• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Sure.

My point is that REPUBLICANS, first and foremost McConnell, would never allow a second election to happen, because most likely they would do worse.
By calling the bluff, Democrats might be able to turn the ire of the Trump crowd against the GOP instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah... no.
 
There's a concept in compromise that you can't/shouldn't compromise with the insane because they will just move further away from sanity and demand you compromise with that.

It's same with post-fact people.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Retweeted

TRUMP IS STILL OUR PRESIDENT@9NEWSNANCY
“@RandPaul wants an explanation on WHY Trump's "defeat" happened in FOUR DATA DUMPS between 1:34 am & 6:31 am.
We all know Trump won this election.
If we don’t fight for truth here — we will FOREVER get evil by default.
#FreeAndFairElections
Click to expand...

Like father like son.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Retweeted

TRUMP IS STILL OUR PRESIDENT@9NEWSNANCY
“@RandPaul wants an explanation on WHY Trump's "defeat" happened in FOUR DATA DUMPS between 1:34 am & 6:31 am.
Click to expand...

Because that's when the votes arrived and/or were counted. Right?

What am I missing?

What time were the data dumps supposed to happen?
 
Stacyhs said:
At his very core, Trump sees himself as a victim. He's a victim when he loses and even when he wins. If he wins, he should have won even bigger if not for something or someone working against him. That's why he's so paranoid.
Click to expand...

It caused him pain that Hillary won the popular vote and more people went to Obama's inauguration. Trump believed (still does) that he is so special his election should have been a worldwide event. He always uses a version of this language: the best anyone has ever seen.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Are the Trumpanzees much quieter than prior to the election or am I just imagining it? Shouldn't they be all up in arms about how this election was stolen?
Click to expand...

I believe that enthusiasm has faded by attrition. Had there actually been any evidence I'm sure they'd still be excited.

As the curtain is pulled back further and further, more and more people see the con revealed.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It caused him pain that Hillary won the popular vote and more people went to Obama's inauguration. Trump believed (still does) that he is so special his election should have been a worldwide event. He always uses a version of this language: the best anyone has ever seen.
Click to expand...
He's still a scared and lonely little child desperately seeking attention from any adult in the room. It is the only pang of sympathy I have for him.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you suggesting the intervention didn't happen?

Or that Ivanka isn't the only person who has influence over her father?
Click to expand...
No way for us to know if and how Ivanka intervened.

What I'm suggesting is that the Kushners have been playing the journalists feeding on "access" for years.

In the early days of the Trump admin, when I was still sometimes watching parts of Morning Joe, you could hear Scarborough channelling Jared.

Each time Trump did something disgusting ( happened a lot), there inevitably was an article ( often in the NYT), telling how, according to sources, Ivanka was trying to mollify Trump.
There is no publicly available evidence that Ivanka was a moderating force in the WH, only anonymous sources claiming she was.

I do suggest (although I obviously can't prove it, as I'm not, say, Maggie Haberman) that those anonymous sources were mostly Jared and Ivanka.
 
Wisconsin officially certifies election for Joe Biden

That's it.

All 6 key battleground states where Trump needed to win 3 have all certified the election for Joe Biden.
 
I like this article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...election-hoax-tweet/ar-BB1btMmL?ocid=msedgdhp

A Republican congressman from Michigan who decided to not run for reelection this time responded to a Trump tweet about election fraud, and ended his response tweet with #stopthestupid.

It's a pity that more Republican officials can't bring themselves to say that, even if not in such forceful terms. How about maybe, just maybe, some nice statement of, "It's time to accept the judgement of the people."

(It was hard to type that example sentence without including "moron", or, uhhh, something that the autocensor would just bleep out.)
 
I like this article:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...election-hoax-tweet/ar-BB1btMmL?ocid=msedgdhp

A Republican congressman from Michigan who decided to not run for reelection this time responded to a Trump tweet about election fraud, and ended his response tweet with #stopthestupid.

It's a pity that more Republican officials can't bring themselves to say that, even if not in such forceful terms. How about maybe, just maybe, some nice statement of, "It's time to accept the judgement of the people."

(It was hard to type that example sentence without including "moron", or, uhhh, something that the autocensor would just bleep out.)
 
acbytesla said:
That's it.

All 6 key battleground states where Trump needed to win 3 have all certified the election for Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin certification makes my day complete. I might as well start drinking.

Now there's 8 December and 14 December to look forward to.
 
Delvo said:
This election was a failure for Democrats in every way except the fact that Trump lost... little blue dents in the red wave.

... the people have made an unmistakable statement that they do not see the Democrats as offering what they want; the overall result is a thorough repudiation of Trump individually, and of democrats generally. And most Democrats are continuing to pay no attention to that fact.
Click to expand...
trustbutverify said:
What, specifically, do you suggest the Dems do about this, starting with Biden?
Click to expand...
Delvo said:
Identify, and fight for, policy positions which are popular and easy for the Democrats to put their stamp on in contrast with Republican positions on the same issues.

It might sound obvious, as in "Well of course that's what political parties do because that's what politics is about", but it's not what most Democrats have been doing. How often have you seen & heard any of them pushing a message of exactly what they want the government to do and why they want it to do that? (And of the little sliver of samples of that, how often was the message clear, clearly different from the Republicans', and clearly on the side of what the people want?)

And this includes not just choosing which policies to push, but even the basic concept of choosing to spend their time in public view pushing policies at all, instead of distractions like "identity politics" and insult-competitions, which don't draw votes in their direction because they don't tell voters what they would have the government actually do about issues.
Click to expand...
trustbutverify said:
Which is exactly what McGovern did in 1972. You think the environment is better for sober policy discussion now?
Click to expand...
Yes, but also, "sober discussion" isn't even the only way to focus on issues & policies and contrast yourself with the other party. Short slogans & sound bites can and should a draw clear distinction with the other party on issues & policies too.

Back when this idea of the Democrats needing to live in hiding and never dare mention a policy that might actually help the people began, the narrative was entirely controlled by just a few news entities which always agreed with each other on things like being scared of the Commies. But now, there are more information sources available, so people can find perspectives that the few big gatekeepers who were around back then can't control, both bad and good. Nobody's scared of the Commies anymore.

One sign that the environment is better for campaigning on policies now is the fact that the word "socialist" doesn't even have a negative effect on one's public image anymore. But that's been found not only by surveys but also by election campaigns & results; focus on policies & issues has been the single most accurate predictor of electoral success. In the last few rounds of elections, since a bit more of the talk in the news has been about progressives coming out of the closet and campaigning on issues & policies, Democrats who campaigned on a policy message won, and those who lost were those who had no particular policy message. The strategy of avoidance and trying to blend in with the Republicans and be unnoticed, which had its death-grip on the party for decades before, is how they lost hundreds & hundreds & hundreds of seats all over the country just since Obama's time alone.

On top of that, although the latter (those who lost) were quick to dishonestly blame the former (those who won) for their losses, the types of Republican campaigns & ads that were actually run against them show the reality of how their Republican opponents beat them. The successful Republicans didn't equate these losing Democrats with other further-left Democrat who won, or touch "socialism", or touch popular left-wing policy positions that these Democrats weren't even running on anyway, or even touch "defund the police". The successful Republicans were the ones who depicted their Democrat opponents as exactly the opposite of the left-wing hippie Democrat who wants the government to do too much good for the people: the rich corrupt bribed corporate elitist Democrat who's only in it for the money for himself/herself. Republican ads on other stuff like "socialist" and "defund the police", which most Democrats were so scared of, not only were rare but also weren't even effective when tried.

And, of course, the only two Democrats who've won the Presidency since the 1980s without a deranged & drugged-up orangutan for an opponent ran on campaigns about how much they were going to "change" everything and how much more the government should do for its people, while all the Democrat candidates in the same period who ran the allegedly "safe" way, promising to do nothing in particular except keep the Republicans happy, invariably lost.

For this most recent election, all you needed to do to predict what would happen was look at the two parties' national conventions. The Republicans talked about all the nifty Republican stuff they had (supposedly) done or wanted to do. The Democrats didn't mention ever actually doing anything. The closest they got was implication by way of who was and wasn't included in the show, and that not only failed to draw a distinction from Republicans but even actually favored Republicans over the badwrongevil (might disrupt our corrupt gravy train) side of their own party. As I said at the time, one party was trying to win by giving voters a reason to vote for them, and the other was trying to lose by making sure there was nothing positive about them to want to vote for. Well, now that the results are in for this election overall, it's clear that, outside of the Presidency, they both succeeded.

Republicans mostly go with what works and avoid what doesn't, because they campaign to win. Most Democrats don't, and as long as that remains the case (starting with denying that elections have been coming out the way they've been coming out), they'll continue getting results that look like it.
 
Last edited:
kookbreaker said:
It’s not really a surprise. They really never liked him in NYC. He was an amusing dancing monkey on the media from time to time but his stuff was always garish and he was just plain annoying to them. The only city that probably dislikes him more would be Atlantic City.
Click to expand...

Nobody in NYC Liked Trump;people who did business with him least of all.
People do not get that Trump's reputation in the New York BUsiness world has been terrible for a long,long time. He always screws over his business partners. That is why he has to get overseas money;nobody in the US will fund him.
 
Firestone said:
No way for us to know if and how Ivanka intervened.
Click to expand...
Yeah we do.

The intervention was reported by a source MSNBC deemed credible. Ivanka has been known to influence 'daddy'.


Firestone said:
... There is no publicly available evidence that Ivanka was a moderating force in the WH, only anonymous sources claiming she was....
Click to expand...
Don't know don't care who the reliable source was. Other people were in the room including Hope Hicks.

But as for the public evidence, Trump has a long history, his life is on public display.

NBC Insiders Describe ‘Nightmare’ of Working with Donald Trump on ‘The Apprentice’

There is a ton of this stuff out there. In particular there is Noel Casler who has ignored his NDA to speak out.

This is the 30 minute version. I listened to an hour+ long podcast interviewing this guy.



Ignoring the stuff about Trump's issues with incontinence, fact checking this guy panned out that he is telling the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom