Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The thing is, they had no message going into that election either. As I posted above, the Democrats have a net loss of 1,042+ state and federal Democratic posts since 2008. Perhaps they're doing something wrong?

Perhaps what they were doing wrong was holding the presidency? Doesn't the incumbent party in the presidency tend to lose offices lower down in the food chain? Presumably that's why your period of comparison starts in 2008.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's exactly how the media hyped it, as a referendum on Trump. It was hardly as subtle as you claim, given it was the highest funded special election in history.

Well, if it was the highest-funded special election in history, surely the result is more significant as a measure of the impact of spending as a strategy for buying votes than it is as a referendum on Trump?

But, if it was treated by the voters as a "referendum on Trump", neither Trump nor the Republicans will be taking much comfort from the result. The Republican vote fell from 61.7% at the last election to 51.9% at this one. If that swing were to be replicated nationwide we both know that Trump would be whipped to an electoral puree. You would do your cause more service, I think, by insisting that this wasn't a referendum on Trump, and that the swing to the Democrats was a response to the candidates, to local issues, yadda, yadda, and so wouldn't be replicated outside the district.

Christy42

On a different note I thought that Trump was claiming credit for the blockade in Qatar?

Now state department is mystified by it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/20/politics/us-mystified-qatar-embargo/index.html

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

US may be divided but I have yet to see any Dem looking to bring themselves closer to what people want.

Agree with everything you said. Yesterdays election again there was a strong hollywood influence campaign, imo that does more harm than good, it epitomises a total disconnect from the average middle class voter acting as a transparent cover for a non existent message. It just ain't real.

Leroy42

Yes, I agree a discussion about Dems is not for this thread.

I guess my point is that this result is a massive blow to the Dems, and a massive boost to Trump. The last few weeks he is clearly feeling the strain and the 'walls closing in' and this result will embolden him to push harder.

The GOP has no option but to go with him, at every turn he has proved the doubters wrong.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps what they were doing wrong was holding the presidency? Doesn't the incumbent party in the presidency tend to lose offices lower down in the food chain? Presumably that's why your period of comparison starts in 2008.

According to this article the amount of seats lost is unprecedented in modern times.

http://observer.com/2015/11/obama-has-decimated-his-own-party-unlike-any-other-modern-president/

"For all of the Republicans’ painful memories of 2006 under the second Mr. Bush, when Democrats made massive gains in the House and Senate, his losses came nowhere near Mr. Obama’s. Under Mr. Bush, Republicans lost 9 net Senate seats, 42 House seats, 7 governorships, 324 state legislature seats and 13 state legislature chambers."

"Under Mr. Obama, Democrats have lost 13 net Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers, according to analysis from the Washington Post."

Bush for example lost 1/3 of what Obama did.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

According to this article the amount of seats lost is unprecedented in modern times.

http://observer.com/2015/11/obama-has-decimated-his-own-party-unlike-any-other-modern-president/

"For all of the Republicans’ painful memories of 2006 under the second Mr. Bush, when Democrats made massive gains in the House and Senate, his losses came nowhere near Mr. Obama’s. Under Mr. Bush, Republicans lost 9 net Senate seats, 42 House seats, 7 governorships, 324 state legislature seats and 13 state legislature chambers."

"Under Mr. Obama, Democrats have lost 13 net Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, a whopping 913 state legislature seats and 30 state legislature chambers, according to analysis from the Washington Post."

Bush for example lost 1/3 of what Obama did.

Yes, but Bush managed to clock up his losses at a time when the economy was booming. Obama spent much of his term dealing the the fallout of the 2008 GFC and economic crisis, too, tends to be a punishing time for incumbents.

In any event, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the Trump presidency. Even as the Democrats were losing all these federal, state and local seats and offices, they managed to hold and retain the presidency which suggests that, when it comes to the presidency, people can readily distinguish between the candidate and the party. A strong showing for the Republican brand doesn't necessarily bode well for Trump (and vice versa; on the same day that Trump took the presidency from the Democrats, the Republicans suffered a net loss of seats in the House, and likewise in the Senate).

My own view, for what it's worth, is that the Georgia 6th district outcome doesn't bode well for the Republicans in the 2018 elections; it was a 10% swing against them. But it probably tell us less about how Trump will do in the 2020 election (assuming he runs); that election will be about Trump, not about the Republicans. Love him or hate him, Trump is a very strong brand in his own right, and ever there was a president who did not ride on the coattails of his party, it's Trump.

Just to be clear, I would like to think that the Georgia election was, as you claim, a "referendum on Trump" because, if it was, the huge swing against the Republicans must signal a rejection of Trump. It would be simply delusional to think otherwise. But I think the voters distinguish between Trump and the Republicans.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to be clear, I would like to think that the Georgia election was, as you claim, a "referendum on Trump" because, if it was, the huge swing against the Republicans must signal a rejection of Trump. It would be simply delusional to think otherwise. But I think the voters distinguish between Trump and the Republicans.

Dems are 0 for 4 now in house special elections that Republicans held. Edit: They need 24 gop seats I think to regain majority. Time will tell!

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Dems are 0 for 4 now in house special elections that Republicans held. Edit: They need 24 gop seats I think to regain majority.

Only one was of any importance. (If an upset in one of the others had happened it should have sent the Republicans into full panic mode).

Democrats need seats and will not deny Georgia was a loss but we let us not claim to have more serious data points than we have. Gains have been made by the democrats since November (in terms of vote %) so the strategy is not terrible. We will see if it is good enough to win seats and not just vote share when more data comes in. You are right that it isn't enough for Republicans to be incompetent. Democrats do need to convince people they will make things better.

Billy86

Republican winning margins over the last 15 years (they've won that district for the last 38 or so, but couldn't find records).

2002 - 79.91%
2004 - 100%
2006 - 72.39%
2008 - 68.48%
2010 - 99.91%
2012 - 64.51%
2014 - 66.04%
2016 - 61.7%
2017 - 51.9%

It's hardly the most ringing endorsement, though perhaps most interesting is that Ossoff in the first round got 48.1 while all the R's got 51.9, and in the second round it stayed exactly the same. It's almost as if people are just voting for a letter or something...

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Dems are 0 for 4 now in house special elections that Republicans held. Edit: They need 24 gop seats I think to regain majority. Time will tell!

Actually they're 1 for 6; I think you're overlooking the California 34th district election on 6th June. The Democrats won that one. In fact, the Republicans didn't even get into the runoff.

In all six special elections held since Trump's victory, the incumbent party for the District has won. That translates into 5 Republican victories simply because there have been special elections in 5 Republican-held districts, as legislators resign to take up appointments in the Trump administration. Presumably, that's not going to continue indefinitely unless Trump appointees resign as fast as they are appointed, and have to be replaced with yet more Republican legislators.

At special elections, victory by the incumbent party (for the district) is normal. For example, between the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections there were 15 special elections to the House of Representatives, and every single one of them was won by the incumbent party for the district, regardless of whether the incumbent was Republican or Democrat.

So not much can be deduced from victory by incumbent parties. As a pointer to wider trends, what matters is the swing for or against the incumbent party. And I notice you don't mention this. Why would that be, I wonder?

Christy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually they're 1 for 6; I think you're overlooking the California 34th district election on 6th June. The Democrats won that one. In fact, the Republicans didn't even get into the runoff.

In all six special elections held since Trump's victory, the incumbent party for the District has won. That translates into 5 Republican victories simply because there have been special elections in 5 Republican-held districts, as legislators resign to take up appointments in the Trump administration.

At special elections, victory by the incumbent party (for the district) is normal. For example, between the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections there were 15 special elections to the House of Representatives, and every single one of them was won by the incumbent party for the district, regardless of whether the incumbent was Republican or Democrat.

So not much can be deduced from victory by incumbent parties. As a pointer to wider trends, what matters is the swing for or against the incumbent party. And I notice you don't mention this. Why would that be, I wonder?

Reread his post. Hank said in Republican held so his value of 5 is correct. I agree with the rest of the post though

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would that be, I wonder?

Bad polling perhaps?

Jokes aside, I do get the point you're making but I don't think it matters a dickybird. What matters now is what happens between now and 2018 midterms.

https://twitter.cxom/politico/status/873156519407349762

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bad polling perhaps?

https://twitter.com/politico/status/873156519407349762

Because the polling is bad, you don't want to discuss the swing in the actual vote from election to election?

You should get a job writing Trump's tweets for him! Not many people can produce such boldly meaningless stuff so effortlessly!

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because the polling is bad, you don't want to discuss the swing in the actual vote from election to election?

You should get a job writing Trump's tweets for him! Not many people can produce such boldly meaningless stuff so effortlessly!

I edited my post. Tough on phone!

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The significance of the special elections is as pointers to shifts in electoral support for the parties, and therefore as an indicator of what might happen at the mid-term elections in 2018. From that point of view, the swing matters much more than who takes the particular seat that's at stake in the special election.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Don't really agree with that, they're a long time away so for the most part it's pure speculation.

Donald Trump disagrees with you, it seems:

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Rally starting now.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bad polling perhaps?

Jokes aside, I do get the point you're making but I don't think it matters a dickybird. What matters now is what happens between now and 2018 midterms.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/873156519407349762

The polling on the run up showed a dead heat (maybe a 1% gap for Ossaf so about a 5% polling error). Not good but no where near as bad as making a point by using an intentionally old poll.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

From that point of view, the swing matters much more than who takes the particular seat that's at stake in the special election.

Don't really agree with that, they're a long time away so for the most part it's pure speculation.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

The polling on the run up showed a dead heat (maybe a 1% gap for Ossaf so about a 5% polling error). Not good but no where near as bad as making a point by using an intentionally old poll.

I digress.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Don't really agree with that, they're a long time away so for the most part it's pure speculation.

Possibly, but it's all we've got to speculate with!

(Well, that and the Gallup "presidential approval" polls.)

listermint

Does any of this fundamentally matter, none of this is Trumps doing they are republican districts.

Trump and his buddys will be in court soon enough based on the masses of evidence gathered against them which is all part of the on going investigation.

He nor his buddys can stop this special prosecutor train and all these stuff with the GOP holding their long held districts will mean nothing in the scheme of things.

I love though how its painted as if everything is good in the rose garden.

Quin_Dub

listermint wrote: »

Does any of this fundamentally matter, none of this is Trumps doing they are republican districts.

Trump and his buddys will be in court soon enough based on the masses of evidence gathered against them which is all part of the on going investigation.

He nor his buddys can stop this special prosecutor train and all these stuff with the GOP holding their long held districts will mean nothing in the scheme of things.

I love though how its painted as if everything is good in the rose garden.

I think this is a key point tbh.

Given the US system , Trump is largely separate from the GOP , certainly in terms of the house and senate.

Trumps approval rating is at basement levels but GOP voters are still GOP voters and the Dems haven't really done anything to change their minds on that subject. Each and every one of them could despise Trump but that may not have any impact on their likelihood to vote for John Q Congressman (R)

If the Dems want to make any kinds of inroads in 2018 , they need to shift the narrative away from "Trump is Awful" and focus on the actions of the House and Senate Republicans up for election.

Not "Don't vote for him , he supports Trump" , but "Don't vote for him because he supports the crappy Health care bill or the massive tax cuts for the rich at the expense of low/middle class workers"

Muellers investigation either takes out Trump or it doesn't.

Even with Trump gone it'll still be President Pence (for up to 11/12 years if he got re-elected) so they need to forget about trying to take out Trump and focus on the actual elections that are coming up..

Really Interested

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think this is a key point tbh.

Given the US system , Trump is largely separate from the GOP , certainly in terms of the house and senate.

Trumps approval rating is at basement levels but GOP voters are still GOP voters and the Dems haven't really done anything to change their minds on that subject. Each and every one of them could despise Trump but that may not have any impact on their likelihood to vote for John Q Congressman (R)

If the Dems want to make any kinds of inroads in 2018 , they need to shift the narrative away from "Trump is Awful" and focus on the actions of the House and Senate Republicans up for election.

Not "Don't vote for him , he supports Trump" , but "Don't vote for him because he supports the crappy Health care bill or the massive tax cuts for the rich at the expense of low/middle class workers"

Muellers investigation either takes out Trump or it doesn't.

Even with Trump gone it'll still be President Pence (for up to 11/12 years if he got re-elected) so they need to forget about trying to take out Trump and focus on the actual elections that are coming up..

Just one correction it can not be President Pence for 11/12 years the max is 10.

If he assumes office now or before 2 years he can only run once if he assumes office after 731 days then he can run twice. So say he takes office after year then one more term total 7 if he assumes office after 731 days then two more terms so total a day short of ten years as president. Assuming he is elected.

Fr Tod Umptious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The thing is, they had no message going into that election either. As I posted above, the Democrats have a net loss of 1,042+ state and federal Democratic posts since 2008. Perhaps they're doing something wrong?



That's exactly how the media hyped it, as a referendum on Trump. It was hardly as subtle as you claim, given it was the highest funded special election in history.

What they have done wrong is ignored the white middle and working class.

Because they have been pandering to the likes of BLM.

Mike O'Malley was forced to apologise for saying "all lives matter" two years ago.

Last year they had Michael Brown's mother speak at the DNC.

They refuse to use the term "radical Islam"

All of that is allinatiang the largest demographic in the country, white people.

And I'm sure there are examples at every level in every state and district.

It was suggested on a thread back here a few years back that if Romney won x% more of the white vote then he would have won 2008.

That's what's happening, the GOP are winning that x% of the white vote at the expenses of the Democrats.

Rjd2

I don't think Trump has much of a hand in the success in Georgia last night, more to do with how toxic the dems are in that area at the moment, that anyone with r beside their name would have won.

A pretty interesting breakdown here.

https://twitter.com/willcollier/status/877500277649285120

oscarBravo

Ugh. Probably the most tiresome thing about American politics - and it's infecting the civilised world as well - is pompous post-mortems from people pontificating about how the reason the other side lost is because they didn't appeal to that particular pundit's personal preferences.

(I'm going for an alliteration record.)

We keep being told that the Democrats need to start listening to what voters want., but the only reliable metric of what voters want is what they vote for, which means that Democrats need to reinforce the status quo, which we're told is a sure-fire way to lose votes, because what voters want is change, but if you actually offer the opportunity for real change, that's completely off-putting.

I think you'd need to be insane to run for office. Which brings me back to Donald Trump...

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ugh. Probably the most tiresome thing about American politics - and it's infecting the civilised world as well - is pompous post-mortems from people pontificating about how the reason the other side lost is because they didn't appeal to that particular pundit's personal preferences.

(I'm going for an alliteration record.)

We keep being told that the Democrats need to start listening to what voters want., but the only reliable metric of what voters want is what they vote for, which means that Democrats need to reinforce the status quo, which we're told is a sure-fire way to lose votes, because what voters want is change, but if you actually offer the opportunity for real change, that's completely off-putting.

I think you'd need to be insane to run for office. Which brings me back to Donald Trump...

Integrity will be back in voting vogue by the time he is done with America.

Hande hoche!

Engaging in a post election "autopsy" can be useful. That being said, the GOP produced a very detailed one after 2012. Trump pretty much did the opposite and won, so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Igotadose

Seems like he's not going to be invited to the UK since it wasn't in the Queen's speech: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/donald-trump-state-visit-shelved-two-years-left-queens-speech/

If indeed it's 2 years before he can visit, he may never get to meet the Queen - 2 years is a long time when you're in your 90's. Not wishing ill on the queen of course.

Zubeneschamali

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems like he's not going to be invited to the UK since it wasn't in the Queen's speech: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/donald-trump-state-visit-shelved-two-years-left-queens-speech/

If indeed it's 2 years before he can visit, he may never get to meet the Queen - 2 years is a long time when you're in your 90's. Not wishing ill on the queen of course.

I'd bet the Queen outlives Trump

BabyCheeses

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ugh. Probably the most tiresome thing about American politics - and it's infecting the civilised world as well - is pompous post-mortems from people pontificating about how the reason the other side lost is because they didn't appeal to that particular pundit's personal preferences.

(I'm going for an alliteration record.)

We keep being told that the Democrats need to start listening to what voters want., but the only reliable metric of what voters want is what they vote for, which means that Democrats need to reinforce the status quo, which we're told is a sure-fire way to lose votes, because what voters want is change, but if you actually offer the opportunity for real change, that's completely off-putting.

I think you'd need to be insane to run for office. Which brings me back to Donald Trump...

Yup, we hear about how the dems are ignoring groups so they vote repubs while ignoring that these groups would end up still being better off under the former's policies. By this logic we can just assume they'll swing back again.

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, the interviews with Trump's lawyer were a great example - in a press conference it would have never come to that as he wouldn't have been asked more than one follow up question. It's just selfish journalism, everyone chasing the soundbite

A Little Pony

Trump is a genius at doing what matters most in politics, winning elections. The guy WINS. Simple as that. Democrats spend millions of dollars and just can't defeat the guy.

A Little Pony

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The thing is, they had no message going into that election either. As I posted above, the Democrats have a net loss of 1,042+ state and federal Democratic posts since 2008. Perhaps they're doing something wrong?



That's exactly how the media hyped it, as a referendum on Trump. It was hardly as subtle as you claim, given it was the highest funded special election in history.

What they have done wrong is ignored the white middle and working class.

Because they have been pandering to the likes of BLM.

Mike O'Malley was forced to apologise for saying "all lives matter" two years ago.

Last year they had Michael Brown's mother speak at the DNC.

They refuse to use the term "radical Islam"

All of that is allinatiang the largest demographic in the country, white people.

And I'm sure there are examples at every level in every state and district.

It was suggested on a thread back here a few years back that if Romney won x% more of the white vote then he would have won 2008.

That's what's happening, the GOP are winning that x% of the white vote at the expenses of the Democrats.

This is why they lose. Keep talking among themselves in the liberal enclaves from LA to New York. The rest of the country doesn't give a damn what Colbert or any of those talk show hosts say.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is why they lose. Keep talking among themselves in the liberal enclaves from LA to New York. The rest of the country doesn't give a damn what Colbert or any of those talk show hosts say.

That'll be the pontificating I was talking about, coupled with analysis so simplistic it's almost painfully funny.

If the Democrats win the presidency in 2020, will you be berating Republicans for talking among themselves in right-wing echo chambers, or is your one-dimensional analysis reserved for people you disagree with while you're gloating?

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is why they lose. Keep talking among themselves in the liberal enclaves from LA to New York. The rest of the country doesn't give a damn what Colbert or any of those talk show hosts say.

Are you suggesting that the Dems should change their message just to get votes? Isn't that one of the problems with politics that beliefs aren't important.

And maybe the people in the rest of the country are wrong. Maybe they should listen to Colbert more.

The opposite of the above can also be true of course.

Now if the aim is simply to win, then Trump has clearly shown, and Obama before him, that rhetoric can hits a point with voters is more important than substance. Just say what people want to hear, whether you believe it or not.

Hope, Coal miners, drain the swamp, yes we can.

Manic Moran

This may be a bit of a stupid question, but has anyone actually bothered to take a look at the policies and backgrounds of the two candidates in Georgia? It's always "It's a referendum on Trump" or some other national-level issue. I doubt the residents of the district cared.

The special election wasn't going to swing the House, and whoever the residents of the district elected was going to represent them until the next election. All politics is local, as O'Neill said. Doubtless there was some dissatisfaction, and the margins indicate the probability of a large swing in the next national congressional, but it does seem to have been a little...optimistic.. that a change of seats would happen, unless the candidates themselves were inherently positioned in their own policies to result in such a change.

One can't help but notice that the vote tally (6% gap) was also apparently the 4% margin of error quoted in the most recent poll yesterday a couple pages back. I guess the pollsters still haven't sorted things out. I also can't help but notice what that $51m could do to the local infrastructure improvements or whatever, though at least it's all income for some folks and businesses in the area, plus it gets taxed...

A Little Pony

oscarBravo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

This is why they lose. Keep talking among themselves in the liberal enclaves from LA to New York. The rest of the country doesn't give a damn what Colbert or any of those talk show hosts say.

That'll be the pontificating I was talking about, coupled with analysis so simplistic it's almost painfully funny.

If the Democrats win the presidency in 2020, will you be berating Republicans for talking among themselves in right-wing echo chambers, or is your one-dimensional analysis reserved for people you disagree with while you're gloating?

If all you are doing is taking part in identity politics, pissing off white people who make up most of the country and keep losing, then don't blame anyone but yourself. Stop blaming Russia for having a pathetic candidate, stop clutching at straws. 
How can you possibly win elections when your message is openly to go against white people?

SkepticQuark

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump is a genius at doing what matters most in politics, winning elections. The guy WINS. Simple as that. Democrats spend millions of dollars and just can't defeat the guy.

You do know he only took part in two actual political campaigns, one to be the Republican candidate against people like Ted Cruz and "Jeb! and then one against the most obviously corporate sellout there ever was? You don't have to be a genius to win those elections. Just make promises you won't keep like not cutting social security etc. and it's an instant win.

SkepticQuark

A Little Pony wrote: »

If all you are doing is taking part in identity politics, pissing off white people who make up most of the country and keep losing, then don't blame anyone but yourself. Stop blaming Russia for having a pathetic candidate, stop clutching at straws. 
How can you possibly win elections when your message is openly to go against white people?

Bernie Sanders calling for Medicare for all, ending the corruption in Wall Street and Washington, increased push for green jobs and giving more back to the middle class and the poor is a message against white people?

Not only that but how exactly is the corporate Democratic platform also against white people? Going on about Russia hardly is "against white people" so what they do specifically policy wise? Sure they don't look after the working classes in the middle of the US which is why Trump won those places with people feeling fed up with how they've been left behind but that's a class thing not a white people thing. If they are so against white people then why does Wall Street like them so much when that's pretty much just white people?

Water John

Agree with your points, Roddy. Bernie Sanders, is not being listened to by the DNC, that's one of their big problems.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

If all you are doing is taking part in identity politics, pissing off white people... 

I wonder if you're even capable of seeing the irony?

How can you possibly win elections when your message is openly to go against white people?

If that's the message you're hearing, then you need to adjust your filters.

There's something quite bizarrely pathetic in watching people whine about how oppressed white people are, especially when they whine about how awful "identity politics" is at the same time.

A Little Pony

oscarBravo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

If all you are doing is taking part in identity politics, pissing off white people... 

I wonder if you're even capable of seeing the irony?

How can you possibly win elections when your message is openly to go against white people?

If that's the message you're hearing, then you need to adjust your filters.

There's something quite bizarrely pathetic in watching people whine about how oppressed white people are, especially when they whine about how awful "identity politics" is at the same time.

Keep doing it, it doesn't bother me. If the Democrats want to focus on BLM and other such issues which are of no interest to white Americans, then go ahead. It's  getting the Democrats nowhere.

Hank Scorpio

oscarBravo wrote: »

We keep being told that the Democrats need to start listening to what voters want., but the only reliable metric of what voters want is what they vote for, which means that Democrats need to reinforce the status quo, which we're told is a sure-fire way to lose votes, because what voters want is change, but if you actually offer the opportunity for real change, that's completely off-putting.

Need more Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Beyonce shilling me thinks.

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Keep doing it, it doesn't bother me. If the Democrats want to focus on BLM and other such issues which are of no interest to white Americans, then go ahead. It's  getting the Democrats nowhere.

I can't "keep doing" something that I'm only doing in your oppressed white imagination.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Need more Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Beyonce shilling me thinks.

I don't even know what that means in the context of the post it's quoting.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't even know what that means in the context of the post it's quoting.

Something about Hollywood elites & the mainstREEEEEEEm media, I guess.

jobbridge4life

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Need more Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Beyonce shilling me thinks.

You are right the democrats rely too much on celebrities...









Also lets not forget... the man himself.



:rolleyes:

A Little Pony

oscarBravo wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Keep doing it, it doesn't bother me. If the Democrats want to focus on BLM and other such issues which are of no interest to white Americans, then go ahead. It's  getting the Democrats nowhere.

I can't "keep doing" something that I'm only doing in your oppressed white imagination.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Need more Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Beyonce shilling me thinks.

I don't even know what that means in the context of the post it's quoting.

Ask yourself why Democrats keep losing. Trump is always campaigning, he never stops. What hope have the Democrats got against such a force.

A Little Pony

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Need more Lady Gaga, Jay Z and Beyonce shilling me thinks.

You are right the democrats rely too much on celebrities...









Also lets not forget... the man himself.



:rolleyes:

The democrats rely on the soppy celebrities to be fair.

Lougarden

It's really an eye opener and worrying how he made it to POTUS. However, following the polls and feeds you can see that opinions in his favour are dropping. I still do worry that there are backers now who just can't call it a day and say they were wrong; they press further on and keep this man's ego so high. How can people morally support this man and be so strong with that support? It's mind boggling, scary and sadly a bit fascinating because it is so sureal

oscarBravo

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump is always campaigning, he never stops.

Someone clearly forgot to explain the "running the country" bit that comes between elections.

The thing is: I get why Trump is always campaigning. He's an insane narcissist; he desperately needs the adulation of crowds for validation.

What I can't understand is why any sane person would admire such insane behaviour.