Donald Trump 2020

[Brandywine 1313]

11 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

 

Massive ADD, he has zero plan except destroy everything Obama did. That was the complete Goal the whole time. Anyone who votes for that incompetence is an idiot. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Brandywine

[Brisketexan 104636]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've pointed it out before, but it bears repeating:

In my lifetime, the percentage of Americans who identify as "non-Hispanic whites" has dropped from 85% to 63%.  It is projected to drop below 50% in 2043.

Racism and the palpable reality of no longer being the majority race in the US drives almost all Republican support in the heartland.  Abortion?  Nah.  That's a convenient place for most to hang their hat because it's less onerous to claim one is for the sanctity of life than admit one hates niggers and spics.  Fifty years prior to Roe V Wade, there was a concerted effort among many Christian leaders to help provide MORE access to abortion.  The Catholic Church was opposed to Roe V Wade, but protestant leaders were largely silent.  Even the Southern Baptists passed resolutions as late as 1976 affirming the rights of women to have abortions.  The tide started to turn as desegregation became the rule, not the exception, even though segregation in public schools had been illegal since 1954.  Evangelicals like Jerry Falwell created private segregated schools, but faced a stiff argument that they could not hold tax-exempt status, because they were discriminating on the basis of race.  They needed to grow support in order to maintain a segregated society, and landed on abortion as the issue around which they could rally support.

In the end, it all comes down to race and racism.  That's it.  At the top, it's about whatever it takes to maintain power and grow wealth, but the most common weapon to keep the base in line is their fear of black and brown people.

Yep.  Think about it this way -- the Bible is the same bible that we've had for centuries.  Its instruction when it comes to abortion hasn't changed.  Yet conservative "Christians" flipped a switch on it, at the same time that conventional means of discrimination and segregation were dying out.  It gives them the trojan horse to support racist policies and politicians.  The Catholics are the only people who aren't hypocrites on abortion.  The rest of them are just using it as an excuse to support loathsome, racist people while claiming that they occupy some sort of "moral high ground."

20 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Don is our Berlusconi.

Shit, I'd trade Trump for Silvio straight up.  Silvio is a loathsome toad.....but at least you could get a decent laugh out of his antics every now and then.  He was skeezy, crooked, and often clueless.....but he wasn't a malevolent, malignant narcissist.  Seriously, Silvio would be a moral step UP from where we are.  That's amazing.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Brisketexan

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure that's fair, because you have to identify why "destroy" means to different people. Because for such a huge fucking chunk, him lurking and breathing and answering jack shit while being dismissive was a resounding victory. I know some of those people. We all do, or did. You're evaluating victory based on your own metrics, and the things you find important. And this isn't me critiquing you. Just reminding everyone what we see every day: 40-45% of Americans aren't evaluating things on same set of values and metrics as the other half of the country. 

Quick - can you name anything Hillary said in any of the three debates? What about Trump?

Trump won all of the debates. He got all of the soundbites, she didn't. In 2020, that's what winning a debate means. Hillary might have "won" logically and factually, but the people that pay attention to facts and logic already know who they're voting for. Trump won the news cycles from all three debates. 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by BradInATX

[jimmyjazz 45560]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm not sure that's fair, because you have to identify why "destroy" means to different people. Because for such a huge fucking chunk, him lurking and breathing and answering jack shit while being dismissive was a resounding victory. I know some of those people. We all do, or did. You're evaluating victory based on your own metrics, and the things you find important. And this isn't me critiquing you. Just reminding everyone what we see every day: 40-45% of Americans aren't evaluating things on same set of values and metrics as the other half of the country. 

In any competitive debate, "lurking and breathing and answering jack shit while being dismissive" is not a valid tactic, and it would take an extraordinarily poor performance by the opposition to in fact fail to be judged the victor.  While you are correct that his base thought he won, that's like me believing Olivia Wilde is a better actress than Meryl Streep simply because of her beauty.

[Brandywine 1313]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Quick - can you name anything Hillary said in any of the three debates? What about Trump?

Trump won all of the debates. He got all of the soundbites, she didn't. In 2020, that's what winning a debate means. Hillary might have "won" logically and factually but Trump won the news cycles from all three debates. 

 

All 3 news networks gave Trump 24 hour daily news during the campaign convinced he wasn’t going to win. How could he not based on that much promotion? All it had to do was reach the right people. 

[Brisketexan 104636]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Quick - can you name anything Hillary said in any of the three debates? What about Trump?

Trump won all of the debates. He got all of the soundbites, she didn't. In 2020, that's what winning a debate means. Hillary might have "won" logically and factually, but the people that pay attention to facts and logic already know who they're voting for. Trump won the news cycles from all three debates. 

 

Correct.

It's the same reason that the dumb jock won the crowd in the history presentation in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure when he pandered to the crowd with....

 

Understand that a large enough percentage of our voters will always, 100% of the time, vote for THAT guy for president.  

 

[Brisketexan 104636]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In any competitive debate, "lurking and breathing and answering jack shit while being dismissive" is not a valid tactic, and it would take an extraordinarily poor performance by the opposition to in fact fail to be judged the victor.  While you are correct that his base thought he won, that's like me believing Olivia Wilde is a better actress than Meryl Streep simply because of her beauty.

But the point is, if you think entirely with your dick, that is the correct conclusion.

When you think entirely with your 90 IQ points, you think that "being a dismissive showman without any of them fancy talkin' points" is a win.

[Pancho 44491]

15 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

So, what level of trouble can this ad get into, because i'm 99% certain that most of the commentary is Fox News people talking about Joe Biden, not trump. Or way out of context (specifically Tucker Carlson saying he feels bad for him probably referring to all the shit going on in America he has to deal with). 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Understand that a large enough percentage of our voters will always, 100% of the time, vote for THAT guy for president.  

Hence why turnout is what will determine this election.  And it has to overcome suppression and fraud from the Rs.

[smuggs 9342]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.

It's the same reason that the dumb jock won the crowd in the history presentation in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure when he pandered to the crowd with....

 

Understand that a large enough percentage of our voters will always, 100% of the time, vote for THAT guy for president.  

 

 

Yes, but Bill and Ted ultimately won the history presentation with Dave Beeth-Oven, Maxine of Arc, Herman the Kid, Bob Genghis Khan, So-Crates Johnson and, uh... Abraham Lincoln.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But the point is, if you think entirely with your dick, that is the correct conclusion.

When you think entirely with your 90 IQ points, you think that "being a dismissive showman without any of them fancy talkin' points" is a win.

Well, the real point is that in formal debate, there are fairly objective criteria that must be met, and if we're going to judge Trump V Clinton, we should probably try to apply those criteria, and not just #bothsides and #nobodyknows it to death.  I'm sorry Trump's base doesn't know how to play chess.  (I really am.)  I don't think it's being partisan or subjective to dismiss Trump's performance in those debates.  He lost by any reasonable, logical measure.  You know this is true.

[Brisketexan 104636]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Hence why turnout is what will determine this election.  And it has to overcome suppression and fraud from the Rs.

Yep.  That, and I think we're going to need an army of lawyers on election day to get appropriate injunctions to keep polling places open, stop instances of interference/intimidation, etc.  The GOP will absolutely be trying to manipulate the process.  We need to be locked and loaded, with our finger on the trigger, to stop them in real-time.

[Beau Vine 54007]

11 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

In fairness, when you account for just exactly how many Poles it takes to tear down a statue, his logic was a sound and sober plea not to waste all our resources that are necessary to combat the spread of Covid.  

How come it takes three Polacks to tear down a statue?

Because they're so durn stupid!

Shit man, loosen up, don't you get it?

[SydneyCarton 47889]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In any competitive debate, "lurking and breathing and answering jack shit while being dismissive" is not a valid tactic, and it would take an extraordinarily poor performance by the opposition to in fact fail to be judged the victor.  While you are correct that his base thought he won, that's like me believing Olivia Wilde is a better actress than Meryl Streep simply because of her beauty.

You’re insisting on standards that don’t exist for most of America are universal. That’s a mistake. 

[Brisketexan 104636]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the real point is that in formal debate, there are fairly objective criteria that must be met, and if we're going to judge Trump V Clinton, we should probably try to apply those criteria, and not just #bothsides and #nobodyknows it to death.  I'm sorry Trump's base doesn't know how to play chess.  (I really am.)  I don't think it's being partisan or subjective to dismiss Trump's performance in those debates.  He lost by any reasonable, logical measure.  You know this is true.

In political debates, there is only one measure: votes.

Kind of like I tell people about my job.  There's only one measure: winning.  Doesn't matter if I argued better, had a more logical and supported brief, etc.  If I didn't win the case, then I failed.

There are no style or quality points in politics: just votes.

[Biff Tannen 45500]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  That, and I think we're going to need an army of lawyers on election day to get appropriate injunctions to keep polling places open, stop instances of interference/intimidation, etc.  The GOP will absolutely be trying to manipulate the process.  We need to be locked and loaded, with our finger on the trigger, to stop them in real-time.

I don't know who should be in charge of this, but yes, absolutely.  I would assume Austin will be fine, but other places in Texas that are more purple will be prime targets.

[SydneyCarton 47889]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the real point is that in formal debate, there are fairly objective criteria that must be met, and if we're going to judge Trump V Clinton, we should probably try to apply those criteria, and not just #bothsides and #nobodyknows it to death.  I'm sorry Trump's base doesn't know how to play chess.  (I really am.)  I don't think it's being partisan or subjective to dismiss Trump's performance in those debates.  He lost by any reasonable, logical measure.  You know this is true.

By any reasonable and logical metric, Hillary Clinton won be 2016 election. Hows that turning out for you and the rest of us. 
 

your post is ivory tower thinking, at this point. Or perhaps fiddling while Rome burns is a better illustration. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

In political debates, there is only one measure: votes.

Kind of like I tell people about my job.  There's only one measure: winning.  Doesn't matter if I argued better, had a more logical and supported brief, etc.  If I didn't win the case, then I failed.

There are no style or quality points in politics: just votes.

You guys could fuck up an orgy.  Let's go with your standard:  

65,853,514 > 62,984,828

 

I win again.

[Brisketexan 104636]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

You guys could fuck up an orgy.  Let's go with your standard:  

65,853,514 > 62,984,828

 

I win again.

Except, ummm, that's not how the winner is determined.

10,704 (Michigan)

22,748 (Wisconsin)

Etc

So, Trump wins, by the standard that applied and continues to apply.  Winning a debate means 1) getting more votes 2) in the states that decide the electoral college total.

[Beau Vine 54007]

28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

So, what level of trouble can this ad get into, because i'm 99% certain that most of the commentary is Fox News people talking about Joe Biden, not trump. Or way out of context (specifically Tucker Carlson saying he feels bad for him probably referring to all the shit going on in America he has to deal with). 

 

 

They can just say they were kidding, being light-hearted, etc.  

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Except, ummm, that's not how the winner is determined.

10,704 (Michigan)

22,748 (Wisconsin)

Etc

So, Trump wins, by the standard that applied and continues to apply.  Winning a debate means 1) getting more votes 2) in the states that decide the electoral college total.

It is quite literally the very standard you proposed.  Thanks for educating me on the existence of the Electoral College, though.  I would have never known.

By the way, what you just posted is fucking retarded.   No offense to the retards.

[SydneyCarton 47889]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You guys could fuck up an orgy.  Let's go with your standard:  

65,853,514 > 62,984,828

 

I win again.

Funny I made this point just prior to your post. Hows that victory feeling about you. Your metrics and reality don’t seem to be matching up. 
 

Trump was an under dog the entire 2016 campaign, right up until the day before he won. So clearly the campaign, including the debates, worked and increased voters who voted for him up until Election Day. An election he won.  But you’re saying those debates were a failure? Well ok. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Funny I made this point just prior to your post. Hows that victory feeling about you. Your metrics and reality don’t seem to be matching up. 

Well, I was speaking to the debates and nothing else, so your point is moot.

I also wasn't aware that Trump won the election and that the last 3.5 years haven't happened.   Man, today has turned into a real eye-opener.

[BradInATX 9208]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the real point is that in formal debate, there are fairly objective criteria that must be met, and if we're going to judge Trump V Clinton, we should probably try to apply those criteria, and not just #bothsides and #nobodyknows it to death.  I'm sorry Trump's base doesn't know how to play chess.  (I really am.)  I don't think it's being partisan or subjective to dismiss Trump's performance in those debates.  He lost by any reasonable, logical measure.  You know this is true.

 

The point of a presidential debate is to advance your chances to win the general election, not to win a Lincoln Douglas debated judged by academics. Trump won by that criteria. 

[elfenix 34176]

46 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Don is our Berlusconi.

we'd be lucky to have berlusconi

[BradInATX 9208]

Settle down jimmy, it's Friday. We all agree that Hillary made better points and had better logic/facts, etc. She would have obviously won any legitimate debate judged by anyone who knows what they're doing.

It's semantics. Trump "won" the debates in the sense that he was more effective at doing what you want to do in one of those debates, which isn't to come off as more intelligent, but to get votes.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You guys could fuck up an orgy. 

Wait. I thought that was the point.

[elfenix 34176]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except, ummm, that's not how the winner is determined.

thanks, slaveholders!

[Brisketexan 104636]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It is quite literally the very standard you proposed.  Thanks for educating me on the existence of the Electoral College, though.  I would have never known.

By the way, what you just posted is fucking retarded.   No offense to the retards.

How on earth is what I posted "retarded" when the following is literally the objective truth?

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

The point of a presidential debate is to advance your chances to win the general election, not to win a Lincoln Douglas debated judged by academics. Trump won by that criteria. 

The point of a presidential debate is to get more votes.  Particularly in the places that matter -- if a Dem candidate only panders for more votes in California and New York, then the candidate has failed by literally the only metric that matters: getting more popular votes in states that can give you more electoral votes.  

Shit, it's why Hillary should have taken campaign visits to Michigan and Wisconsin.  She didn't need another 100,000 votes.....she needed another 80,000 or so in a handful of states.

[Storm the Field 5273]

The Trump comeback begins in Tulsa!

Edited June 26, 2020 by Storm the Field

[Blotto 23434]

The idea that debates will have any significant effect on the November election is ludicrous in my mind. Trump could shit in his hand and rub feces all over his own face and lick his fingers and his supporters would still vote for him. And I doubt there are many people that will listen to that buffoon and say, "you know....after 3.5 years I wasn't sure if I was pro-Trump or anti-Trump, but after to listening to his cogent, articulate argument on why we need confederate statues, I am now prepared to vote for that goofy orange bastard."

This election will come down to one thing.....people turning out to vote and the GOP effort to suppress votes that are likely to vote democratic. Thats it. A legit election Trump is done. The only act left in this depressing play is whether or not the GOP can skew the election votes as needed in the key swing states to win the electoral college. 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33844]

I see our collective eye is on the prize today. Seriously, people, focus.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Again, I am grateful for the education I am receiving:  I did not realize Hillary Clinton fucked up by not campaigning in the rust belt!  Holy shit!  Has anyone every pointed this out?

Edited June 26, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[NWBuck 8548]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I've pointed it out before, but it bears repeating:

In my lifetime, the percentage of Americans who identify as "non-Hispanic whites" has dropped from 85% to 63%.  It is projected to drop below 50% in 2043.

Racism and the palpable reality of no longer being the majority race in the US drives almost all Republican support in the heartland.  Abortion?  Nah.  That's a convenient place for most to hang their hat because it's less onerous to claim one is for the sanctity of life than admit one hates niggers and spics.  Fifty years prior to Roe V Wade, there was a concerted effort among many Christian leaders to help provide MORE access to abortion.  The Catholic Church was opposed to Roe V Wade, but protestant leaders were largely silent.  Even the Southern Baptists passed resolutions as late as 1976 affirming the rights of women to have abortions.  The tide started to turn as desegregation became the rule, not the exception, even though segregation in public schools had been illegal since 1954.  Evangelicals like Jerry Falwell created private segregated schools, but faced a stiff argument that they could not hold tax-exempt status, because they were discriminating on the basis of race.  They needed to grow support in order to maintain a segregated society, and landed on abortion as the issue around which they could rally support.

In the end, it all comes down to race and racism.  That's it.  At the top, it's about whatever it takes to maintain power and grow wealth, but the most common weapon to keep the base in line is their fear of black and brown people.

Yuuuuuuuupppp: The Real Origins of the Religious Right

Segregation for churches and religious organizations, The ability to have ministries remain "tax exempt", and then abortion. As JJ said, not only did many conservative evangelicals stay silent on the issue early on, they actually avoided it due to anti-Catholic bias (rooted, in part, to historic xenophobia that emerged during the great European migrations to the US- before "Italians" became "white")

 

[Guest Lobo]

The only thing 2016 debates proved was that if the old adage is true that people get the leaders we deserve, we are not a great nation.  We are a shitty one, on a good day.  We got to choose from two of the most morally bankrupt reprobates that this country has ever produced.  And we've produced some doozies.  

Now in 2020, the debate stage will be populated by two arrogant septuagenarians, both accused of rape and neither one burning up the cognitive faculties trail.  

Only difference is one of them still respects other Americans and wants to see the country heal.  The other won't be bothered with any of that.  

One of the has my enthusiastic vote and support, the other needs to die.  

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

the debates are only so that Prevagin, Depends and Robot Attack Insurance can be sold.  sofaking tired of assisted living presidents.

[Brisketexan 104636]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Again, I am grateful for the education I am receiving:  I did not realize Hillary Clinton fucked up by not campaigning in the rust belt!  Holy shit!  Has anyone every pointed this out?

Well, if you'd quit arguing that "winning" a political debate is determined by how well you make cogent policy points, as opposed to whether you persuaded voters (which is often the result gained by the person who DOESN'T make cogent points), then we'd quit pointing out the fact that the only metric of winning in presidential politics is getting votes in the places where you need them.

It doesn't matter if the debate judges declare you the unanimous winner, mostest brillaintest debater ever,  if that debate doesn't get you a single additional vote in a swing state.

[Ted Lange 16053]

[jimmyjazz 45560]

13 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

As JJ said, not only did many conservative evangelicals stay silent on the issue early on, they actually avoided it due to anti-Catholic bias (rooted, in part, to historic xenophobia that emerged during the great European migrations to the US- before "Italians" became "white")

Yes, that was part of it too.  So many of the Protestant denominations are rooted in Northern Europe (Luther in Germany, others in England, etc.).  A significant proportion of American Catholics were not really perceived as "white" in the early 20th century, having immigrated from Spain, Italy, Mexico, Central & South America.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, if you'd quit arguing that "winning" a political debate is determined by how well you make cogent policy points, as opposed to whether you persuaded voters (which is often the result gained by the person who DOESN'T make cogent points), then we'd quit pointing out the fact that the only metric of winning in presidential politics is getting votes in the places where you need them.

It doesn't matter if the debate judges declare you the unanimous winner, mostest brillaintest debater ever,  if that debate doesn't get you a single additional vote in a swing state.

You know, if I had argued that gaining votes wasn't the primary goal of engaging in a Presidential debate, you might have a point.  But, as usual, you're overly fascinated with your own sense of intellect + pragmatism, and you're ignoring the only point I was actually making, and which I stand by.  Donald Trump is a fucking moron, and in the context of an event in which one is expected to take a stand and support it with logic and reason, he got his ass kicked.  Fundamentally, this is the intent of "a debate", and to a large degree, has been in all other Presidential debates of my lifetime (with the acknowledgement that there is always a fair amount of question-dodging and political grandstanding).  Whether that led to votes for Hillary Clinton is not something I've argued in the least, but let's be honest -- Trump perverted the process to the great approval of the "he talks like us" crowd.

Ultimately, I'm not sure debates change anybody's mind, and I'm not just talking about Trump V Clinton.

 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

 

[Brisketexan 104636]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

but let's be honest -- Trump perverted the process to the great approval of the "he talks like us" crowd.

No disagreement with that, except to note that it may even be worse than that: we now have a game plan for how to win over perhaps the biggest demographic in America: morons.

The most important demographic may not be white people, minorities, "soccer moms," or what have you.  It's this: morons.  Win the stupid vote, and you can win a national election.  So, gear your campaign towards stupidity -- it's a winning strategy.  It's a race to the bottom, and Trump is our very own Mario Andretti.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

It will never happen -- hey to "The Bell Curve" -- but I'd sure like to see a study on the correlation between educational/intellectual metrics (IQ, test scores, undergrad and graduate degrees, etc.) and current political leanings.  We see hints at college experience, but that's about it.  

[crash_davis 23084]

[NAVY 6739]

Nuke it from orbit 

[LCHorn 2585]

That’s disgusting, thanks Crash.

 

to Lobo’s point; who has accused Biden of rape?

[Brisketexan 104636]

Incorrect - this is the proper storage location for Trump boners:

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Biden should go on stage and say “Hilary was wrong. You’re more like a Muppet.”

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Someone close to him needs to pull a mind trick on him and convince him that he needs to resign. "It will make you look very powerful and very strong sir. Only someone weak like Obama would finish out their term. You don't want to look like Obama do you?". 

Since everyone close to him will be under federal indictment the moment he’s out of office, this ain’t happening.

[pyrohornIII 4809]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

So, what level of trouble can this ad get into, because i'm 99% certain that most of the commentary is Fox News people talking about Joe Biden, not trump. Or way out of context (specifically Tucker Carlson saying he feels bad for him probably referring to all the shit going on in America he has to deal with). 

 

 

I think they are pretty safe.  They never explicitly said that Fox was talking about Trump.  In fact a few of the chryons showed the comments were about Biden.  I think they have solid ground pointing out the hypocrisy of going on about Biden but never mentioning Trump in all the apparent lapses he has had.  And the clips of Trump making those lapses hammers home the point.