|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it. Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent. klewtv.comand Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer. From left to right highlighted: All voters in Mar, All voters in Apr, Republicans Apr, and Independents Apr. There's some pretty high numbers indicating people think this fucker broke the law. Doesn't mention impeachment per se, but this metric should be telling for anyone considering it. That article is like a month old. Long before Mueller's actual shit dropped (just that phony Barr memo). Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause. Also, also, it reports that his approval was 45% last month. I would like to point out that it's hovering around 37% right now. That article might as well have been written a year ago for all the good it is now. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IoRhVMf.png)
Is 37% a new historic low then? I was sure I'd heard low 40s was the lowest ever for a President? Or is that a mix of memory and context playing tricks? I can see whoever was in charge during the wall street crash having truly horrible ratings.
|
On April 22 2019 09:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it. Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent. klewtv.comand Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer. From left to right highlighted: All voters in Mar, All voters in Apr, Republicans Apr, and Independents Apr. There's some pretty high numbers indicating people think this fucker broke the law. Doesn't mention impeachment per se, but this metric should be telling for anyone considering it. That article is like a month old. Long before Mueller's actual shit dropped (just that phony Barr memo). Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause. Also, also, it reports that his approval was 45% last month. I would like to point out that it's hovering around 37% right now. That article might as well have been written a year ago for all the good it is now. Is 37% a new historic low then? I was sure I'd heard low 40s was the lowest ever for a President? Or is that a mix of memory and context playing tricks? I can see whoever was in charge during the wall street crash having truly horrible ratings.
Bush hit 25 I think late in his presidency between the war and the bailout. Truman hit 22 nixon 26 and carter I think 28.
|
On April 22 2019 09:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 09:16 iamthedave wrote:On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it. Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent. klewtv.comand Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer. From left to right highlighted: All voters in Mar, All voters in Apr, Republicans Apr, and Independents Apr. There's some pretty high numbers indicating people think this fucker broke the law. Doesn't mention impeachment per se, but this metric should be telling for anyone considering it. That article is like a month old. Long before Mueller's actual shit dropped (just that phony Barr memo). Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause. Also, also, it reports that his approval was 45% last month. I would like to point out that it's hovering around 37% right now. That article might as well have been written a year ago for all the good it is now. Is 37% a new historic low then? I was sure I'd heard low 40s was the lowest ever for a President? Or is that a mix of memory and context playing tricks? I can see whoever was in charge during the wall street crash having truly horrible ratings. Bush hit 25 I think late in his presidency between the war and the bailout. Truman hit 22 nixon 26 and carter I think 28.
Trump is pacing Reagan remarkably closely atm (but also Ford).
|
On April 22 2019 00:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump just tweeted that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a round of terrorist attacks that just occurred. The population of Sri Lanka is 22 million. Also, the death toll is about 200.
He just does this to get the media to report on it.
I thought people would have worked this out by now.
Going back to 2016 here when he turned a press conference about Obamas birth certificate into a 2 hour long infomercial advertising his newly opened hotel. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/how-trump-played-the-media.amp
|
|
|
On April 22 2019 09:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 09:16 iamthedave wrote:On April 22 2019 03:16 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 02:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 22 2019 02:44 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 22 2019 01:27 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 20:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 06:16 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 21 2019 05:39 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 21 2019 02:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
That's difficult to ascertain. Define obstruction of justice and then see if it has a criminal intent behind it. Say, I give a police officer a wrong address and they come to question me about something. That's technically obstruction but there isn't a crime underneath. If I'm on the board of directors of a company, and the FBI opens an investigation, let's say I decide I don't want the FBI digging into our actions. So I start paying people to lie to the FBI. Then after the investigation, the FBI decides there isn't enough evidence to bring charges. Even though there was no underlying crime, I have committed obstruction of justice. There is no such thing as attempted obstruction. By definition, obstruction is materially impeding an investigation OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEDE. That means our President has committed crimes. Full stop. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold him accountable. The very reason a President cannot be indicted is because the Congress has the power to impeach. It's time. Would be nice, doesn’t really work like that sadly. Absolutely no point even attempting it, it’s not going to be doable I mean I in theory like the idea that it’s so hard to impeach a President, but it feeds into current partisanship horribly. Without a certain threshold it would be theoretically pretty open to abuse though Also it could backfire pretty hard in terms of public sentiment, so there’s that to factor in as well. There’s enough there that’s pretty damning by any open-minded person’s judgement that you can play off. The smart pure pragmatic political play is to go ‘Trump is obviously corrupt but we can’t do much, also with that in mind here is our better platform.’ If the Dems somehow conspire to lose the next election with all this in mind it’s entirely on them IMO, it really shouldn’t be losable if they play it right They should absolutely do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having a coequal branch? It sets a dangerous precedent not to do it. Plus, the report has already dented his approval. Impeachment hearings would likely take it further into the toilet. Not to mention getting the attention of some of the assholes who don't bother to vote. It's idealistic to say, but this bullshit about making sure you have every single vote before making a move on anything is lame. Put every resolution or bill out and let the votes come. If it passes, great. If not, oh well. That's the process. Respect it. I mean it’s a process, it should work that way, I’d prefer it I’d ir did. As Trump is seemingly immune from stuff that should politically tanking him, tanking him, be it just basic decorum, a base familiarity with the truth thru to ‘not obstruction’ I just don’t see the point, it’s got a 0% chance of success and will just feed into an already horrendously divided politically environment. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I want a second EU referendum, but that issue is going to be divisive anyway, and there’s a realistic chance that the original result might flip I like the idea of the filibuster too, until political reality just sees it used to block things on a purely partisan basis rather than just to block stuff that’s egregious I keep seeing this argument, and it frustrates the living fuck out of me. This is along the same logic as "Why vote? The system is rigged anyway." We actually don't know what the Senate will do. We know almost for sure if the verdict came before the trial and that verdict was today, then yes, GOP senators would not convict. But, we have no idea what the outcome of the trial will be, how that will sway public sentiment, what kind of pressure that will put on GOP senators to ditch Trump in favor of getting re-elected, or even what effect the assuredly million more Trump scandals coming our way will have on the aforementioned. If we don't act to impeach, the message we are sending to the voting populace, and future generations, is that what Trump did and got away with was tolerable, and it sets a dangerous precedent going forward. If we don't try, Trump definitely gets a victory. He get to claim that if he was so guilty, why didn't the Dem led House impeach? And, the GOP gets off without being held accountable (being forced to stand with Trump or with Rule of Law). If we don't even try to impeach, the number 1 winners of that scenario are automatically: Trump, the GOP, and Russia (who gets another free pass at fucking with our elections in 2020). But, let's say we impeach and the Senate doesn't convict. They may claim victory, but who is to say that translates into Trump winning the election in 2020? There are many different outcomes at that point based on sentiment and forcing GOP senators to side with Trump and putting their re-election at risk. Also, there is no way in hell that an impeachment rallies more Republicans than Democrats. If they were fired up in equal proportion, it works out in the Democrats favor because they are in the majority in terms of potential voters. We are being ruled by a minority, and firing up the Democratic base can only help. Not to mention the undecided people. Seeing the report and an impeachment sure as shit ain't gonna make those people suddenly become pro-Trump. Granted your concession about the difference between today and after 2 more years of Trump trashing, I don't think it's a viable strategy still. The "independent" voters both parties covet don't want it. Before Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report was concluded, Independent voters supported impeachment by a 46 to 33 percent margin. Those voters now lean against impeachment by 48 to 34 percent. klewtv.comand Trump is also more popular than Pelosi and Schumer. From left to right highlighted: All voters in Mar, All voters in Apr, Republicans Apr, and Independents Apr. There's some pretty high numbers indicating people think this fucker broke the law. Doesn't mention impeachment per se, but this metric should be telling for anyone considering it. That article is like a month old. Long before Mueller's actual shit dropped (just that phony Barr memo). Also, Rasmussen only calls landlines, which gives me pause. Also, also, it reports that his approval was 45% last month. I would like to point out that it's hovering around 37% right now. That article might as well have been written a year ago for all the good it is now. Is 37% a new historic low then? I was sure I'd heard low 40s was the lowest ever for a President? Or is that a mix of memory and context playing tricks? I can see whoever was in charge during the wall street crash having truly horrible ratings. Bush hit 25 I think late in his presidency between the war and the bailout. Truman hit 22 nixon 26 and carter I think 28.
Yeah I figured I had to be wrong. Still, he's in rare company now. The under-40 club doesn't seem to have many members.
|
On April 22 2019 16:09 JimmiC wrote:
What a genius looking like a moron to bring attention to something that is already got tons of attention.
Then bringing up how he uses racisism to sell his hotels, this is much like how he peddles racism to aquire votes.
Im sure you are very proud of your leader for this latest bout of 4d chess.
The alternative is that he is just an idiot. I think he is just an idiot, personally.
Wether this is voluntary or not, if we learnt something from the Donald it is that with certain people, all publicity, including the worst one, is a plus. And it’s certain that Trump voters are extremely resentful of liberals, and that the more liberals hate and despise him, the better to them. That’s a remarkably convenient situation to be in, since the more of a clown, or a moron, or a horrible person he looks, the better his base feel for alienating or « trolling » those liberal elites.
I think that’s why talking about how objectively awful he is was such a bad strategy in 2016.
|
Looking ahead to next year, with the rules being you have to have a certain % to get in on the debates, could they hold smaller debates now?
I asked because there are a ton of candidates and the field is going to get messy and confusing for the GP. So why not have smaller debates now for the lesser known and give them a chance. Seems like a lot of wasted money for people supporting a candidate who has no realistic chance.
|
On April 22 2019 22:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 16:09 JimmiC wrote:
What a genius looking like a moron to bring attention to something that is already got tons of attention.
Then bringing up how he uses racisism to sell his hotels, this is much like how he peddles racism to aquire votes.
Im sure you are very proud of your leader for this latest bout of 4d chess. The alternative is that he is just an idiot. I think he is just an idiot, personally. Wether this is voluntary or not, if we learnt something from the Donald it is that with certain people, all publicity, including the worst one, is a plus. And it’s certain that Trump voters are extremely resentful of liberals, and that the more liberals hate and despise him, the better to them. That’s a remarkably convenient situation to be in, since the more of a clown, or a moron, or a horrible person he looks, the better his base feel for alienating or « trolling » those liberal elites. I think that’s why talking about how objectively awful he is was such a bad strategy in 2016.
Put that way, you can't do anything. I'd like to think that 2016 was all about Hillary losing rather than Trump winning. She was just such a shit candidate that people stayed home. Those who vote Trump to "stick it" to the dirty libruls are never going to vote Democrat anyway, so it doesn't really matter that pointing out Trump is objectively awful riles them up. The number of people that think that way isn't enough to make a difference, and they'll vote for him no matter what you say or do, as you are a "filthy librul".
|
The Democrats have already made rules saying anyone who is running gets to be in debates. They will hold more than one if they have to and publicly pick who will be in which debate at random. They are going giant messes and it should be a good time.
|
On April 22 2019 22:27 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats have already made rules saying anyone who is running gets to be in debates. They will hold more than one if they have to and publicly pick who will be in which debate at random. They are going giant messes and it should be a good time.
anyone with at least 1% in three approved polls and/or 65,000 donors in at least 20 (?) states iirc.
If it's over 20 candidates I'm pretty sure they raise the requirement slightly to both 1% and donors.
|
On April 22 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 22:27 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats have already made rules saying anyone who is running gets to be in debates. They will hold more than one if they have to and publicly pick who will be in which debate at random. They are going giant messes and it should be a good time. anyone with at least 1% in three approved polls and/or 65,000 donors in at least 20 (?) states iirc.
Yeah, anyone running wasn’t totally correct. I should have said that the bar is low enough that everyone we are aware of should make it in without a problem. Everyone with a slim chance in hell can get it.
|
one thing that's kind of curious is how gabbard and yang (who are meme tier candidates) have hit 65k donations whereas a couple of the better known candidates haven't.
|
On April 22 2019 23:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
one thing that's kind of curious is how gabbard and yang (who are meme tier candidates) have hit 65k donations whereas a couple of the better known candidates haven't.
Gabbard is being pushed hard as a viable candidate in some corners of the internet. For some odd reason, they are drooling all over her on some conspiracy/anti-Israel/antiwar/antiMSM forums/subreddits. I can't tell if it's artificial (AKA bots/foreign actors) to try to split support amongst as many candidates as possible, or if she actually has some appeal to the crazier part of the populace. I peruse so many websites to stay on top of politics and the Trump/Russia shit (as I'm sure everyone here knows by now) that I could see an obvious preference for her in a number of places that struck me as really unusual.
|
On April 22 2019 23:21 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2019 23:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
one thing that's kind of curious is how gabbard and yang (who are meme tier candidates) have hit 65k donations whereas a couple of the better known candidates haven't. Gabbard is being pushed hard as a viable candidate in some corners of the internet. For some odd reason, they are drooling all over her on some conspiracy/anti-Israel/antiwar/antiMSM forums/subreddits. I can't tell if it's artificial (AKA bots/foreign actors) to try to split support amongst as many candidates as possible, or if she actually has some appeal to the crazier part of the populace. I peruse so many websites to stay on top of politics and the Trump/Russia shit (as I'm sure everyone here knows by now) that I could see an obvious preference for her in a number of places that struck me as really unusual.
i can kind of see it, but the online support doesn't seem to translate at all into actual real life people support. i have a bit of a soft sport for the weird #yanggang energy, even though like i said he's a meme-tier candidate.
|
Also, stumbled onto this article that shows pretty clearly that the "collusion" plan to elect Trump was hatched in 2012, and it features a Russian named Konstantin Rykov admitting it. Not sure how I missed this...
"What was our idea with Donald Trump?
For four years and two days .. it was necessary to get to everyone in the brain and grab all possible means of mass perception of reality. Ensure the victory of Donald in the election of the US President. Then create a political alliance between the United States, France, Russia (and a number of other states) and establish a new world order.
Our idea was insane, but realizable.
In order to understand everything for the beginning, it was necessary to “digitize” all possible types of modern man.
Donald decided to invite for this task — the special scientific department of the “Cambridge University.”
British scientists from Cambridge Analytica suggested making 5,000 existing human psychotypes — the “ideal image” of a possible Trump supporter. Then .. put this image back on all psychotypes and thus pick up a universal key to anyone and everyone.
Then it was only necessary to upload this data to information flows and social networks. And we began to look for those who would have coped with this task better than others.
At the very beginning of the brave and romantic [story] was not very much. A pair of hacker groups, civil journalists from WikiLeaks and political strategist Mikhail Kovalev."
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/11/24/a-trumprussia-confession-in-plain-sight/
|
|
|
On April 23 2019 00:00 JimmiC wrote:What is the official Trump line on why he doesn't want to release his finances and taxes? I remember it wasn't to long ago when he was going to release them as soon as audit was done and own the libs? Now he is suing to try to stop it? In the article it mentions that the Dem's are trying to hurt him and this is why he is blocking. But why would he think this would hurt him?https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/donald-trump-organization-financial-records/index.html
Because of all the illegal shit he has done probably?
|
On April 23 2019 00:00 JimmiC wrote:What is the official Trump line on why he doesn't want to release his finances and taxes? I remember it wasn't to long ago when he was going to release them as soon as audit was done and own the libs? Now he is suing to try to stop it? In the article it mentions that the Dem's are trying to hurt him and this is why he is blocking. But why would he think this would hurt him? https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/22/politics/donald-trump-organization-financial-records/index.html Because he isn't as rich as he likes to claim?
possible debts?
financial constructions that means he doesn't pay a lot of taxes?
There is a lot that could be worth hiding to a lying narcissist.
On April 23 2019 00:05 Ayaz2810 wrote:Because of all the illegal shit he has done probably? You don't put illegal stuff in your tax returns that you send to the government...
|
On April 22 2019 23:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
one thing that's kind of curious is how gabbard and yang (who are meme tier candidates) have hit 65k donations whereas a couple of the better known candidates haven't.
Yang has massive support in Asian communities and some support from libertarian leaning folks
Gabbards support comes largely for people looking for an anti-war stance and Bernie supporters with an extra dollar (and don't understand her Hindu nationalist stuff).
I'm just hoping to see Gravel on the stage personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
