing the blatant bias in the "regular news" articles. That is what needs changing. mspart

Yep, it is not physically safe to be around your family. mspart

With a high IQ. They want go getters, not basement dwellers. mspart

And that means what exactly? If he was worried about financials would he have done the things he did to make it less profitable? Nope. He did what he did to streamline the corporatness of the enterprise and gain control of it so it would serve his purpose. Which he did. mspart

Musk did say at the outset that he didn't care about making money with Twitter. It was posted just above. Advertisers are coming back as noted above. So things are looking good for Twitter (X), but it is worth less yes. It is privately owned. So who cares if it is a better place to communicate? mspart

People who are married to their jobs oftentimes are not married to their families. It is hard to serve two masters as the saying goes. You concentrate on one at the expense of the other. mspart

It doesn't hurt me. It hurts your credibility as Husker notes. If you care, you would post effective communication rather than personally attacking people. Why do I care? Because I want civilized communication on these boards and you do not provide that when you attack people personally. mspart

Do you want a federal gov that prosecutes political enemies? You have that now. Do you want a federal gov that spends money with no thought of result? You have that now. Do you want a federal gov that favors censorship? You have that now. Do you think Kamala would have slowed any of these down? Do you think Trump will accelerate any of these? mspart

Gernerally this is true. mspart

The movement among these racially and behaviorally identified people that are so important to the Ds shows they are not drinking the Kool Aid in the numbers they did in the past. They are thinking individuals who do not vote or reason as a voting bloc but as individuals. That is the issue that the Ds miss in their identity politics. They need to focus less on color and more on individual and policy that will benefit such an individual. They assume Blacks will vote for them lockstep. That proved not the case. They assumed Latinos would vote for them lockstep due to the open border. That proved not the case ETC. mspart

Here are the trends from that website: Here are data that illustrate the scale of decline since Obama vanquished Mitt Romney in 2012. For this exercise, I use the Catalist data from 2012, the best retrospective data available, and compare it to the demographic group estimates from AP VoteCast, the best 2024 election data currently available. (It would be preferable to use 2024 Catalist data for this comparison but their data are not yet available.) Nonwhite voters overall. Obama carried these voters by 64 points; Harris carried them by 34 points. Democratic decline: 30 points. Black voters. Obama carried black voters in 2012 by an amazing 93 points. Harris managed only a 67-point margin. Democratic decline: 26 points. Latino voters. Obama carried Latinos by 39 points, Harris by just 12 points. Democratic decline: 27 points. It is interesting that the overall decline since 2012 is quite similar between blacks and Latinos; however, essentially all of the decline for Latinos was post-2016 while the black decline has been more or less continuous. Working-class (non-college) voters overall. Obama was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the working class as a whole (3-point margin). But Harris lost them solidly by 13 points. Democratic decline: 16 points. White working-class voters. The traditional trouble spot for Democrats; Obama lost them by 20 points, which goes up to 30 points in this election. Democratic decline: 10 points—which is a substantial and very consequential decline among a huge voter group. However, that decline pales in magnitude when compared to the decline among nonwhite working class voters. Nonwhite working class voters. Obama cleaned up among nonwhite working-class voters, carrying them by 67 points in 2012. This election the margin was down to 32 points, cutting the Democratic advantage by more than half. Democratic decline: 35 points. Black working-class voters. Black working-class voters gave Obama a 94-point margin in 2012, actually higher than among their college-educated counterparts. But in 2024, the Democratic margin among the black working class—64 points—was lower than among the college-educated, reversing the class polarity of the black vote. Democratic decline: 30 points. Latino working class voters. These voters gave Obama a 43-point advantage, much higher than among the Latino college-educated. In 2024 this crashed to a mere 8-point advantage for Harris. Democratic decline: 35 points, two and a half times the decline among the Hispanic college-educated. Young voters. Obama carried voters under 30 by 23 points; this election Harris managed only a 4-point advantage among this age group to the shock of most, particularly Democratic, observers. Democratic decline: 19 points. Of course, this is comparing an age group that had a different generational composition in the two elections. But this should provide little comfort to Democrats. The 18-29 year old age group in this election was composed almost entirely of Gen Z voters, supposedly the leading edge of a generational shift that would make the voting pool ever more Democratic. In 2012, the 18-29 year olds who provided Obama’s 23 point margin were all members of the Millennial generation. In 2024, those voters are now entirely contained in the 30-44 year old age group, where Harris eked out only a 3-point advantage. So much for the generational theory of political dominance. Young black voters. Black voters under 30 gave Obama a 92-point margin in 2012. Harris carried them by only 50 points. Democratic decline: 42 points(!) The decline was almost as large among black voters 30-44. Young Latino voters. In 2012, Obama dominated Hispanic voters under 30 by 54 points. Harris’s margin among these voters was just 17 points. Democratic decline: 37 points. Male black voters. While black female voters have also shifted right over time, the shift among black men has been far larger—almost three times the size. In 2012, Obama carried black men by 91 points; Harris’ margin crashed to 49 points in 2024. Democratic decline: 42 points. Male Latino voters. Latino men have also shifted harder right than their female counterparts. Obama enjoyed a 32-point advantage among Hispanic men in 2012. In this election, Harris was essentially tied among these voters, carrying them by only single percentage point. Democratic decline: 31 points. Discuss. mspart

How can you tell a Trump voter from a Harris voter? Perhaps you are surrounded and nothing has happened. Perhaps your fear is not reasonable. Where have you seen Trump supporters physically taking it to Harris supporters? mspart

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/farewell-to-the-rising-american-electorate Discuss mspart

Looks like he has reached his goal. mspart

Men have been beating out women at those for the last couple of years, it would be fitting. mspart

I said transparency is "guaranteed". The quote marks were intentional. mspart

Agreed! mspart

Unclear on this. It is an outside group auditing wasteful spending. If that needs government oversight ok. Anybody can do this, the difference will be they will probably have access to info that the normal Joe doesn't. They might see more areas that are wasteful than otherwise. I'm still not really clear on why this whole thing is a BAD idea. If someone really wants to get to the bottom of this topic, now is a good time. Transparency is "guaranteed" as well as a suggestion box of sorts. So everyone should be able to see what is going on and if Musk and Vivek are holding on to wasteful spending that helps them personally. To me this is the first time this has been done in such a serious and open manner. I think that is a good thing. And only Congress can make the suggested changes to spending as I understand it. mspart

I see what you mean. But in this case, it seems apparent that most of the bureaucracy is against Trump so I don't think there would be any issue with them calling this out as currently constituted. That may change. I'm sure someone from across the aisle can call out waste that these guys miss. Like that would happen. mspart

I think in this case it is not the government a group of outsiders looking inside for waste and identifying it. They seem to be on this train for some time and want to do it. They do not constitute another agency really. They can do nothing by themselves. I think that is the reason. mspart

Release the report. Gaetz needs to go through the same hellish nightmare confirmation hearing as all the rest will. If he did nothing wrong, that should be in the report. mspart

So to understand correctly, Vak has no objection to a DOGE type group trying to root out wasteful and inefficient spending. Vak just doesn't want Musk or Vivek at the head. Is that correct? mspart

I would be happy to have the folks that ordered this to lose their jobs. If that action is a felony, then yes, jail or prison. But at least fire those that ordered this. mspart

Congress has to approve anything they identify. They will not control government spending. They will identify inefficiencies and waste. It will be up to Congress to act on the information. mspart

There you go again personally attacking. I'm sorry you don't see it as a character flaw but it is. It doesn't assist you in your attempt to communicate. What comes across is rage, not information. mspart