Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
Trump won't need to rally his base in 2020. They'll be there no matter what.
But his base appears to be only about 30% of the electorate. That's not
enough to win reelection and what he'll need to do is hang on to the swing
voters who helped him win in 2016. He appears to already be losing many
of them. In interviews they have made it clear. They voted for him on the
basis they thought he was committed to improving the lives of working
class/middle class people. But he's demonstrated that he is not.
Click to expand...


I look at the past dozen elections and voter participation ranged
from 50% to 60% of the electorate, which means that the much
maligned Electoral College actually randomizes the election.
In a world without the Electoral College, the Republicans
who have an advantage from 0% to 10% could win forever.

Anyway, voter education definitely needs fixing, a few hours reviewing
his history would've removed the silly idea he cares about working people.
 
theprestige said:
I thought you meant that he would start a war, if given half a chance.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that he'd do it with premeditation or plan.

I was doing fine right up to the point where I disagreed with your assessment?
Click to expand...

As usual! :)

You were doing fine right up to the point where you didn't bother to read or respond to my reasoning.
Click to expand...

May I conclude that you are part of this adorable subset of posters who believes that, if I don't quote part of a post in my reply, I didn't read it?
 
Although I must admit that I seldom engage in debates with BobTheCoward (apologies to BTC- just a reflection of my own goals) I have come to genuinely enjoy the back and forths between him and theprestige in these threads. They are enlightening, in their own very special ways, and certainly entertaining!
 
Solitaire said:
I look at the past dozen elections and voter participation ranged
from 50% to 60% of the electorate, which means that the much
maligned Electoral College actually randomizes the election.
In a world without the Electoral College, the Republicans
who have an advantage from 0% to 10% could win forever.
Click to expand...

How is that consistent with the fact that the Republican Presidential candidates lost the popular vote in 2000, 2008, 2012 and 2016?

Obviously, the campaign would be run differently, but I don't see why you think Republicans would thereby have a 0 to 10% advantage in the popular vote. Democrats have succeeded in the popular vote recently. That's some reason to think they'd do so in a popular vote race, though it's not decisive.
 
Giordano said:
Although I must admit that I seldom engage in debates with BobTheCoward (apologies to BTC- just a reflection of my own goals) I have come to genuinely enjoy the back and forths between him and theprestige in these threads. They are enlightening, in their own very special ways, and certainly entertaining!
Click to expand...

While I often find your posts insightful, this one is just wrong. Like watching a boxer punch on a handicapped kid.
 
Giordano said:
Although I must admit that I seldom engage in debates with BobTheCoward (apologies to BTC- just a reflection of my own goals) I have come to genuinely enjoy the back and forths between him and theprestige in these threads. They are enlightening, in their own very special ways, and certainly entertaining!
Click to expand...
I too regard BobTheCoward as a spectator sport rather than a participatory one.
 
Dr. Keith said:
While I often find your posts insightful, this one is just wrong. Like watching a boxer punch on a handicapped kid.
Click to expand...

I never suggested I was proud of enjoying it. It comes from my darker side. Sometimes even I hate me...
 
Belz... said:
May I conclude that you are part of this adorable subset of posters who believes that, if I don't quote part of a post in my reply, I didn't read it?
Click to expand...
More to the point, you didn't rebut it. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I was wrong to disagree with you, but not if you won't give any reason for it, and won't even try to address the reasoning behind my disagreement.
 
Dr. Keith said:
And it assumes no federal reserve. You know, since their job is to restrain the type of growth that would be required for such a plan to work.
Click to expand...
Actually, their job is to restrain inflation. The type of growth you refer to is inflationary growth, and they will make every effort to strangle it.
 
Trump Tweets

"@FLGovScott has been relentless in securing the funding to fix the algae problem from Lake Okeechobee - we will solve this! Congress must follow through on the Government’s plan on the Everglades Reservoir. Bill Nelson has been no help!"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"@FLGovScott has been relentless in securing the funding to fix the algae problem from Lake Okeechobee - we will solve this! Congress must follow through on the Government’s plan on the Everglades Reservoir. Bill Nelson has been no help!"
Click to expand...


Never mind that Scott was the one who eliminated state pollution regulations intended to reduce algae blooms, and Nelson and Marco Rubio have been working together to drive the bill forward.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts.
 
Pixel42 said:
Appalling as it all is, I did have to laugh at the misplaced apostrophe in suck's.
Click to expand...

It's okay to laugh at them. They went to a Trump rally. It's not as if they count as people. Think of them as a tank ditch between you and other real Americans storming the ramparts and taking back our country. No one feels bad hurting the tank ditch. You shouldn't either.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"@FLGovScott has been relentless in securing the funding to fix the algae problem from Lake Okeechobee - we will solve this! Congress must follow through on the Government’s plan on the Everglades Reservoir. Bill Nelson has been no help!"
Click to expand...

Perhaps algae bloom is a symptom of a much bigger problem? One that was announced with great alarm today but bounced off the news by Haley's resignation? "Climate Change Could Be Crisis By 2030, UN Study Warns".

Now there are ony 12 years left...

(Not to turn it into a Climate Change discussion, but major claims by scientists require major denials by the ignorant)
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
More to the point, you didn't rebut it. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I was wrong to disagree with you, but not if you won't give any reason for it, and won't even try to address the reasoning behind my disagreement.
Click to expand...

Rebut what? You made a baseless accusation on the mere fact that I didn't quote the rest of your post. There's nothing to rebut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom