Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Serge

Pure Football
  • Content Count

    16,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Serge

  1. There's very little separating a liberal Democrat and a centrist conservative anymore besides where they stand on Trump.
  2. I'm shocked each and every time a political commentator chooses to make money rather than do good in the world.
  3. If y'all were curious why I keep using his first and last name when I talk about Joe Scarborough, it's because his full name is villainous to me and I want to project that when I talk about him. I hate his ******* guts. And I hate Trump far more than that just for putting people in the position of having to defend someone like The Smirking Fiend Joe Scarborough.
  4. Would it be giving Trump too much credit to say the timing of this might be connected to him deciding out of the blue to openly pursue a conspiracy theory aimed at Joe Scarborough? I make the connection because that's exactly the kind of low cunning I'd expect Trump specifically to use to distract the media at this point in time, and between that and the Free Speech tweet, this is getting the ideal level of attention for the Trump administration.
  5. The fantasy scenario in your head where Trump holds no responsibility even for things he single-handedly creates?
  6. How is he fixing the problem by giving the media a reason to defend Joe Scarborough? That's giving the media content and a reason to defend someone who only deserves to be defended because Trump started a conspiracy theory about him. This doesn't "address" the problems with liberal cable media; if anything it empowers those ******** when the President speaks of them directly.
  7. He's the host of MSNBC's morning talk show; Trump is the POTUS. He amplifies Joe Scarborough by giving the rest of the media a reason to defend him. And Trump **** well knows it; that's why he did it. He wanted this argument occupying cable news and social media.
  8. The one and only reason anyone has to defend Joe Scarborough is because Trump started pushing this conspiracy theory. If you dislike Joe Scarborough, like I do, then you shouldn't want Trump putting him in a situation where he's deserving of defense.
  9. He's gonna keep his supporters and win some of the swing voters by accusing the media and the Democrats of keeping the economy closed to hurt him. Meanwhile the media's going to be hitting Trump from all sides, he opened everything up too quickly and he let the economy tank, while Trump calls for everything to be reopened and accuses the media of creating hysteria to keep the economy depressed. And Trump's campaign machine will soon be unleashed on the mainstream media, and its primary focus will be Biden's brain. It's gonna be some awful ****. We'll be disgusted in ways we can only presently imagine.
  10. I already know not to expect you to read and respond to what I actually said. I know that doesn't go both ways.
  11. If we all knew what he was going to TRY to do, I wouldn't have to argue with y'all every time I see something y'all don't. I've still never seen a liberal on here admit how ******* obvious he was being with Putin. Will it work, I don't know. I suspect that it will because Trump inspires more passion than Biden ever has, and because the entire left still doesn't know how to respond to Trump's conspiracies. I'm certainly not going to sit here and tell you the thing I'm primarily concerned with is the only thing that'll matter.
  12. FTR, I never claimed any special ability to predict things. So when I say something like: it's not because I'm rubbing a magic eight-ball, it's because I'm guessing what Trump's driving at based on how he's pushed his invented conspiracy theories in the past. I think that's what he's doing there, because that's what President Donald Trump would do to improve his situation with voters right now. He'd gaslight people through the media into doubting that the economy needed to be shut down to the extent that it was. My prediction is that this created argument will be a lot bigger and thornier and worse for everyone's health than Trump simply dealing with narratives related to the economy for the rest of his first term.
  13. Your time isn't worth **** to me, how much are you gonna pay?
  14. Sometimes you make me want to claw through drywall with my fingernails.
  15. Oh, so what you're really saying is, if the economy is showing obvious signs of continued weakness or robust recovery, that will be what decides the election. Otherwise it might be more complicated than whatever the politicians can say about the economy over the next five months.
  16. I realize that's what you think you're saying, but if you hinge your entire argument on the state of the economy, and Trump wins in 2020 in part by taking credit for a partial rebound, then you're going to leave with the assumption that the economy was so influential that whatever recovery occurs between now and November was enough to get Trump reelected, rather than connecting it to anything else that happened this administration.
  17. So if the economy is bad, Trump will lose, but if he wins, it was because the economy was actually good. Glad we finally got that sorted out.
  18. So what you're saying is, if the economy is still bad, then he's going to lose. And since the economy's going to be bad while Trump's saying that it's good, he's going to hurt himself. He's essentially going to lose no matter what, unless the economy's "good" in a way that he wins the 2020 election, in which case we would say that he won because the economy was good.
  19. The **** he did. He's poking fun at liberals for seeing something between Trump and Putin without being able to describe what it actually is. I'm trying to describe it.
  20. You said if the economy was good, Trump will win. I said the economy won't be "good" no matter what. Your response, apparently, because you won't expand on it in any meaningful way that could generate an actual conversation, is that you never said it would be good, and it might be bad for him if he says it's good when it's not. From this conversation I would glean that you don't think there's much chance that the economy will be good enough for Trump to win, but if he does, it's because the economy was good. So I guess that's what you would tell people in 2021 if he wins. He won because the economy was better than you thought it'd be for a few months and that was all he needed.
  21. "If" the economy is bad heading into the fall then he's done. You disagree with the article you posted that there's going to be a big rebound in the Fall, but *if* that happens he could win. And I responded, the economy was not "good" just because he could take credit for that rebound, so if he does win, it wasn't entirely a result of the economy just starting to recover in the few months before the elections. That was when you decided I didn't understand what you posted originally and I was talking down to you for talking about the article you posted.
  22. You said if the economy is good, Trump will win. I said that's not even on the table, and we shouldn't say the economy was good just because Trump rode the initial recovery to a win. You decided that meant I didn't understand what you posted originally and I was talking down to you for referencing the article you posted.
  23. Do you not see yourself question someone's reading comprehension in the same post that you complain about the condescension I displayed in bringing up the premise of the article you posted? Three posts ago you were implying I didn't even read what you posted. Now I'm talking down to you for referencing the article you posted.
  24. "If" the economy is good or bad hasn't been a question in a long time. The article suggests a partial rebound in the Fall might be what Trump needs to have a narrative for the economy going into the elections, but if he does manage to win that way, the economy wasn't "good" just because he could frame it in a way that looked good for him.
  25. Trout you told us the Democrats would need a pandemic and a recession to beat Trump, and apparently even that wasn't enough because none of that solved the problem of how the Democrats and the media communicate with people. According to that article, Trump might be able to ride a rebound bump to a win even if the numbers overall still suggest a slow recovery. And between now and the election, liberal cable news and social media commentators are going to want to blame Trump for the economy while also blaming him for mismanaging the pandemic, even if the overall numbers continue to tail off and Trump's been railing to reopen the economy for months. So we're to the point that we practically need a 2nd wave and a continued depression to beat him in November, because there's nothing the Democrats can offer people between now and then to get them to vote for Biden. So I'm saying, maybe it was always a bad idea to bet on the economy being what gets Biden elected over Trump, as opposed to trying to figure out any of the deeper problems with how the Democrats and the liberals are "resisting" Trump.
×
  • Create New...