Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

everlast75

jooksavage wrote: »

There's no f***in' way he uses condoms.

There is more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that Elliot Broidy took the fall for DT for getting a playboy bunny pregnant, make her have an abortion and then pay out 1.6m dollars. Not to mention that Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford both said they had unprotected sex with him

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

Not to mention that Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford both said they had unprotected sex with him

His demented behaviour is consistent with neurosyphilis.

He made a big deal out of never catching an STD, and is usually lying when he makes a big deal out of things.

The mad letter from his alleged doctor saying he was the healthiest candidate ever turned out to have been dictated by one Donald Trump.

RIGOLO

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

"Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ."

is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious .

self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. 
There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT.  

TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious.
In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming  back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. 

http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
Its refering to the 'go nuclear option  ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. 
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4
I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre  and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move.
Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword.  
I wonder do you still consider it hilarious  ? 
Do you consider this hilarious ? 
Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of  Justice of The United States of America. All using  filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. 

The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. 

[font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator
[/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font]

Gwen Cooper

Carry wrote: »

I like the fact that he got 60 icecreams delivered first thing. 60. For four days. Even considering that he brought a few friends. 60 icecreams.
.

I'm with Eric on this one. I would get 60 ice creams for one day if I could afford it!

everlast75

Trump has pulled out of

1) the Paris Accord
2) the Iran Deal
3) the G7
4) the UN Human Rights Council

and it is reported today he wants to pull out of the WTO.

Former allies are now foes (Germany, UK, France, Canada) and former foes Russia and North Korea are now allies.

And people say he is not beholden to Russia at all!

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

"Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ."

is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious .

self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. 
There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT.  

TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious.
In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming  back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. 

http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
Its refering to the 'go nuclear option  ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. 
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4
I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre  and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move.
Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword.  
I wonder do you still consider it hilarious  ? 
Do you consider this hilarious ? 
Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of  Justice of The United States of America. All using  filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. 

The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. 

[font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator
[/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font]

I like how both sides seem to believe Donald's pick will be bad.

It just seems to be whether or not you want to blame Donald's actions on the Republicans for supporting him PR the Democrats for not stopping him. Can we trust the msm on this issue though?

On the whole I agree that the democrats should not have removed the filibuster but it is amusing you are OK with them when they agree with you. Also removing the filibuster for the supreme court nomination is still on the Republicans. Wailing "He started it" is something people should grow out of by the time they are 10.

Out of interest, is there anyone getting the blame for the fact that the administration is struggling to figure which kid belongs to which parent?

I mean I would have figured people would take note of which kids they ripped away from which parents. I mean some of those could have been successful in their hearing and been allowed into the country, what was the plan then?

pixelburp

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump has pulled out of

1) the Paris Accord
2) the Iran Deal
3) the G7
4) the UN Human Rights Council

and it is reported today he wants to pull out of the WTO.

Former allies are now foes (Germany, UK, France, Canada) and former foes Russia and North Korea are now allies.

And people say he is not beholden to Russia at all!

Who's reporting that? I mean I can already hear kind of rhetoric Trump might use to justify it ('the United States has had the worst deals with the WTO...' etc.), but surely even by Trumpian standards leaving the WTO would be particularly boneheaded? I suppose they'd become the most interesting non-member. Or is this simply more long-term planning and genius our poor lefty brains can't comprehend?

RIGOLO

Christy42 wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

"Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ."

is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious .

self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. 
There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT.  

TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious.
In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming  back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. 

http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
Its refering to the 'go nuclear option  ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. 
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4
I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre  and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move.
Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword.  
I wonder do you still consider it hilarious  ? 
Do you consider this hilarious ? 
Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of  Justice of The United States of America. All using  filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. 

The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. 

[font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator
[/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font]

I like how both sides seem to believe Donald's pick will be bad.

It just seems to be whether or not you want to blame Donald's actions on the Republicans for supporting him PR the Democrats for not stopping him. Can we trust the msm on this issue though?

On the whole I agree that the democrats should not have removed the filibuster but it is amusing you are OK with them when they agree with you. Also removing the filibuster for the supreme court nomination is still on the Republicans. Wailing "He started it" is something people should grow out of by the time they are 10.

Out of interest, is there anyone getting the blame for the fact that the administration is struggling to figure which kid belongs to which parent?

I mean I would have figured people would take note of which kids they ripped away from which parents.  I mean some of those could have been successful in their hearing and been allowed into the country, what was the plan then?

Where in my post did you get that idea ?  Its not a point I made. 
If your somehow saying I think Donald Trumps pick will be bad then you have done one of those mis-quote, logical (illogical) assumption, 'so what your saying is ' , things and gotten it wrong. I never said or implied that. 
30 years ! With another young appointment, extending the time they sit, then Trumps influence on the makeup of SCOTUS could extend to the next 30 years. The next two most likely judges to leave are both Clinton appointments, and they may retire during Trumps second term, giving him 4 picks on the SCOTUS before he checks out and goes back to business and (more) golf.
30 years of Trump influence ! ( NB I have not said Trumps pick will be bad , anywhere in this post)

Captain Obvious

RIGOLO wrote: »

Where in my post did you get that idea ? Its not a point I made.
If your somehow saying I think Donald Trumps pick will be bad then you have done one of those mis-quote, logical (illogical) assumption, 'so what your saying is ' , things and gotten it wrong. I never said or implied that.
30 years ! With another young appointment, extending the time they sit, then Trumps influence on the makeup of SCOTUS could extend to the next 30 years. The next two most likely judges to leave are both Clinton appointments, and they may retire during Trumps second term, giving him 4 picks on the SCOTUS before he checks out and goes back to business and (more) golf.
30 years of Trump influence ! ( NB I have not said Trumps pick will be bad , anywhere in this post)

If Trump gets a second term I think his possible SCOTUS picks will be the least of the issues.

Nody

pixelburp wrote: »

Who's reporting that? I mean I can already hear kind of rhetoric Trump might use to justify it ('the United States has had the worst deals with the WTO...' etc.), but surely even by Trumpian standards leaving the WTO would be particularly boneheaded? I suppose they'd become the most interesting non-member. Or is this simply more long-term planning and genius our poor lefty brains can't comprehend?

Financial times among others; and it appears to be true based on his own cabinet even confirming it but claiming it as an "exaggeration".

Earlier this morning, Axios reported that the president has repeatedly told top White House officials that he wants to pull the US out of the WTO.

But speaking to Fox Business Network, Mr Mnuchin said the story was “not right” and “an exaggeration.”

Not that it should surprise anyone; it's probably pre-emptive to avoid losing the cases on steel tariffs etc. claiming the organization is "anti USA" when his advisors tried to explain why him slapping tolls on items will not work in reality.

Danzy

EdgeCase wrote: »

It’s a pity the judge couldn’t hold off retiring until after November.

He could have but he wanted to be replaced by a Republican.

No guarantee that the Republicans will lose the house either, Dems have a long way to go.

Trump could have two more nominees before his term is up. Ginsburg being treated for pancreatic cancer.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

"Many balanced and even left wing Democratic commentors have baulked and how the DNC has been too quick and too often to block the oppossitions administrations efforts or force legislation through with EOs ."

is there any self awareness with this line. I find it absolutely hilarious .

self-awareness and hilarious lets take them one at a time. 
There was plenty self-awareness in it.. thats why I had this comment in ALL CAPS .. AND YES BOTH PARTIES ARE GUILTY OF IT.  

TIME magazine didnt find it hilarious.
In fact the wrote an article yesterday alluding to the exact same point I made , about how they consider the actions of Democrats in 2013 are now coming  back to haunt them as Trump will easily push through his SCOTUS pick. 

http://time.com/5324365/harry-reid-filibuster-reform-supreme-court/
Its refering to the 'go nuclear option  ' Democrats with Obamas support pushed thru on filibuster reform for executive appointments and judiciary. 
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-move-to-curb-the-filibuster-nuclear-option-looms/?iid=sr-link4
I remember the debate at the time (2013) and like I said many left of centre  and Democratic observers were warning Democrats of the long term impact this may have and to be careful of what they wish for. 3 Democrats oppossed the move.
Granted it was in response to Republican obstructionism, but I wonder if in hindsight Dems would reconsider this move now that DT gets to wield this might sword.  
I wonder do you still consider it hilarious  ? 
Do you consider this hilarious ? 
Trump will reset the structure of The Supreme Court Of  Justice of The United States of America. All using  filibuster reform Democrats and Obama introduced. 

The comments from Republicans in 2013 were very prophetic, and it wasnt just them there were plenty on the left who had the same concerns. 

[font=Georgia, serif]Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed. “Some of us have been around long enough to know the shoe is sometimes on the other foot,” said the Kentucky senator
[/font][font=Georgia, serif]enator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, told TIME. “This is very dangerous in terms of what it means for the Senate. What goes around comes around. And someday they’re going to be in the minority.”[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Long term people, long term, you have got to think long term. [/font]

I like how both sides seem to believe Donald's pick will be bad.

It just seems to be whether or not you want to blame Donald's actions on the Republicans for supporting him PR the Democrats for not stopping him. Can we trust the msm on this issue though?

On the whole I agree that the democrats should not have removed the filibuster but it is amusing you are OK with them when they agree with you. Also removing the filibuster for the supreme court nomination is still on the Republicans. Wailing "He started it" is something people should grow out of by the time they are 10.

Out of interest, is there anyone getting the blame for the fact that the administration is struggling to figure which kid belongs to which parent?

I mean I would have figured people would take note of which kids they ripped away from which parents.  I mean some of those could have been successful in their hearing and been allowed into the country, what was the plan then?

Where in my post did you get that idea ?  Its not a point I made. 
If your somehow saying I think Donald Trumps pick will be bad then you have done one of those mis-quote, logical (illogical) assumption, 'so what your saying is ' , things and gotten it wrong. I never said or implied that. 
30 years ! With another young appointment, extending the time they sit, then Trumps influence on the makeup of SCOTUS could extend to the next 30 years. The next two most likely judges to leave are both Clinton appointments, and they may retire during Trumps second term, giving him 4 picks on the SCOTUS before he checks out and goes back to business and (more) golf.
30 years of Trump influence ! ( NB I have not said Trumps pick will be bad , anywhere in this post)

Well you seemed to be pinning the blame on the Democrats for them anyway.

Republicans and Trump need to own these picks. Any issues from them is there own making and not the Democrats.

rossie1977

Danzy wrote: »

He could have but he wanted to be replaced by a Republican.

No guarantee that the Republicans will lose the house either, Dems have a long way to go.

Trump could have two more nominees before his term is up. Ginsburg being treated for pancreatic cancer.

Ginsburg was treated for cancer in 2009..

No chance either of the two older democratic judges step down while someone like Trump is president, death is the only thing that would make them leave.

And a democratic candidate should beat Trump in 2020 unless they pick a total corporate like Booker or something. Biden would sweep the rustbelt because he has lived in Michigan and was born in Pennsylvania both states Trump won by razor thin margins and ultimately won him the white house along with Wisconsin

Nody

And Canada now says: Hello USA remember those tariffs you raised on us? Well here's our French reply of $16 billions of politically target tariffs against your swing state products; love Canada.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

And Canada now says: Hello USA remember those tariffs you raised on us? Well here's our French reply of $16 billions of politically target tariffs against your swing state products; love Canada.

Why is French in that sentence?

Yeah it had to come. I get why Canadian businesses are worried about more tit for tat but it is the only way the US will back down from its trade war. People will just have to accept this is going to hurt the world over.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

Why is French in that sentence?

Canadian Bacon reference.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Ginsburg was treated for cancer in 2009..

No chance either of the two older democratic judges step down while someone like Trump is president, death is the only thing that would make them leave.

And a democratic candidate should beat Trump in 2020 unless they pick a total corporate like Booker or something. Biden would sweep the rustbelt because he has lived in Michigan and was born in Pennsylvania both states Trump won by razor thin margins and ultimately won him the white house along with Wisconsin

People keep saying that but I'm not buying it. It's the economy, stupid and so on. People in their sold their morals (if they had any) for apparent prosperity. Little of it is down to Trump but barring an economic shock or something to cut his term short he'll likely win again next time.

Danzy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Ginsburg was treated for cancer in 2009..

No chance either of the two older democratic judges step down while someone like Trump is president, death is the only thing that would make them leave.

And a democratic candidate should beat Trump in 2020 unless they pick a total corporate like Booker or something. Biden would sweep the rustbelt because he has lived in Michigan and was born in Pennsylvania both states Trump won by razor thin margins and ultimately won him the white house along with Wisconsin

Trump's greatest asset electorally remains his opponents who made him electable.

Ultimately it is the economy. If he keeps unemployment where it is he'll walk in again.

pixelburp

Surely the very election of Trump shows that any prediction of 2020 is a fools errand; clearly there are more things at play than 'just' the economy and with an agent of chaos like Trump, anythings possible.

Danzy

pixelburp wrote: »

Surely the very election of Trump shows that any prediction of 2020 is a fools errand; clearly there are more things at play than 'just' the economy and with an agent of chaos like Trump, anythings possible.

True but people act as if he has no Chance. It is strange, Trump derangement syndrome, is a thing and he plays on it to his advantage, without the people who were so opposed to him, he'd never be President.

He knew that they didn't like him and they despise his base, proles and Hicks and people who don't know the difference between a mocha and a cappuccino and those people know it too.

The left is bad at hiding it's snobbery, the GOP learnt to his it,the Tories have gotten better start it.

dr.fuzzenstein

everlast75 wrote: »

There is more than circumstantial evidence to suggest that Elliot Broidy took the fall for DT for getting a playboy bunny pregnant, make her have an abortion and then pay out 1.6m dollars. Not to mention that Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford both said they had unprotected sex with him

I need to soak my brain in bleach to get rid of that mental image now.

pixelburp

Danzy wrote: »

True but people act as if he has no Chance. It is strange, Trump derangement syndrome, is a thing and he plays on it to his advantage, without the people who were so opposed to him, he'd never be President.

He knew that they didn't like him and they despise his base, proles and Hicks and people who don't know the difference between a mocha and a cappuccino and those people know it too.

The left is bad at hiding it's snobbery, the GOP learnt to his it,the Tories have gotten better start it.

There's no doubt there was a strong anti establishment thrust of Trumps appeal (despite being himself one of the 1%, I'll never rationalise that cognitive leap), and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by underestimating the core that fell in with Trumps campaign, but equally there are signs of buyers
/ voters remorse here and there. Be it from those burned by Trumps braggadocio, or the "both candidates are as bad as each other" crowd, and so on. It's as reductionist to call Trump voters racist as it is all the liberals as urban elites too.

I dunno. It's arguable Trump's holding on by dint of the more extreme base. But hey, who knows; like I said this whole cycle has kicked norms into touch and the last thing anyone should assume is how 2020 will go. Who knows what else might come out from his past, what November might bring. Hell tomorrow Mueller could come knocking with some bombshell.

Water John

O'Bama didn't mention Trump but told the Dems to get their act together.
Completely agree, they need to spin out a positive alternative message.

Danzy

pixelburp wrote: »

There's no doubt there was a strong anti establishment thrust of Trumps appeal (despite being himself one of the 1%, I'll never rationalise that cognitive leap), and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by underestimating the core that fell in with Trumps campaign, but equally there are signs of buyers
/ voters remorse here and there. Be it from those burned by Trumps braggadocio, or the "both candidates are as bad as each other" crowd, and so on. It's as reductionist to call Trump voters racist as it is all the liberals as urban elites too.

I dunno. It's arguable Trump's holding on by dint of the more extreme base. But hey, who knows; like I said this whole cycle has kicked norms into touch and the last thing anyone should assume is how 2020 will go. Who knows what else might come out from his past, what November might bring. Hell tomorrow Mueller could come knocking with some bombshell.

He was anti establishment and all the hectoring he got built that for him.

It is easy for a billionaire to be seen as anti establishment when you are against Clinton and her wall st rollercoaster, much of the Media and righteous activists.

On his own he would not have made it.

That is his real cunning he knows people, he knows how to appeal to them, get them on board. The Dems are more likely to insult than bring people on board.

I get your points though.

WinnyThePoo

Danzy wrote: »

He was anti establishment and all the hectoring he got built that for him.

It is easy for a billionaire to be seen as anti establishment when you are against Clinton and her wall st rollercoaster, much of the Media and righteous activists.

On his own he would not have made it.

That is his real cunning he knows people, he knows how to appeal to them, get them on board. The Dems are more likely to insult than bring people on board.

I get your points though.

Are you not talking about Trump with that line.

rossie1977

Danzy wrote: »

Trump's greatest asset electorally remains his opponents who made him electable.

Ultimately it is the economy. If he keeps unemployment where it is he'll walk in again.

The economy was booming in 2000 and a Republican was "elected" instead of carrying on with a Democrat who had overseen huge budget surpluses and on course to wipe out the national debt completely in a decade. The economy in November 2016 was similar to right now and Trump was elected instead of following on with someone who held many of Obama's economic views.

Trump didn't walk it the last time. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined 40,000 votes. If those 40k had voted for Hillary instead she would be President now not Trump. Trump's approval rating is under-water in each of those three states right now.

2016 was Trump's wave year so he isn't winning any state in 2020 he didn't in 2016. 2020 Democrats will place all their focus on the rust belt after ignoring it in 16 and like I said unless the Dems pick a corporate their candidate should appeal to the blue-collar Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan voter than a billionaire from New York who lives in tower with his name in gold lettering.

Another factor is the Republicans and right wing media don't have a candidate who they have portrayed as the embodiment of evil itself for 20 years running this time.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

The economy was booming in 2000 and a Republican was "elected" instead of carrying on with a Democrat who had overseen huge budget surpluses and on course to wipe out the national debt completely in a decade. The economy in November 2016 was similar to right now and Trump was elected instead of following on with someone who held many of Obama's economic views.

Trump didn't walk it the last time. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined 40,000 votes. If those 40k had voted for Hillary instead she would be President now not Trump. Trump's approval rating is under-water in each of those three states right now.

2016 was Trump's wave year so he isn't winning any state in 2020 he didn't in 2016. 2020 Democrats will place all their focus on the rust belt after ignoring it in 16 and like I said unless the Dems pick a corporate their candidate should appeal to the blue-collar Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan voter than a billionaire from New York who lives in tower with his name in gold lettering.

Another factor is the Republicans and right wing media don't have a candidate who they have portrayed as the embodiment of evil itself for 20 years running this time.

Just shows how good the Republicans are at controlling the narrative as they say. The economy was going well but the Republicans managed to get across the "Everything's Terrible!" message. Clinton was a factor but if the economy keeps going the way it is then they'll hold their nose and vote for more of the same.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Just shows how good the Republicans are at controlling the narrative as they say. The economy was going well but the Republicans managed to get across the "Everything's Terrible!" message. Clinton was a factor but if the economy keeps going the way it is then they'll hold their nose and vote for more of the same.

Indeed we had 40% unemployment being bandied around like crazy and arguments over the correct measure of unemployment. Strangely enough everyone agreed to do it the traditional way after the election.

Danzy

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Are you not talking about Trump with that line.

He is an insulting childish orick but like many on the right today he reserves that for those who will never vote for him. His opponents are as quick to insult their own base as him.

This is a common trait in the modern Left, the Stark class divide between it and those who vote for it.

The really ****ty attitude is killing the Left.

Personally I think it is already game, over running on fumes now, in ten years the Left as we know it will be a niche.

Danzy

rossie1977 wrote: »

The economy was booming in 2000 and a Republican was "elected" instead of carrying on with a Democrat who had overseen huge budget surpluses and on course to wipe out the national debt completely in a decade. The economy in November 2016 was similar to right now and Trump was elected instead of following on with someone who held many of Obama's economic views.

Trump didn't walk it the last time. He won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by a combined 40,000 votes. If those 40k had voted for Hillary instead she would be President now not Trump. Trump's approval rating is under-water in each of those three states right now.

2016 was Trump's wave year so he isn't winning any state in 2020 he didn't in 2016. 2020 Democrats will place all their focus on the rust belt after ignoring it in 16 and like I said unless the Dems pick a corporate their candidate should appeal to the blue-collar Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan voter than a billionaire from New York who lives in tower with his name in gold lettering.

Another factor is the Republicans and right wing media don't have a candidate who they have portrayed as the embodiment of evil itself for 20 years running this time.

All States a Democrat would expect to take, hubris kicked in once again though.

The Dems have been ignoring the fly over States for a lot longer than 2016, a significant portion of the party seems intent on accelerating that.

Trump will count on them again.