Donald Trump 2020

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, RPM said:

OK, I haven't said anything but I'm going to now. The sudden calling out of Armybrat for no fucking reason other than to troll him in this thread needs to stop. If he were in here trolling for Trump a response would be appropriate. What is happening here is petty and uncalled for. Get off his ankle.

Reported.

Why don't you go post in DT, snowflake?  It might suit you better.  

And true, Armybrat wasn't trolling.  He really thinks Obama was a POS President.  That is why he was being called out.  Had he been trolling, then it can just be ignored.

No Gestapo in CloakRoomo!

Edited July 31, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Why don't you go post in DT, snowflake?  It might suit you better.  
No Gestapo in CloakRoomo!

I believe our "Big Toe" says it best......

[TwiceHorn 31469]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why don't you go post in DT, snowflake?  It might suit you better.  

And true, Armybrat wasn't trolling.  He really thinks Obama was a POS President.  That is why he was being called out.  Had he been trolling, then it can just be ignored.

No Gestapo in CloakRoomo!

Ease up on RPM.  Michael Knight @ed armybrat kind of out of the blue about divisiveness.  Armybrat responded.  The @ing of someone who isn't participating in the thread, apropos of nothing, is a bit over the top.

[Chad Fuck 17681]

6 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I believe our "Big Toe" says it best......

This ^...

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ease up on RPM.  Michael Knight @ed armybrat kind of out of the blue about divisiveness.  Armybrat responded.  The @ing of someone who isn't participating in the thread, apropos of nothing, is a bit over the top.

And also this.  

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

52 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Obama was a decent President, but he's benefiting in analyses right now because he's compared to the flaming bag of shit currently holding the position.

Obama is the middle of a reverse shit sandwich.

 

[jimmyjazz 45945]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Brat willfully and intentionally misrepresents the perspective of anyone who advocates even slightly more stringent standards for certain aspects of gun ownership.  On more than one occasion he has directly accused me of lying about how I view 2A.  Fuck him.

Oh, by the way, his stated rationalization of his disgust for our (black) President never actually manifested, but he still doesn't care.  It's not just guns.  Obama didn't take Brat's guns, but he still rails about him.  Hmmm.  I wonder why that is?  It's a real puzzler.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26458]

Rasmussen LOL

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ease up on RPM.  Michael Knight @ed armybrat kind of out of the blue about divisiveness.  Armybrat responded.  The @ing of someone who isn't participating in the thread, apropos of nothing, is a bit over the top.

I didn't @ him.  I don't care why he came back, but he did.  And he reiterated 14 hours ago that he thought Obama was a POS President.  He could have responded to Michael Knight's @ by refining that position in light of Trump's 3 year reign of bullshit, but he didn't.  Had he not posted recently, I wouldn't have thought of him at all.  I won't apologize for using a poster's current statement in a post.

I also indicted America for it.  It is America's fault that Armybrat thinks that.

And while I don't know RPM's political views, I've seen that tactic multiple times from Trumpists.  Chip away at a message and pretend the chip destroys the entire message.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rasmussen LOL

 

I'll take a look in a bit if you don't know the answer, but do you know accurate or inaccurate that poll was re: 2016 election?

[Huckleberry 32859]

25 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

We won't fix those things because they aren't really a problem with the Presidency.  They are a problem with the Senate.  The Senate needs to check Presidential power.  They didn't do this with Obama in spite of bitching about him.  Mostly because they wanted to be the party of "no" but still wanted the things that Obama was doing by EO even as they pretended they didn't.  They certainly have no interest in checking Trump's power.

The fix is to eliminate the Electoral College.  Then you can have a minority Senate that checks Presidential power properly, or when you have an overwhelming majority, you can have the majority control both and push through legislation that a supermajority desires.  The minority should never control both, and should never be able to push through legislation completely antithetical to majority desires.  By design, they are supposed to check the majority, not oppress it.  Our founding fathers would see this and would amend the Constitution immediately to fix it.  These types of things are also the very reason that the founding fathers gave us a way to amend the Constitution.  The fact that modern strict constructionists believe amendments are an affront shows that they are just as full of shit as the rest of whatever is left of "conservative" thought these days.  

Well this post is self-contradictory. You said the problem is not with the Presidency but your solution is to eliminate the Electoral College, so how we elect the President?

You're correct that Congress needs to act like adults again instead of cowering in the face of the President but your solution doesn't make logical sense. And that's not really getting into the folly of your Electoral College removal.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

so when do we string this wannabe nazi up?:
https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-covid-19-plan-maybe-axed-for-political-reasons-report-2020-7?fbclid=IwAR09oOr_f4iDuHBLcApm3n7t5W3FNffzU4g0XfUql53dZKh7OwDI4R3szg0

[Guest Lobo]

You have to try really hard to ruin the name Jared after a guy named Jared was convicted of being a huge child molester.  But congrats Kushner, you did it buddy.  
 

as soon as it gets politically convenient for your wife to divorce you a few years from now, she will.  And guess what happens then?   You lose your security detail.  There are a number of foreign governments that wouldn’t mind having you eviscerated.  I feel bad for you man, you’ll spend the rest of your life with that unmistakeable face looking over your shoulder forever. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Lobo

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'll take a look in a bit if you don't know the answer, but do you know accurate or inaccurate that poll was re: 2016 election?

In 2018 they predicted the republicans would take back the house. 
 

It’s a garbage poll that to my knowledge, never even publishes its methodology. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Well this post is self-contradictory. You said the problem is not with the Presidency but your solution is to eliminate the Electoral College, so how we elect the President?

You're correct that Congress needs to act like adults again instead of cowering in the face of the President but your solution doesn't make logical sense. And that's not really getting into the folly of your Electoral College removal.

It isn't contradictory.  Its an understanding that a complicit Senate will almost never check a President that shares its party, so the minority party should never control both.  That the GOP Senate rarely checked Obama was an outlier, but it was politically expedient at the time.  They will check Biden for sure.

Right now, the Senate is doing its job, and that's the problem.  Its led by McConnell.  Trump is McConnell's party leader.  McConnell will obey because he is a party employee.  Which brings up another large, but separate, issue.  Almost none of the people in Congress are there to represent their actual constituents.

There is no folly at all in removing the EC.  We elect 2 offices nationally.  They should represent the will of the people.  Right now, they don't, and this is pretty much the entire reason we are on the brink of collapse.  We may have been in 2000 as well, but W was an earnest caretaker and 911 unified us.  To be fair though, almost any individual other than Trump would have been able to unify us during a pandemic.  Had he been President during 911, Civil War 2.0 would have absolutely occurred then.

The only other alternative would be to keep the EC, and flip the powers of the House and Senate.  Otherwise, we can just end this experiment now.  My state would be better off with a group of states in its nearby region.  Texas would be better off by itself.  The South can finally have the evangelical Christian state it desires.

[Beau Vine 54226]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

In 2018 they predicted the republicans would take back the house. 
 

It’s a garbage poll that to my knowledge, never even publishes its methodology. 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26458]

20 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'll take a look in a bit if you don't know the answer, but do you know accurate or inaccurate that poll was re: 2016 election?

This is the approval tracking poll, not a horserace poll, so it's kind of apples and oranges. But Rasmussen did quite well in the 2016 election. Their final 2016 poll showed Clinton up 45-43 and she of course she ended up with a 48.2-46.1 majority. 

Being said - they really weren't exceptional. All the major poll averages showed a tight natural race with a 2-4% lead for Clinton in 4 way polls. 
There's this narrative (not to say you believe this) that polls and forecasts were "wrong" in 2016 and it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. The polls were close. 538, for example, had Trump with a 28.9% chance of winning,  better than 1/4. Trump had a narrow path to victory and he found it. That doesn't mean the polls are wrong (not that you said they were).

I'm just saying Rasmussen LOL because their approval poll is consistently an outlier. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so when do we string this wannabe nazi up?:
https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-covid-19-plan-maybe-axed-for-political-reasons-report-2020-7?fbclid=IwAR09oOr_f4iDuHBLcApm3n7t5W3FNffzU4g0XfUql53dZKh7OwDI4R3szg0

Is a Jewish Nazi the equivalent of a black white supremacist?  Because there are definite similarities in the contradiction space. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

The police have giant 2 headed robots now.  They are really stepping up their tactical game.

[RPM 26320]

17 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I didn't @ him.  I don't care why he came back, but he did.  And he reiterated 14 hours ago that he thought Obama was a POS President.  He could have responded to Michael Knight's @ by refining that position in light of Trump's 3 year reign of bullshit, but he didn't.  Had he not posted recently, I wouldn't have thought of him at all.  I won't apologize for using a poster's current statement in a post.

I also indicted America for it.  It is America's fault that Armybrat thinks that.

And while I don't know RPM's political views, I've seen that tactic multiple times from Trumpists.  Chip away at a message and pretend the chip destroys the entire message.  

OK, I'll admit you may not have been the first to call him out. But... he wasn't posting in here to start with. I''m far from a Trumpist, but folks are entitled to their politicial view. If they are in here posting shit, then retort is called for. To call someone out for a their view on Obama is about 3 1/2 years late.

[JimmyJames 12271]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/08/politics/poll-of-the-week-trumps-favorite-pollster/index.html

[Huckleberry 32859]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It isn't contradictory.  Its an understanding that a complicit Senate will almost never check a President that shares its party, so the minority party should never control both.  That the GOP Senate rarely checked Obama was an outlier, but it was politically expedient at the time.  They will check Biden for sure.

Right now, the Senate is doing its job, and that's the problem.  Its led by McConnell.  Trump is McConnell's party leader.  McConnell will obey because he is a party employee.  Which brings up another large, but separate, issue.  Almost none of the people in Congress are there to represent their actual constituents.

There is no folly at all in removing the EC.  We elect 2 offices nationally.  They should represent the will of the people.  Right now, they don't, and this is pretty much the entire reason we are on the brink of collapse.  We may have been in 2000 as well, but W was an earnest caretaker and 911 unified us.  To be fair though, almost any individual other than Trump would have been able to unify us during a pandemic.  Had he been President during 911, Civil War 2.0 would have absolutely occurred then.

The only other alternative would be to keep the EC, and flip the powers of the House and Senate.  Otherwise, we can just end this experiment now.  My state would be better off with a group of states in its nearby region.  Texas would be better off by itself.  The South can finally have the evangelical Christian state it desires.

We've been through this before, but the People do not elect the President. The President is elected by the States. 

You are prescribing a structural change that won't fix anything. The spineless people occupying Congress are the issue, as you correctly pointed out. Changing how the President is elected is a knee-jerk solution based on temporary demographics. 40% of America are complete moronic imbeciles who don't care about structural racism. Think about how your "solution" would work out if that number were 51% instead. And I don't know about you, but I don't look around me and think that the country is getting smarter.

The minority needs protection from the majority quite frequently. Your solution would cause huge problems down the road.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Huckleberry

[JimmyJames 12271]

Rasmussen was right in 2016 because they accurately predicted the Paul Manafort effect in Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, RPM said:

OK, I'll admit you may not have been the first to call him out. But... he wasn't posting in here to start with. I''m far from a Trumpist, but folks are entitled to their politicial view. If they are in here posting shit, then retort is called for. To call someone out for a their view on Obama is about 3 1/2 years late.

Again, I don't care why he came back on here.  He did and he posted that last night, not 3 and a half years ago.  I agree that people are entitled to their political view.  However, they aren't entitled to quell any retort to their political view.  Simple as that.

[smuggs 9353]

30 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Obama is the middle of a reverse shit sandwich.

With the inclusion of Bush Sr. and Clinton - might Obama be on the upper deck of the reverse shit Big Mac?

[SizzleChest 8283]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

Behold... The Future!

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is the approval tracking poll, not a horserace poll, so it's kind of apples and oranges. But Rasmussen did quite well in the 2016 election. Their final 2016 poll showed Clinton up 45-43 and she of course she ended up with a 48.2-46.1 majority. 

Being said - they really weren't exceptional. All the major poll averages showed a tight natural race with a 2-4% lead for Clinton in 4 way polls. 
There's this narrative (not to say you believe this) that polls and forecasts were "wrong" in 2016 and it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. The polls were close. 538, for example, had Trump with a 28.9% chance of winning,  better than 1/4. Trump had a narrow path to victory and he found it. That doesn't mean the polls are wrong (not that you said they were).

The polls were actually extremely accurate with the notable exception of three election determining states. Somehow the polls got it right everywhere else except in Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. 
 

I guess it was just bad polling in three election determining states while they all got it right in the other 47. Seems legit to me. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

25 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so when do we string this wannabe nazi up?:
https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-covid-19-plan-maybe-axed-for-political-reasons-report-2020-7?fbclid=IwAR09oOr_f4iDuHBLcApm3n7t5W3FNffzU4g0XfUql53dZKh7OwDI4R3szg0

Traitors.

[RPM 26320]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Again, I don't care why he came back on here.  He did and he posted that last night, not 3 and a half years ago.  I agree that people are entitled to their political view.  However, they aren't entitled to quell any retort to their political view.  Simple as that.

He was @'ed. He was replying. He's not a CR regular poster Don't start none, there won't be none. He didn't start shit. Get tf off his ankle. You are way off base here.

[Goredho 17406]

2 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

He was trying to lead by example of being the president of everyone so whomever the next black president wasn't saddled with, "Hey, but that last black guy was only president of the black guys."  Yet there was a group of people who would not accept that he could do this.  It went against all their deeply seated fears and insecurities.  We now call them, "Trumpkins."  

Thank you to the estimable Mr Fuck.

[Bojack 2081]

24 minutes ago, Lobo said:

You have to try really hard to ruin the name Jared after a guy named Jared was convicted of being a huge child molester.  But congrats Kushner, you did it buddy.  
 

Subway Jared was more of a regular sized child molester with lots of extra skin. 

[Dbeasy 15050]

The video is brilliantly sad.  If you show that to a true Trumper, they just blame the Democrats for all of it.   They Trump fans are truly horrifying and wont see any truth.

Think about it. Most Trumpers won’t even understand that video is an indictment of them. They probably think that is a pro-Trump video. Yes. They are that dumb.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

We've been through this before, but the People do not elect the President. The President is elected by the States. 

Yes, we have, and I know the President is elected by the States.  As is the Senate majority leader.  I'm calling for a Constitutional amendment to change one or the other.

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are prescribing a structural change that won't fix anything. The spineless people occupying Congress are the issue, as you correctly pointed out. Changing how the President is elected is a knee-jerk solution based on temporary demographics. 40% of America are complete moronic imbeciles who don't care about structural racism. Think about how your "solution" would work out if that number were 51% instead. And I don't know about you, but I don't look around me and think that the country is getting smarter.

It will fix some things.  For one, it won't allow for a tyrannical minority.  Yes, we are getting dumber.  Right now, we allow the dumbest 35% of us to rule everything.  I think we should have waited until we got to 51% dumb before we handed the keys over to a dumb President.

 

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The minority needs protection from the majority quite frequently. Your solution would cause huge problems down the road.

There will always be problems, but none are bigger than the one we currently have where we allow the minority party to control all power as well as all potential checks and balances.  Perhaps you believe that having oppressive minority rule is a "check" on the majority rather than oppression.  

The Senate protects the minority from the majority.  The majority leader of the Senate works directly for the head of his party.  When the head of his party is President, the majority leader will not disobey.  This is why having a majority President and a minority Senate is the ideal governing position.  The Senate can check the power of the majority in that way without oppressing the majority.

A potential tyrannical majority should be checked with the understanding that a supermajority is near impossible to check.  A tyrannical minority should never be permitted to govern under any circumstances in a republic.  They have a name for republics with tyrannical minority governance.  Banana Republics. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, RPM said:

He was @'ed. He was replying. He's not a CR regular poster Don't start none, there won't be none. He didn't start shit. Get tf off his ankle. You are way off base here.

I posted about him one time regarding a post he made last night. Why don't you get the fuck off my ankle?  Whatever the fuck that term means.

[Bama Chick 28596]

How does her head not pop off from all the lying?

[Guest Lobo]

It's called the President of the United States, not President of the United People.  Democrats either need to come up with a plan to overturn the Electoral College or shut the fuck up.  It's like listening to Republicans rail against the Affordable Care Act.  You can't whine about repealing it until we hear a decent solution to replace it.  The Bayh-Celler attempt during the first Nixon term was as close as we've ever gotten and was fairly well thought out.  So of course that means that most Democrats today completely ignore it, 'cause fuck history and logic.  There have been periods of time since the Civil War where Democrats/large population states had the chance to amend the constitution's mandates on the EC with their holds on Congress and State Houses...but nope, they chose to piss that away to play the whiny victim card over and fucking over again.  And now?  Democrats, despite usually controlling state employees, have managed to let slip most state legislatures away from their control.  So the odds of them getting 2/3rds of State Legs. is slim to none.  And they have nobody to blame but themselves.  For 100 years, they were the benefactor of the EC, but not lately.  It's real fucking simple, get back in the ground game and win over some state legislatures instead of fucking around with trying to sway the Electoral College debate with hand-wringing and crying.  

The Speaker of the House was intended to have greater power, and the President was to be more of a Head of State (in the national sense), whose real power was derived from judicial appointments and vetoing Congressional bills.  Then Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and the modern era from Carter on through Trump.  All completely fucked that up.  Most every President on that list, and beyond, were horrible Presidents capable of terrible abuses of power and should have tried for treason.  But most were decent people privately.  We managed to score the trifecta...a horribly power-abusing President, who is actually an even worse human being, who will somehow manage to kill more Americans than any foreign army ever did.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Lobo

[Dbeasy 15050]

When people say things like that, it's their "polite" way of calling Barack Obama the n-word. They get it straight from Tucker Carlson.

This was a highly upvoted post, and there is absolutely a large segment of the country that is racist and didn’t like having a black President.

 

But when posts like this paint the entire “other side” as racists, it does more damage to the cause of Democrats than just about anything else.

 

People who are not racists don’t like constantly being called racists by the other side. All it does is foster hatred of the Democratic party. Believe it or not, it isn’t always about race for every single person.

 

In the case of Obama, there was a significant portion of the population that got suckered into hating Obama because they got conned by Fox News, who grew to prominence during that time period with a brand of media unlike anything that had ever been put on TV before. It’s been over ten years and people are still get conned by it. It wasn’t racism for some of those people. It was just pure stupidity on their part in believing Fox News general bullshit.

[Mapache 1117]

Just another one of the endless lies from the p.o.s.

 

[UncleSonny 6572]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

People who are not racists don’t like constantly being called racists by the other side. All it does is foster hatred of the Democratic party. Believe it or not, it isn’t always about race for every single person.

Fair enough, but if that's a big issue for them maybe they can first stop associating themselves with racists. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

17 minutes ago, smuggs said:

With the inclusion of Bush Sr. and Clinton - might Obama be on the upper deck of the reverse shit Big Mac?

The Clinton presidency was better than either Bush's, better than Dubya's by a mile. From a policy standpoint I'd say it's debatable whether Clinton or Obama was the better President. I'd take either of them over any of the Republican Presidents in the postwar era. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, Mapache said:

Just another one of the endless lies from the p.o.s.

 

And he did.  He signed his United Healthcare policy renewal.  Its pretty comprehensive.  One could call it a complete health care plan.  He didn't mean he was going to sign a complete healthcare plan for the American people.

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

36 minutes ago, RPM said:

He was @'ed. He was replying. He's not a CR regular poster Don't start none, there won't be none. He didn't start shit. Get tf off his ankle. You are way off base here.

Is Fitlump's ankle off limits now too? I think there's a whole thread somewhere on which you could go to town reporting people. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The Clinton presidency was better than either Bush's, better than Dubya's by a mile. From a policy standpoint I'd say it's debatable whether Clinton or Obama was the better President. I'd take either of them over any of the Republican Presidents in the postwar era. 

Well, from an economic standpoint, W and Trump's presidencies were about allowing the wealthy to capture gains from economic recoveries while leaving poor people and increasingly the middle class to hold the bag.  A move that is designed to collapse the economy under the guise of low tax bullshit supply side economics.  Only so a new Dem President can come in afterward and fix it, and another GOP President can come back in and siphon off even more wealth to the already wealthy, and repeat the cycle.

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

34 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I posted about him one time regarding a post he made last night. Why don't you get the fuck off my ankle?  Whatever the fuck that term means.

Like a dog!

[Hiphopopotamos 20872]

Peter you know nothing of my energy.

 

 

[RPM 26320]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is Fitlump's ankle off limits now too? I think there's a whole thread somewhere on which you could go to town reporting people. 

She has SouthAustin's Mom status.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

5 hours ago, gmr548 said:

12 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Counterpoint

Flopping is an epidemic in the NBA

 

needs to take lessons from Ginobilil.

 

[Macanudo 12978]

4 minutes ago, RPM said:

She has SouthAustin's Mom status.

Wide and gaping?

[Storm the Field 5294]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Rasmussen LOL

 

The funniest part about this is that they had him at 45/54 on Wednesday. He netted 11 points on his approval in 48 hours! And all it took was a disastrous GDP report and a threat to delay an election! 

[Underdog 28629]

10 minutes ago, RPM said:

She has SouthAustin's Mom status.

Go on...

[Wanker Bob 379]

On 7/29/2020 at 8:30 AM, Lobo said:

Holy shit, Russia used to be The Soviet Union? 

Did you guys know about this?  That would explain all those Soviet statues in South Russia.  

Also President Assclown is on his way to Texas right now.  

I heard a rumour Russia named it's bases after Nazi generals. 

Oh wait, no the US is the only country stupid enough to name bases after enemy generals.