Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
The criticism is that it's been over a month and she hasn't not that anyone thinks she never will
I get that, but it's not a concern that I, at least, have. Where were these same critics when TFG didn't have a prese conference for nearly a year? Unless she does the interview with Fox, the next criticism will be that she's taking layup interviews, and on and on ad nauseum.
She just accepted the nomination last night, I expect it's game on starting today.
I hope you're right. Frankly I think she should be President today. We'll see.
Today would be the perfect time, now that RFK is dropping out and endorsing TFG finally.
I like Harris and I also don't like some of the misleading statements she made in her speech last night about Trump. No need to exaggerate on some of the things he's said or possibly plans to do. I know that's what politicians do and it's still better than the blatant lies made by Trump every time he talks, but she doesn't need to follow that narrative either.
Which ones, specifically? Just curious - let's get them out in the open so we're all on the same page.
Easier to just share this fact checker about what she said. Again, not major, but when listening to her talk, I cringe at some of the statements made.
It’s not her tho. She’s just a Chatty Kathy doll. Someone is writing the script, pulling Ksmalas string, and feeding it in to the prompter. Until she gets in front of reporters and take questions or has to answer off the cuff no one is really going to know if she is mean enough to sling insults like Trump.
Obviously the handlers fooled all the simpletons for 3.5 doing this with Biden minus all the falling up and down stairs, off bikes and just freezing in public. It took a humiliating exposure on a National Debate stage for 95% of the Democrats to figure out what the puppet masters were hiding.
Post edited by teskeinc on
1994 : Memphis 1995 : New Orleans 1996 : Seattle
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2 2020 Phoenix, SD
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I like Harris and I also don't like some of the misleading statements she made in her speech last night about Trump. No need to exaggerate on some of the things he's said or possibly plans to do. I know that's what politicians do and it's still better than the blatant lies made by Trump every time he talks, but she doesn't need to follow that narrative either.
Which ones, specifically? Just curious - let's get them out in the open so we're all on the same page.
Easier to just share this fact checker about what she said. Again, not major, but when listening to her talk, I cringe at some of the statements made.
It’s not her tho. She’s just a Chatty Kathy doll. Someone is writing the script, pulling Ksmalas string, and feeding it in to the prompter. Until she gets in front of reporters and take questions or has to answer off the cuff no one is really going to know if she is mean enough to sling insults like Trump.
Obviously the handlers fooled all the simpletons for 3.5 doing this with Biden minus all the falling up and down stairs, off bikes and just freezing in public. It took a humiliating exposure on a National Debate stage for 95% of the Democrats to figure out what the puppet masters were hiding.
You know that Trump has a script too, and he doesn't write it. And of course he does okay when he reads it. It's when he goes off script that the wheels come off. You should be praying for Trump to NOT be speaking extemporaneously.
I like Harris and I also don't like some of the misleading statements she made in her speech last night about Trump. No need to exaggerate on some of the things he's said or possibly plans to do. I know that's what politicians do and it's still better than the blatant lies made by Trump every time he talks, but she doesn't need to follow that narrative either.
Which ones, specifically? Just curious - let's get them out in the open so we're all on the same page.
Easier to just share this fact checker about what she said. Again, not major, but when listening to her talk, I cringe at some of the statements made.
It’s not her tho. She’s just a Chatty Kathy doll. Someone is writing the script, pulling Ksmalas string, and feeding it in to the prompter. Until she gets in front of reporters and take questions or has to answer off the cuff no one is really going to know if she is mean enough to sling insults like Trump.
Obviously the handlers fooled all the simpletons for 3.5 doing this with Biden minus all the falling up and down stairs, off bikes and just freezing in public. It took a humiliating exposure on a National Debate stage for 95% of the Democrats to figure out what the puppet masters were hiding.
You know that Trump has a script too, and he doesn't write it. And of course he does okay when he reads it. It's when he goes off script that the wheels come off. You should be praying for Trump to NOT be speaking extemporaneously.
According to Fox Sports’s president of Insights and Analytics, Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech drew 22% more viewers than former President Donald Trump’s speech.
Michael Mulvihill shared via social media that Harris’s speech, which started at 10:30 and ran to 11:15, saw a 15.0, while Trump’s speech in late July, which also started roughly at 10:30 and ran through to midnight, pulled a 12.3 number. Mulvihill appears to be referencing early Nielsen numbers, which are subject to slight change when final numbers are released later in the day. Mulvhill posted on X:
Mulvihill also shared how Harris’s speech compared to Trump’s in terms of viewers in major markets in multiple swing states:
“WEST PALM BEACH was the top market for Vice President Harris’s acceptance speech with a 20.2 rating,’ Mulvihill noted in a follow-up post, adding, “West Palm was also the top market for Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last month (19.9).’
West Palm Beach is, of course, the market that includes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.
White House lawyers who advised Reagan, Bush endorse Harris over Trump in 2024 showdown
Trump 'remains unfit, dangerous and detached from reality,' say the former GOP White House lawyers
FIRST ON FOX: A dozen Republican White House lawyers who served in the administrations of then-Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in her race against GOP nominee former President Donald Trump.
"We endorse Kamala Harris and support her election as President because we believe that returning former President Trump to office would threaten American democracy and undermine the rule of law in our country," the lawyers wrote in a letter that the signatories shared first with Fox News Digital....
The letter notes, "Donald Trump’s own Vice President and multiple members of his Administration and White House Staff at the most senior levels – as well as former Republican nominees for President and Vice President – have already declined to endorse his reelection."
Those signing the letter pointed to what they called "the profound risks presented by his [Trump's] potential return to public office. Indeed, Trump’s own Attorney General and National Security Adviser have said unequivocally that Donald Trump is unfit for office, dangerous, and detached from reality."...
continues
Lawyers that brought us The New World Order, the Iraq War and are RINOs not endorsing POOTWH? No surprise there and they’ll wear it as a badge of authenticity and it proves POOTWH is fighting for the “little guy.”
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I think this is a reasonable position but it is definitely not mine
Do you think Kamala would jettison this DOJ lawsuit? More importantly, do you think a POOTWH DOJ would have brought it?
Why is rent so high? The Justice Dept. blames a tech firm’s algorithm.
An antitrust lawsuit filed against software vendor RealPage alleges widespread collusion among landlords who share rental data that trains pricing algorithms.
The Justice Department and attorneys general from eight states are suing a Texas-based software company accused of using complex algorithms to enable widespread collusion in rents by landlords.
In a lawsuit filed Friday in the Middle District of North Carolina, federal regulators accused RealPage of an unlawful scheme to decrease competition in apartment rentals, and abusing monopoly power in its niche market for software that landlords use to price apartments.
The Justice Department’s complaint states that RealPage acknowledged that its software is aimed at maximizing profits for landlords and allowing them to avoid competing on the merits of eachapartment. The complaint points to situations where the software identified tenants who may be candidates for larger rent increases, and it cited one landlord who called RealPage’s product “classic price fixing” for its use of proprietary data.
“Everybody knows the rent is too damn high, and we alleged this is one of the reasons why,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday.
RealPage said it would contest the allegations and described its software as “pro-competitive technology that has been used competitively for years.” The lawsuit “is merely a distraction from the fundamental economic and political issues driving inflation throughout our economy — and housing affordability in particular,” company spokesperson Jennifer Bowcock said.
The lawsuit is among the JusticeDepartment’s first major enforcement actions in which software is being alleged as the primary means of collusion.
“With the RealPage lawsuit, the DOJ has declared that algorithmic price fixing will be subject to the same condemnation as other price-fixing schemes,” said Roger Alford, a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer who now teaches at the University of Notre Dame.
Joining the federal lawsuit are North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington state.
The Justice Department complaint described housing as the largest budget item for many people in the United States, especially for lower-income residents. For Americans without a college degree, the percentage of income spent on rent increased from 30 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2017, according to statistics cited in the complaint.
Founded in 1998 and headquartered in Richardson, Tex., RealPage says it serves over 24 million real estate units worldwide. According to the Justice Department’s complaint, RealPage has about 80 percent of the U.S. market for commercial revenue management software. It is owned by private equity firm Thoma Bravo, which acquired it last year for about $10.1 billion, including debt.
The Justice Department alleges that RealPage works with competing landlords who share sensitive rental data used to train the company’s pricing algorithms. The software makes recommendations on rent increases and other aspects of pricing.
Users of RealPage set their own rental prices and have discretion to accept or reject software-driven recommendations, the company said. The software makes recommendations not only for higher rents, RealPage said, but also lower rents or no change at all.
But the complaint filed Friday cites a RealPage pitch to clients that describes its ability to provide access to competitors’ data as “a meaningful tool that it claims enables landlords to outperform their properties’ competitors by 2–7%.”
The Justice Department’s complaint also describes an instance in which the company told a potential client it could find ways to boost short-term rents. “As RealPage explained to one landlord, by using competitors’ data, they can identify situations where ʻwe may have a $50 increase instead of a $10 increase for that day.’”
RealPage was hit with lawsuits starting in autumn 2022, after a ProPublica investigation revealed the influence of RealPage software in setting rental prices.
Multiple state and municipal prosecutors have sued, including District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb in November 2023 and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in February.
“This action sends an important signal to the market that algorithms may play a critical role in facilitating illegal collusion,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former Justice Department antitrust official. “Courts must factor new technology into their assessment of illegal behavior.”
The Justice Department case, which has been anticipated for months, is only filed against RealPage, not landlords. Some legal scholars have pushed back on the idea that a company has enabled collusion simply because it happens to be a vendor used by many competitors who don’t actually work together.
Jay Ezrielev, founder of antitrust consulting firm Elevecon, has argued that the Justice Department’s case against RealPage “represents a vast expansion of antitrust doctrine” and could stifle economic growth.
“Such a low threshold for establishing liability poses significant and imminent antitrust risks for a significant share of U.S. commerce,” Ezrielev wrote earlier this month.
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I think this is a reasonable position but it is definitely not mine
You have three choices. Vote for Kamala, vote for Trump, don't vote. You really don't have enough information to make a choice yet?
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I think this is a reasonable position but it is definitely not mine
You have three choices. Vote for Kamala, vote for Trump, don't vote. You really don't have enough information to make a choice yet?
Don't stress, it's not this black and white for everyone. Try to imagine yourself explaining this to the guy scanning your groceries.
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I think this is a reasonable position but it is definitely not mine
You have three choices. Vote for Kamala, vote for Trump, don't vote. You really don't have enough information to make a choice yet?
Don't stress, it's not this black and white for everyone. Try to imagine yourself explaining this to the guy scanning your groceries.
I don't stress. But PJ44 isn't scanning groceries. I'm not asking the least sophisticated, or low info voter here.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Harris is a fraud. The media has shown itself again for all to see. She acts like she hasn't been in the WH for the past 3.5 years. Tells us all the horrible things Trump will do if he wins. Wonder why he didn't horrible things when has was the POTUS. Logic and facts mean nothing to many, many people. Hence, we got Biden. Now we have Harris who has suddenly become this great leader. Laughable and sad.
Calling Harris a fraud is lazy. The media is actually being much more critical of her than Trump these days if you haven't noticed. Problem for Trump is that there isn't much there to pick apart about her besides actual political policy. She's not a fraud in the way you seem to define it. Trump is criminally a fraud and can't even earn fraud status personally because he lacks any range of human emotions. The guy with the nasal, monotone, droning on whine shouldn't be criticizing his opponent's laugh. What a moron. Everything he complains about is another insight in to his insecurities; laugh, appearance, crowd size and on and on.
also they complain that she hasn't sat down for interviews.
she is still vp. she is freshly onto the campaign trail the last 4 or 5 weeks. she is busy.
she is not golfing every day or lounging on the couch eating hamburgers like trump. trump has way more free time to call in to fox or newsmax, hold a press conference, or do a softball safe space interview every now and then.
I don't find these arguments compelling. She is running for President and it's not like we got to see her positions scrutinized in a primary. It's easy to take this as confirmation of the most common critiques of her.
Is anyone really worried she won't do an interview? Other than Fox news, that is? Come to think of it, that's the first place she should go - just to stop all their yammering.
If she could provide a strong interview on Fox, she probably would gain even more independent votes, but she'll have to be firm on her policy stance or at least be able to articulate what she wants to accomplish. That's the hard part about being a politician, articulating your position without alienating a key voting bloc. It's a slippery slope and she knows it.
But that to me is a bare minimum requirement for someone who believes they should be in the Oval Office. Maybe add a platform/issues page also?
Nope, I don't care. Not being a traitorous POS is good enough for me. I already know the Democratic policy positions on choice, Ukraine, and the independent federal reserve. That's more than enough for me to know.
I think this is a reasonable position but it is definitely not mine
You have three choices. Vote for Kamala, vote for Trump, don't vote. You really don't have enough information to make a choice yet?
I honestly don't but I'm in a deep blue state so it doesn't much matter
Taking care of people is never weird. I’m sorry if having conversations with your kids about stuff you didn’t plan on is awkward.
this ^^^.
most of the democratic/liberal agenda to help folks doesn't help me in the least. doesn't affect my white male priveleged ass. but that's the point: we care about each other, not ourselves and not our fears.
How self-righteously woke of you. A hero amongst the commoners. 😂😂😂
could you BE any more predictable in your responses? I honestly could have written that for you.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
my income taxes went up. and stayed up. the transportation per diem went away unless it was company administered (am trucker) and unreimbursed employee expenses credit went away (wife has worked from home since 2015).
we both now have to claim single rate zero deductions just to meet owed tax through withholding.
his foreign policy was shit.
denigration of service members and vets is a huge fuck you to me, my brother and my father, as well as my niece and her first husband.
allowing fucktard jared so much access to sensitive shit was a bad move.
the entire 4 years was a huge grift that continues.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4. In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.
So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.
That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.
Lol...right.
Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most.
Hey, I love Nate Silver. If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust. 538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.
So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538. That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.
And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also. But, in the end, none of that is relevant. I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.
So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win. I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.
Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.
I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020. Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that. But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark? I really don't get it. Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)? Did he end gay marriage? I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about. What exactly is going to happen?
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to. 2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia. 3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion 2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis. 3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
2. Afghanistan was still on...3. except they did in fact make up shit not in the Constitution on a question that wasnt brought before them.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You better hope the campaign has a better grasp on gettable voters than partisans do
I don't think low information votes give a fuck about policy.
To carry yourself with this level of condescension when your preferred candidate can't leap past a coin flip with Donald Trump
I'm not a politician, I'm a business manager. I don't have to cater to low information people so I condescend all that I want. But I don't know what you mean by "can't leap past a coin flip". Second, I already told you the issues important to me and I know where the D party stands on those issues. Maybe you don't operate under a set of clearly defined principles, but I do. I know which party matches my principles even if I don't agree on the nuance on every policy.
White House lawyers who advised Reagan, Bush endorse Harris over Trump in 2024 showdown
Trump 'remains unfit, dangerous and detached from reality,' say the former GOP White House lawyers
FIRST ON FOX: A dozen Republican White House lawyers who served in the administrations of then-Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in her race against GOP nominee former President Donald Trump.
"We endorse Kamala Harris and support her election as President because we believe that returning former President Trump to office would threaten American democracy and undermine the rule of law in our country," the lawyers wrote in a letter that the signatories shared first with Fox News Digital....
The letter notes, "Donald Trump’s own Vice President and multiple members of his Administration and White House Staff at the most senior levels – as well as former Republican nominees for President and Vice President – have already declined to endorse his reelection."
Those signing the letter pointed to what they called "the profound risks presented by his [Trump's] potential return to public office. Indeed, Trump’s own Attorney General and National Security Adviser have said unequivocally that Donald Trump is unfit for office, dangerous, and detached from reality."...
continues
Lawyers that brought us The New World Order, the Iraq War and are RINOs not endorsing POOTWH? No surprise there and they’ll wear it as a badge of authenticity and it proves POOTWH is fighting for the “little guy.”
This is what's funny. You'd think the hippies and grunge anti-establishment folks would be all for Trump. But, alas, they've been exposed for what they are. Which, the only true mod, Pete agrees with.
All the old guard on both sides hate Trump. Why??????
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You better hope the campaign has a better grasp on gettable voters than partisans do
I don't think low information votes give a fuck about policy.
To carry yourself with this level of condescension when your preferred candidate can't leap past a coin flip with Donald Trump
I'm not a politician, I'm a business manager. I don't have to cater to low information people so I condescend all that I want. But I don't know what you mean by "can't leap past a coin flip". Second, I already told you the issues important to me and I know where the D party stands on those issues. Maybe you don't operate under a set of clearly defined principles, but I do. I know which party matches my principles even if I don't agree on the nuance on every policy.
Of course I do. The problem is neither candidate comes close to hitting them. So to the extent that I cast a vote for either it's about calculating what I have to ride out.
And by the way I do not remotely believe the D party has a generally accepted stance on foreign policy or economic policy to name a couple. I would vote for Shapiro or Polis in a second and run screaming from Warren or Sanders. Last I checked Harris was closer to the latter but that was a long time ago and boy would I like to hear more.
Comments
Obviously the handlers fooled all the simpletons for 3.5 doing this with Biden minus all the falling up and down stairs, off bikes and just freezing in public. It took a humiliating exposure on a National Debate stage for 95% of the Democrats to figure out what the puppet masters were hiding.
1998 : St Louis, Birmingham, Knoxville
2000 : Memphis, Nashville, St Louis
2003 : Irvine 1+2, Vegas, Bridge School 1+2, Santa Barbara
2005 : Missoula, Vancouver, Gorge 2006 : LA 1+2, Vegas
2008 : W Palm Beach, Tampa, Who Rock Honors, EV LA 2
2009 : LA 1, LA 4, EV 1 Nashville 2011 : EV Long Beach
2012: EV Vegas 1+2
2013 LA 1+2 2018 Prague, Wrigley 2
2020 Phoenix, SD
Persimmon. Woman. Man. Hamper. DVD See, I can do it! I'm a very stable genius!
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/just-in-kamala-harris-beats-donald-trump-in-acceptance-speech-ratings-by-22/
JUST IN: Kamala Harris Beats Donald Trump in Acceptance Speech Ratings by 22%
According to Fox Sports’s president of Insights and Analytics, Vice President Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech drew 22% more viewers than former President Donald Trump’s speech.
Michael Mulvihill shared via social media that Harris’s speech, which started at 10:30 and ran to 11:15, saw a 15.0, while Trump’s speech in late July, which also started roughly at 10:30 and ran through to midnight, pulled a 12.3 number. Mulvihill appears to be referencing early Nielsen numbers, which are subject to slight change when final numbers are released later in the day. Mulvhill posted on X:
Mulvihill also shared how Harris’s speech compared to Trump’s in terms of viewers in major markets in multiple swing states:
“WEST PALM BEACH was the top market for Vice President Harris’s acceptance speech with a 20.2 rating,’ Mulvihill noted in a follow-up post, adding, “West Palm was also the top market for Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last month (19.9).’
West Palm Beach is, of course, the market that includes Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why is rent so high? The Justice Dept. blames a tech firm’s algorithm.
An antitrust lawsuit filed against software vendor RealPage alleges widespread collusion among landlords who share rental data that trains pricing algorithms.
The Justice Department and attorneys general from eight states are suing a Texas-based software company accused of using complex algorithms to enable widespread collusion in rents by landlords.
In a lawsuit filed Friday in the Middle District of North Carolina, federal regulators accused RealPage of an unlawful scheme to decrease competition in apartment rentals, and abusing monopoly power in its niche market for software that landlords use to price apartments.
The Justice Department’s complaint states that RealPage acknowledged that its software is aimed at maximizing profits for landlords and allowing them to avoid competing on the merits of eachapartment. The complaint points to situations where the software identified tenants who may be candidates for larger rent increases, and it cited one landlord who called RealPage’s product “classic price fixing” for its use of proprietary data.
“Everybody knows the rent is too damn high, and we alleged this is one of the reasons why,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday.
RealPage said it would contest the allegations and described its software as “pro-competitive technology that has been used competitively for years.” The lawsuit “is merely a distraction from the fundamental economic and political issues driving inflation throughout our economy — and housing affordability in particular,” company spokesperson Jennifer Bowcock said.
The lawsuit is among the JusticeDepartment’s first major enforcement actions in which software is being alleged as the primary means of collusion.
“With the RealPage lawsuit, the DOJ has declared that algorithmic price fixing will be subject to the same condemnation as other price-fixing schemes,” said Roger Alford, a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer who now teaches at the University of Notre Dame.
Joining the federal lawsuit are North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington state.
The Justice Department complaint described housing as the largest budget item for many people in the United States, especially for lower-income residents. For Americans without a college degree, the percentage of income spent on rent increased from 30 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2017, according to statistics cited in the complaint.
Founded in 1998 and headquartered in Richardson, Tex., RealPage says it serves over 24 million real estate units worldwide. According to the Justice Department’s complaint, RealPage has about 80 percent of the U.S. market for commercial revenue management software. It is owned by private equity firm Thoma Bravo, which acquired it last year for about $10.1 billion, including debt.
The Justice Department alleges that RealPage works with competing landlords who share sensitive rental data used to train the company’s pricing algorithms. The software makes recommendations on rent increases and other aspects of pricing.
Users of RealPage set their own rental prices and have discretion to accept or reject software-driven recommendations, the company said. The software makes recommendations not only for higher rents, RealPage said, but also lower rents or no change at all.
But the complaint filed Friday cites a RealPage pitch to clients that describes its ability to provide access to competitors’ data as “a meaningful tool that it claims enables landlords to outperform their properties’ competitors by 2–7%.”
The Justice Department’s complaint also describes an instance in which the company told a potential client it could find ways to boost short-term rents. “As RealPage explained to one landlord, by using competitors’ data, they can identify situations where ʻwe may have a $50 increase instead of a $10 increase for that day.’”
RealPage was hit with lawsuits starting in autumn 2022, after a ProPublica investigation revealed the influence of RealPage software in setting rental prices.
Multiple state and municipal prosecutors have sued, including District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb in November 2023 and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in February.
“This action sends an important signal to the market that algorithms may play a critical role in facilitating illegal collusion,” said Gene Kimmelman, a former Justice Department antitrust official. “Courts must factor new technology into their assessment of illegal behavior.”
The Justice Department case, which has been anticipated for months, is only filed against RealPage, not landlords. Some legal scholars have pushed back on the idea that a company has enabled collusion simply because it happens to be a vendor used by many competitors who don’t actually work together.
Jay Ezrielev, founder of antitrust consulting firm Elevecon, has argued that the Justice Department’s case against RealPage “represents a vast expansion of antitrust doctrine” and could stifle economic growth.
“Such a low threshold for establishing liability poses significant and imminent antitrust risks for a significant share of U.S. commerce,” Ezrielev wrote earlier this month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/23/justice-department-realpage-lawsuit-rent/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President? Shouldn't they have already fixed all that? Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5. How is everything Trump's fault?
Please, policy only.
www.headstonesband.com
1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham. It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning. If you want me to expound on that, happy to.
2. I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia. First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy. The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked. We did it in Afghanistan and it worked. It works. And China wants no part of a weak Russia.
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe. So what will the next set of justices do? We don't know. That's enough for me not to vote for him.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Dark days the world hasn't seen since the 1930s.
1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office. So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer... Whatever Trump was doing worked. Abraham Accords. Look 'em up. Ending funding to Iran. Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3. Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair. However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court. They don't make law. They just interpret them. There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).
But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
All the old guard on both sides hate Trump. Why??????