Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

51,440 posts in this topic

13 hours ago, Jpowors said:

 

You'll never respond because you got your feelings hurt back in May when I called you a Moron......but here's your shot. 

 

 

I honestly hope for a well thought out response that doesn't include Obama or Hillary in it. If you have one .....let's have it. There's a discussion to be had here.

 

13 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

 

Just looked at Greenwald’s timeline, wfw ain’t responding tonight 

 

AF89 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Serge said:

By that logic he started out with about 150 million supporters and it's dropped to about 136 million. There probably won't be 136 million voters total in 2020.

I mean, I hope you can see what I'm struggling with here. There was never a point where 150 million people voted for Trump. He needed about 60 million votes the first time, and that number better reflects the minority of dedicated followers he's always held onto. 

A Democrat probably needs more than 60 million votes to beat him. They'll certainly need to win more than just the popular vote this time. The polls will indicate that's more than likely, in the sense that their poll numbers will be higher than Trump's, but they've actually got to get people to go vote for the Democrats, and all of the Democrats running for President have enemies and weaknesses that haven't been fully realized and explored yet because there's still so many candidates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's an interesting question.  Biden continues, depending on which poll, to lead the other candidates despite otherwise appearing unpopular and seemingly having a tremendous amount of political baggage.  Not as much political baggage as Hillary, but a lot still.  Now they're making the Hunter/Ukraine/China thing all about Biden. 

If you're the DNC, do you thank Joe for what he's done but ask him to step aside and stop being a distraction that gives Trump talking points, or do you say to **** with Trump and ignore it/talk about how Trump's kids have profited from his time in office.

I mean, the democrats are going to pick the wrong choice, no matter what it might be, but interested in discussing it here, I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

So here's an interesting question.  Biden continues, depending on which poll, to lead the other candidates despite otherwise appearing unpopular and seemingly having a tremendous amount of political baggage.  Not as much political baggage as Hillary, but a lot still.  Now they're making the Hunter/Ukraine/China thing all about Biden. 

If you're the DNC, do you thank Joe for what he's done but ask him to step aside and stop being a distraction that gives Trump talking points, or do you say to **** with Trump and ignore it/talk about how Trump's kids have profited from his time in office.

I mean, the democrats are going to pick the wrong choice, no matter what it might be, but interested in discussing it here, I guess.

 

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending where you lean, there is no right choice for the Dems.

I think most people on here know Biden (a moderate Dem) is sunk and a progressive agenda by any of the other leading Dems, is not going to beat Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

 

I'm sure Obama was happy he kept the logs, because we know the Reverend Al Charlatan was in the WH over 80 times.

Don't ask me, I have no clue 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Serge said:

By that logic he started out with about 150 million supporters and it's dropped to about 136 million. There probably won't be 136 million voters total in 2020.

True, I should have said "tens of millions of Americans".  But it does come out to millions (2-3 million) of voters who supported Trump and now don't.  And he's done nothing to win them back.

As for turnout differences, Dems are far more excited and enthusiatic about voting against Trump than Reps and Independents are about voting for him.  

Nor does any of this mean Trump loses.  My point is that people are acting like he's a lock on reelection and nothing in the data or the facts at this point supports that view.  If anything, the facts and data point to him being an extremely weak incumbent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Serge said:

I mean, I hope you can see what I'm struggling with here. There was never a point where 150 million people voted for Trump. He needed about 60 million votes the first time, and that number better reflects the minority of dedicated followers he's always held onto. 

A Democrat probably needs more than 60 million votes to beat him. They'll certainly need to win more than just the popular vote this time. The polls will indicate that's more than likely, in the sense that their poll numbers will be higher than Trump's, but they've actually got to get people to go vote for the Democrats, and all of the Democrats running for President have enemies and weaknesses that haven't been fully realized and explored yet because there's still so many candidates. 

The people who voted for Clinton are not voting for Trump.  There are a lot of people who voted for Trump and won't vote for him again.  Trump won by around 140k votes spread across three states.  He's lost more support from people who voted for him and he hasn't gained any support from Clinton voters.  

And there are also a lot of Dems who stayed home in 2016 that aren't likely to stay home this time.  

You're basically looking at a poker game where a guy drew a straight flush and saying, "he's guaranteed to draw a royal flush this time!"  I don't see any reason to believe that the least likely scenario is somehow guaranteed.  

Scrunchomarx, bdog 29 and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

That and the Alliances that were hard to make to begin with. 
 

Those aren’t coming back.

It took 70 years to forge those alliances post-WWII. The world now realizes that it's never going to be more than four years away from another potential megalomaniacal grifter taking control and (a) exposing secrets to adversaries, (b) tearing up all deals/treaties and busting alliances, and (c) putting his personal interests and financial gain over the well-being of literally everybody's on the planet.

The next 70 years will not see us reestablish our brand unless Congress and the very next president puts legislative reins on the president to make him/her do what tradition and morality have always encouraged of his/her predecessors. Nobody ever imagined that someone would so blatantly defy the Constitution or disrespect the office from behind the Resolute Desk, so the things we expect of our leader were never codified into law.

That needs to change in 2020.

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

True, I should have said "tens of millions of Americans".  But it does come out to millions (2-3 million) of voters who supported Trump and now don't.  And he's done nothing to win them back.

As for turnout differences, Dems are far more excited and enthusiatic about voting against Trump than Reps and Independents are about voting for him.  

Nor does any of this mean Trump loses.  My point is that people are acting like he's a lock on reelection and nothing in the data or the facts at this point supports that view.  If anything, the facts and data point to him being an extremely weak incumbent.

 

10 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The people who voted for Clinton are not voting for Trump.  There are a lot of people who voted for Trump and won't vote for him again.  Trump won by around 140k votes spread across three states.  He's lost more support from people who voted for him and he hasn't gained any support from Clinton voters.  

And there are also a lot of Dems who stayed home in 2016 that aren't likely to stay home this time.  

You're basically looking at a poker game where a guy drew a straight flush and saying, "he's guaranteed to draw a royal flush this time!"  I don't see any reason to believe that the least likely scenario is somehow guaranteed.  

You're looking at the 2016 election and comparing that to Trump drawing a straight flush. Saying it was luck when voter turnout was as low as it was in 2016 despite the dire rhetoric coming from both sides sounds too much like liberals in 2016 assuming people will vote for Hillary just to stop Trump. The argument itself creates skepticism to be waved off.

Sn4tteRBoxXeR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

It took 70 years to forge those alliances post-WWII. The world now realizes that it's never going to be more than four years away from another potential megalomaniacal grifter taking control and (a) exposing secrets to adversaries, (b) tearing up all deals/treaties and busting alliances, and (c) putting his personal interests and financial gain over the well-being of literally everybody's on the planet.

The next 70 years will not see us reestablish our brand unless Congress and the very next president puts legislative reins on the president to make him/her do what tradition and morality have always encouraged of his/her predecessors. Nobody ever imagined that someone would so blatantly defy the Constitution or disrespect the office from behind the Resolute Desk, so the things we expect of our leader were never codified into law.

That needs to change in 2020.

Well... The guardrail in place is a cohort for said President, so there’s that. 
 

If they simply did their Job, this would not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

It took 70 years to forge those alliances post-WWII. The world now realizes that it's never going to be more than four years away from another potential megalomaniacal grifter taking control and (a) exposing secrets to adversaries, (b) tearing up all deals/treaties and busting alliances, and (c) putting his personal interests and financial gain over the well-being of literally everybody's on the planet.

The next 70 years will not see us reestablish our brand unless Congress and the very next president puts legislative reins on the president to make him/her do what tradition and morality have always encouraged of his/her predecessors. Nobody ever imagined that someone would so blatantly defy the Constitution or disrespect the office from behind the Resolute Desk, so the things we expect of our leader were never codified into law.

That needs to change in 2020.

I agree with the need to codify some of these things, but I'd also like point out that this is why I pushed back so hard at people on these boards (not you, I don't think) running around mocking people with things like "mah norms!" and otherwise downplaying the importance of having informal norms.

Those informal norms are in many ways more important for sustaining democracy than formal laws.  And there has to be a political/electoral penalty for violating them.  If both sides are willing to tear down those norms then our democracy will very quickly collapse, because at that point it just becomes an all-or-nothing battle for power.  Democrats and progressives cannot go around snarking about "muh norms!" because those norms are extremely important.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The people who voted for Clinton are not voting for Trump.  There are a lot of people who voted for Trump and won't vote for him again.  Trump won by around 140k votes spread across three states.  He's lost more support from people who voted for him and he hasn't gained any support from Clinton voters.  

And there are also a lot of Dems who stayed home in 2016 that aren't likely to stay home this time.  

You're basically looking at a poker game where a guy drew a straight flush and saying, "he's guaranteed to draw a royal flush this time!"  I don't see any reason to believe that the least likely scenario is somehow guaranteed.  

Everything you say is 100% correct. But emotionally, people saw a horrific and unlikely thing happen with Trump's election. An unholy confluence of democratic ineptitude and media manipulation that allowed the unlikely to happen and now we expect it. 

Much like no Falcons fan will ever trust a lead again after 28-3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

This is why I don’t like twitter for news — the full clip was so much worse than the twitter headline.  And it would only have taken a few more sentences to give his full response.

He started by saying, “well if we’re going to investigate Guiliani then let’s investigate Biden.”

Then asked about Trump’s children’s conflicts, he says (paraphrasing here) that we shouldn’t try to criminalize everything politicians and their kids do and we shouldn’t descend into investigating everybody on the other side because of politics...WHICH IS WHAT HE JUST SUPPORTED.  

Rand Paul will never live down getting his ribs cracked for being a *****. His neighbor is a hero.

Quote

 

And in a just world, people would not assault their neighbors for continually desecrating their neighbor's yards.

And in a just world, Donald Trump would not have gotten away with rape in a mall dressing room.

And in a just world, Kurdish women would not get dragged out of SUVs and slaughtered.

And in a just world, foreign journalists based in the US would not be summoned to embassies in foreign countries and then anesthetized and butchered with a bone saw within minutes of arrival.

 

But we don't live in a just world, so Rand Paul will never live down getting his just desserts for being a pissant to his neighbor.

Scrunchomarx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big_Dog said:

Micheal Cohens cellmate hopefully. 

I don’t hate Cohen that much! That would be cruel and unusual punishment!!

 

 

Now Manifort on the other hand...(Or Roger Stone there after)

Scrunchomarx and Big_Dog like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The people who voted for Clinton are not voting for Trump.  There are a lot of people who voted for Trump and won't vote for him again.  Trump won by around 140k votes spread across three states.  He's lost more support from people who voted for him and he hasn't gained any support from Clinton voters.  

And there are also a lot of Dems who stayed home in 2016 that aren't likely to stay home this time.  

You're basically looking at a poker game where a guy drew a straight flush and saying, "he's guaranteed to draw a royal flush this time!"  I don't see any reason to believe that the least likely scenario is somehow guaranteed.  

Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania all have Democrat governors. That makes those states a darker shade of purple, if not blue altogether. Kentucky and Florida will have voters restored to the rolls who were ineligible to vote in 2016 and most likely to vote Dem. Ohio may see a similar court ruling to restore "inactive" voters as Kentucky unless the case makes it to SCOTUS, where it will undoubtedly support the Republican position. Georgia and Florida have strong anti-suppression efforts in place right now. There are voters in farm states who have been burned and will find that their hate for Others is not a sufficient reason to endorse the man who led to them losing their farms.

And the number one issue for most people is still healthcare.

Trump could easily win again. But the landscape in 2020 is already radically different than it was in 2016. His best chance will come on the strength of how effectively the troll farms are able to make Democratic voters believe they have a grievance with the party for how their top choice was treated. I've already read two tweets this week where someone has proclaimed that if Warren wins the nom over Bernie, they're more than happy to sit out or vote third party. That suggests that their issue is less politics than it is personality. It will be harder for the propagandists to stoke that resentment because i believe the all of the candidates are going to make sure their supporters know that the Dem nom is much better than Don the Numb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gritzblitz 2.0 said:

Everything you say is 100% correct. But emotionally, people saw a horrific and unlikely thing happen with Trump's election. An unholy confluence of democratic ineptitude and media manipulation that allowed the unlikely to happen and now we expect it. 

Much like no Falcons fan will ever trust a lead again after 28-3. 

For a lot of Democrat Falcons fans, the superbowl 2016 was a chance for redemption against Trump ***-kissers (sesame-chicken-choker Kraft [Is that racist?]), so to lose to Trump and then a 28-3 lead with the TV screen saying we had a 96% chance of winning at that point, it was a tough blow.

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

You're looking at the 2016 election and comparing that to Trump drawing a straight flush. Saying it was luck when voter turnout was as low as it was in 2016 despite the dire rhetoric coming from both sides sounds too much like liberals in 2016 assuming people will vote for Hillary just to stop Trump. The argument itself creates skepticism to be waved off.

It was a straight flush.  You had a public that was tired of eight years of Dem control, you had some major campaign events like the Comey letter happen at the last minute, and you have an economic populism message from an outsider candidate, and yes you had Russian interference.  

We'll likely have interference this time around, but the public is more knowledgeable about it existing and Trump is neck deep in it.  The public is tired of the GOP President, so Dems aren't fighting uphill this time.  Trump's the one fighting up hill, instead.  We don't have the Comey stuff.  And Trump's economic populism is failing spectacularly with the trade wars and harm to agriculture and other sectors of the economy.  Manufacturing is actually in a recession now.

Given those changing circumstances, Trump's not likely to draw a full house, let alone a straight flush.  

Big_Dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

It was a straight flush.  You had a public that was tired of eight years of Dem control, you had some major campaign events like the Comey letter happen at the last minute, and you have an economic populism message from an outsider candidate, and yes you had Russian interference.  

We'll likely have interference this time around, but the public is more knowledgeable about it existing and Trump is neck deep in it.  The public is tired of the GOP President, so Dems aren't fighting uphill this time.  Trump's the one fighting up hill, instead.  We don't have the Comey stuff.  And Trump's economic populism is failing spectacularly with the trade wars and harm to agriculture and other sectors of the economy.  Manufacturing is actually in a recession now.

Given those changing circumstances, Trump's not likely to draw a full house, let alone a straight flush.  

Yeah, but have you considered that we’re living in a virtual reality simulation of the decline of a civilization, nothing matters, and that we can’t have nice things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

I agree with the need to codify some of these things, but I'd also like point out that this is why I pushed back so hard at people on these boards (not you, I don't think) running around mocking people with things like "mah norms!" and otherwise downplaying the importance of having informal norms.

Those informal norms are in many ways more important for sustaining democracy than formal laws.  And there has to be a political/electoral penalty for violating them.  If both sides are willing to tear down those norms then our democracy will very quickly collapse, because at that point it just becomes an all-or-nothing battle for power.  Democrats and progressives cannot go around snarking about "muh norms!" because those norms are extremely important.  

But that's why it's great to have the most powerful military in the world. That's how the world works during unstable times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now