POTUS Trump Thread

Health insurance rip off lying FDA big bankers buying
Fake computer crashes dining
Cloning while they're multiplying
Fashion shoots with Beck and Hanson
Courtney Love, and Marilyn Manson
You're all fakes
Run to your mansions
Come around
We'll kick your ass in

Postby wollogallu » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:02 pm

LOST rules
User avatar
wollogallu
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:56 pm

Postby Frank » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:02 pm

baseball wrote:
Ted Pikul wrote:I don't arguments about Clinton are going to be effective outside the Republican base in 2020


eh. union (and former) union folks HATE the clintons.


white union folk have been reliably voting against their own interests since the 1940s
im that guy who got dog diarrhea in his beard
User avatar
Frank
 
Posts: 28610
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: :ahuh:

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:02 pm

man he really has had that weird stupid fucking hairdo all along

probably the only thing he's ever looked ahead and planned out for in his whole life
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby Classic Dog Avatar » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:02 pm

warren is better in that regard than clinton

they have decades of bill and hillary shit they've been hammering into the public's head versus "pocahontas"
User avatar
Classic Dog Avatar
ride.
 
Posts: 9538
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:48 pm

Postby farmer » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:04 pm

We're going up against a group of people who think child rape is fine. The best thing we could do is nominate anyone and then murder as many trump supporters as possible
Last edited by farmer on Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
farmer
 
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:42 pm

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:04 pm

anyone who cares enough about pocahontasgate to even know what it is was never going to be savable anyway
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

farmer wrote:We're going up against a group of puerile

Image
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby Ted Pikul » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:06 pm

It doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, Breitbart will find some ridiculous line of attack and then amplify it through Facebook
loaf angel wrote:I love how Ted makes every thread as a testament to how fucking boring he is.

"I bought a new garden hose mk 2"
User avatar
Ted Pikul
DARE.
 
Posts: 32617
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby Warranty » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:08 pm

tgk wrote:Van jones huh


Yeah, he was a grassroots organizer for years before joining the Obama administration/becoming a television commentator.

Check out his speech at the People's Summit, it was great:
User avatar
Warranty
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:28 pm

Postby Warranty » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:12 pm

Anyway, the main questions to ask about presidential candidates (in terms of electability) is which candidate will most increase turnout among young and non-white voters + which candidate will bring the most non-voters into the political process + which candidate will turn the most passive voters into active volunteers. All about turnout!
User avatar
Warranty
 
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:28 pm

Postby Buzz Fledderjohn » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:13 pm

van jones has "sent non-consensual drunk dick pics while gigging at CNN" written all over him
User avatar
Buzz Fledderjohn
 
Posts: 20907
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:21 pm

Postby furrowed brow » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:13 pm

My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:in which ways do you think Gillibrand would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? because they're going to lose if they don't improve on Hillary, and I just don't see Gillibrand as an improvement in that sense.

again, I'm voting for whoever they run, but I'm wary of others feeling the same.


I'm not sure why you think Warren is an improvement over Clinton in terms of a candidate to run? And let me be clear, I'm not talking about their policy stances or there careers... talking strictly optics in electability. While I like generally like Warren as a politician, much like Hillary Clinton i'm not sure she is perceived as all that "Likable" by the general electorate. Yes, I do think she'll bring back the Bernie or bust contingent (that either didn't vote or vote independent)... But I have a very hard time seeing Warren appealing to those blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters that would have voted Bernie (and probably ended up voting Trump) and I just think there are way more of those she loses than the more left leaning voters she'll energize.


What does Bernie have that connects with those voters that Warren lacks?
User avatar
furrowed brow
 
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:45 pm

Postby tgk » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:13 pm

Jones will wrap up Minnesota by telling hilarious Prince stories
Last edited by tgk on Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tgk
 
Posts: 27721
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:45 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby murray st. » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:14 pm

furrowed brow wrote:
My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:in which ways do you think Gillibrand would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? because they're going to lose if they don't improve on Hillary, and I just don't see Gillibrand as an improvement in that sense.

again, I'm voting for whoever they run, but I'm wary of others feeling the same.


I'm not sure why you think Warren is an improvement over Clinton in terms of a candidate to run? And let me be clear, I'm not talking about their policy stances or there careers... talking strictly optics in electability. While I like generally like Warren as a politician, much like Hillary Clinton i'm not sure she is perceived as all that "Likable" by the general electorate. Yes, I do think she'll bring back the Bernie or bust contingent (that either didn't vote or vote independent)... But I have a very hard time seeing Warren appealing to those blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters that would have voted Bernie (and probably ended up voting Trump) and I just think there are way more of those she loses than the more left leaning voters she'll energize.


What does Bernie have that connects with those voters that Warren lacks?


(looks directly into the camera)
User avatar
murray st.
 
Posts: 23837
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:31 pm

Postby light rail coyote » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Warranty wrote:TCory's got his ties to Wall Street, but beyond that I just feel like he's not that good of a politician. He's sort of developed this 'Future of the Democratic Party' aura, but it seems way overhyped. I thought his speech at the DNC was awkward and oversold, not that effective to anyone except partisan Democrats. But even then, it's so early I'm not sure what kind of campaign he'd run.


this is because booker himself has marketed his career this way and a lot of people within the party have just kind of accepted it without really interrogating whether it's true or now.

a lot of it stems from the fact that he's a really strong fundraiser and, while i apologize for how much i beat this drum, it's difficult to overstate how important the ability to host $2,000 a plate fundraisers is for moving up into leadership positions in the party. it trumps any other kind of political substance and it's one of the main reasons why dems tend to promote milquetoast candidates so often.
User avatar
light rail coyote
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Postby farmer » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:17 pm

furrowed brow wrote:
My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:in which ways do you think Gillibrand would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? because they're going to lose if they don't improve on Hillary, and I just don't see Gillibrand as an improvement in that sense.

again, I'm voting for whoever they run, but I'm wary of others feeling the same.


I'm not sure why you think Warren is an improvement over Clinton in terms of a candidate to run? And let me be clear, I'm not talking about their policy stances or there careers... talking strictly optics in electability. While I like generally like Warren as a politician, much like Hillary Clinton i'm not sure she is perceived as all that "Likable" by the general electorate. Yes, I do think she'll bring back the Bernie or bust contingent (that either didn't vote or vote independent)... But I have a very hard time seeing Warren appealing to those blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters that would have voted Bernie (and probably ended up voting Trump) and I just think there are way more of those she loses than the more left leaning voters she'll energize.


What does Bernie have that connects with those voters that Warren lacks?


A penis
farmer
 
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:42 pm

Postby Contristo » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:18 pm

My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:in which ways do you think Gillibrand would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? because they're going to lose if they don't improve on Hillary, and I just don't see Gillibrand as an improvement in that sense.

again, I'm voting for whoever they run, but I'm wary of others feeling the same.


I'm not sure why you think Warren is an improvement over Clinton in terms of a candidate to run? And let me be clear, I'm not talking about their policy stances or there careers... talking strictly optics in electability. While I like generally like Warren as a politician, much like Hillary Clinton i'm not sure she is perceived as all that "Likable" by the general electorate. Yes, I do think she'll bring back the Bernie or bust contingent (that either didn't vote or vote independent)... But I have a very hard time seeing Warren appealing to those blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters that would have voted Bernie (and probably ended up voting Trump) and I just think there are way more of those she loses than the more left leaning voters she'll energize.


1. The extent of GOP/Trump criticism for Warren is literally "Pocahontas!" -- if they had something better, they would have run with it by now. Points of attack for Gillibrand will undoubtedly seize on a big reason why Trump won: anti-Clinton rhetoric. Trump would LOVE to face Gillibrand, who he'll label as "Hillary without the resume"
2. Consistent and ardent voice on issues that attract voters (and especially the base that tends not to vote), namely student loan debt, income inequality, and marijuana, all of which Gillibrand is iffy on (Gillibrand rejected Warren's bill calling for student loan interest to go down to 0.75%; Gillibrand said it should be 4% instead).
3. As you said, bringing on the Bernie or bust contingent, while also bringing on any Clinton supporters (she did "support" her and isn't Trump, after all). Seems likelier for unification, as Bernie voters hopping on Gillibrand seems very unlikely. Clinton voters are undoubtedly less rigid in who they would vote for, as long as there's a D there.

You're definitely not wrong on likability, as I've seen polls showing Warren as unfavorable in a potential Trump matchup, but I don't see how Gillibrand would be more appealing to blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters either, if Hillary herself didn't attract them. If anything, I'd call it a "draw" in terms of likability for both - they're both "coastal elite liberals" - among that niche, but at least Warren has the issues down pat that will attract voters, and doesn't have the Clinton-ridden past.

I never said Gillibrand's voting history or stances were bad; they're just very much in line with corporatist Dems, with social policies that are already there for any Democratic candidate, while ignoring issues that rightfully attack institutions like big banks, big pharma, and the private prison industry.

They can do so much better and I just despise the media circlejerk for Gillibrand this week.
Last edited by Contristo on Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Contristo
 
Posts: 8147
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:48 pm

Postby light rail coyote » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 pm

farmer wrote:We're going up against a group of people who think child rape is fine. The best thing we could do is nominate anyone and then murder as many trump supporters as possible


hang on a second i thought you were against a violent revolution
User avatar
light rail coyote
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Postby Classic Dog Avatar » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 pm

Contristo wrote:Trump would LOVE to face Gillibrand, who he'll label as "Hillary without the resume"


"Little Hillary"
User avatar
Classic Dog Avatar
ride.
 
Posts: 9538
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:48 pm

Postby furrowed brow » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:19 pm

farmer wrote:
furrowed brow wrote:What does Bernie have that connects with those voters that Warren lacks?


A penis


okay, just so we're all on the same page.
User avatar
furrowed brow
 
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:45 pm

Postby easy » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:20 pm

can we do this in the 2020 thread so we can get back to posting america sucks, our pres is unhealthy and poops diaper, etc.??
User avatar
easy
does it
 
Posts: 44407
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:07 pm

Postby My Pal the Crook » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:21 pm

furrowed brow wrote:
My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:in which ways do you think Gillibrand would be a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? because they're going to lose if they don't improve on Hillary, and I just don't see Gillibrand as an improvement in that sense.

again, I'm voting for whoever they run, but I'm wary of others feeling the same.


I'm not sure why you think Warren is an improvement over Clinton in terms of a candidate to run? And let me be clear, I'm not talking about their policy stances or there careers... talking strictly optics in electability. While I like generally like Warren as a politician, much like Hillary Clinton i'm not sure she is perceived as all that "Likable" by the general electorate. Yes, I do think she'll bring back the Bernie or bust contingent (that either didn't vote or vote independent)... But I have a very hard time seeing Warren appealing to those blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters that would have voted Bernie (and probably ended up voting Trump) and I just think there are way more of those she loses than the more left leaning voters she'll energize.


What does Bernie have that connects with those voters that Warren lacks?


How about from a perception standpoint he doesn't scream "Academic Elite" the ay Warren does. That's not a knock on her character or her qualifications. Just an observation on how the two may be perceived differently by a voter base who may not be as informed as you'd hope.
User avatar
My Pal the Crook
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:14 pm

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:21 pm

BCMC swing voters already hate warren because she reminds them of some teacher they once had who scolded them when they were a kid, probably for being real dumb
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby light rail coyote » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:22 pm

i don't know if the Building Component Manufacturers Conference have that much sway over the general
User avatar
light rail coyote
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:24 pm

that's just what Big Component wants you to think :ugeek:
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby DasLofGang » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:24 pm

follow the components, and ask....cui bono? 8-)
heaven’s full of murderers
User avatar
DasLofGang
 
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:18 am
Location: the oreganos

Postby furrowed brow » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:26 pm

My Pal the Crook wrote:How about from a perception standpoint he doesn't scream "Academic Elite" the ay Warren does. That's not a knock on her character or her qualifications. Just an observation on how the two may be perceived differently by a voter base who may not be as informed as you'd hope.


idk that a lifetime politician in Burlington, vt is a paragon of "working-class authenticity" either.
User avatar
furrowed brow
 
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:45 pm

Postby My Pal the Crook » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:28 pm

Contristo wrote:
My Pal the Crook wrote:
Contristo wrote:
You're definitely not wrong on likability, as I've seen polls showing Warren as unfavorable in a potential Trump matchup, but I don't see how Gillibrand would be more appealing to blue collar, middle class more centrist swing voters either, if Hillary herself didn't attract them. If anything, I'd call it a "draw" in terms of likability for both - they're both "coastal elite liberals" - among that niche, but at least Warren has the issues down pat that will attract voters, and doesn't have the Clinton-ridden past.


I do think she is more appealing than Warren... but i don't know if it's enough to push the needle far enough away from Warren to win an election over Trump sad to say.
User avatar
My Pal the Crook
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:14 pm

Postby My Pal the Crook » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:31 pm

furrowed brow wrote:
My Pal the Crook wrote:How about from a perception standpoint he doesn't scream "Academic Elite" the ay Warren does. That's not a knock on her character or her qualifications. Just an observation on how the two may be perceived differently by a voter base who may not be as informed as you'd hope.


idk that a lifetime politician in Burlington, vt is a paragon of "working-class authenticity" either.


You're arguing the reality and I'm talking about the optics of things. Do you think most of the voters are that well informed? And while yes, you are correct about who Sanders actually is... he isn't viewed that way by a large portion of the population. He's the frumpy old man who's incredibly likable.
User avatar
My Pal the Crook
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 5:14 pm

Postby easy » Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:31 pm

User avatar
easy
does it
 
Posts: 44407
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:07 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mamma Mia... Here We Go Again....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adult Contemporary, alaska, Alexis, Bad Craziness, banquo, Bartatua, Beautiful Jugdish, becky, blab, blendercore, bluemovers, Brain Stew, brent, bro tones, building jumper, Celiac Cruz, chad, clouds, darger, DasLofGang, deebster, Double McDouble, dreamshake, droctagon2000, emotional fascism, Ersaph, evan, Eyeball Kid, fake blues, feaxfang, Feech La Manna, flimsy, frontierpsychiatrist, Fullscreen, gazedo, goldsoundz, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], griffith scannell, Grumby, Hal Jordan, Hauntedattic, Hideaway Lights, hired goon, hit record, hocuscrocus, hologram, Hot Piece, howiep, hyperbole man, Infinite Jost, inspectorhound, jack, Jake SPEED, jalapeño ranch, joe, Julius Sumner Miller, jumper, kash attick, Kevin McCallister, Kodiak, landspeedrecord, largecrow, laserblast, loaf angel, lust, Marcus, Martin Lawrence Olivier, mascotte, McNulty Just Farted, mcwop23, Mechanical bird, Merciel, messier object, Milk, mini, mmmbop, Mr Spaceship, Mr Squishy, mynameisdan, mynamerocks, naturemorte, NegativeCapability, night city, No Good Advice, nocents, odilon redon, palmer eldritch, Paul, Peter Criss, pez viking, pizzapartiez, powderfinger, quinine, Rainbow Battle Kid, rankoutsider, razzle, REAL BASED SLOB, Render, rex, Rumours, screaming emphysema, scurrydog, sex cauldron, shark week, Shotfrog, shrinemaidens, silverapples, smartphone, snuggle, spencasaurus, Spooky Jim, subtitles, surly, sympathy, tawny frogmouth, techno beats, Tetradyne, tgk, That Demon Life, the soccer return believer, TwoInchesOfTrouble, uncledoj, velvet anus, wario lopez, WeirdJungle, Your Turret Has Been Destroyed