Donald Trump 2018

[Brisketexan 106981]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Hopefully we get fracturing of political parties so we can form a new type of government that isn't two-party dominated. Trumpists vs. money-conservatives, Lib-dems vs. socialists, etc...

 

4 minutes ago, deadshank said:

I, I, uh, I, uh, wow.  I find myself agreeing with you.  I'm off to have a drink or 20.

 

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Same here.  Some form of proportional representation system.  I'm willing to try it. Will never happen though without a seismic shift in the two party power grip.  

Sure.  I love it.  Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see how that goes for you.

We're well beyond any fantasy solutions.  The only positive path forward for this republic is going to be messy as fuck, and probably not work anyway.  It involves crushing Trumpism as a movement from every possible angle.  Think that'll happen?  Yeah, me neither.

[deadshank 24654]

What, specifically, is Trumpism?

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

We're well beyond any fantasy solutions.  The only positive path forward for this republic is going to be messy as fuck, and probably not work anyway.  It involves crushing Trumpism as a movement from every possible angle.  Think that'll happen?  Yeah, me neither.

ANTIFA is bashing the fash already

the North won the civil war

These fucking troglodytes can make things difficult, but we can (and will) beat them.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except we're left with the question of "what fills the void?"

If we ended up like the UK after its empire faded, I'd be fine.  That's not what we're on track for.  We're on track for becoming a mob of morons whipped into frenzy by varying types of demagogues and oligarchs.  Oh, with a huge, powerful military that can project its power to every corner of the globe in minutes.  That seems like it will work out well for, oh, everyone on the planet.

We’re on track to be post-Soviet Russia. 

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, deadshank said:

What, specifically, is Trumpism?

White nationalism.

[deadshank 24654]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

White nationalism.

Meh. Too simplistic.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, deadshank said:

What, specifically, is Trumpism?

Postmodernism basically.

There is no objective truth.  Facts don’t matter.  There is no compromising. You’re either with us or against us.  There are no solutions, only problems to bitch about.

[David Dennison 19567]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We’re on track to be post-Soviet Russia. 

Nah. Too many capitalists. Post-Soviet Russia suffered from too few.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, deadshank said:

Meh. Too simplistic.  

It's the common thread connecting all Trump constituencies.

[bolverk 30362]

Same here.  Some form of proportional representation system.  I'm willing to try it. Will never happen though without a seismic shift in the two party power grip.  

Is there any language in the Constitution requiring a winner-take-all system? Or is it just left up to the states?

[Brisketexan 106981]

Just now, deadshank said:

Meh. Too simplistic.  

yes....but not by much.  Read the article Bolverk posted above -- https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/existential-anxiety-not-poverty-motivates-trump-support/558674/?utm_source=atlfb

Angry white folks freaking out about not being able to stay the dominant culture forever.  That's the gist of it.  Take that away, and all that remains of Trumpism would be a few whispy strands of terrible hair.

[Bozo_Casanova 26898]

Except we're left with the question of "what fills the void?"
If we ended up like the UK after its empire faded, I'd be fine.  That's not what we're on track for.  We're on track for becoming a mob of morons whipped into frenzy by varying types of demagogues and oligarchs.  Oh, with a huge, powerful military that can project its power to every corner of the globe in minutes.  That seems like it will work out well for, oh, everyone on the planet.

It will be just fine, like when the Angevins fell. Smell the Roses, man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimmyjazz 47262]

Y'all are missing an important point.  Voting for Trump does not make one, by definition, a "Trumpist".

I know a shit ton of people who voted R (i.e. Trump) despite hating the man and (almost) everything he stands for -- in most cases, abortion was the issue that pushed them to hold their nose and pull the lever.  Now, I'm not so naive as to think many of them can be swayed otherwise, but some could.  They're not all MAGA-hat wearing sub-90 IQ "patriots".

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Nah. Too many capitalists. Post-Soviet Russia suffered from too few.

Not really, we already have our own oligarchy class, in fact wealth inequality in America is currently worse than it is in Russia.

[Tuco 5094]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Same here.  Some form of proportional representation system.  I'm willing to try it. Will never happen though without a seismic shift in the two party power grip.  

Is there any language in the Constitution requiring a winner-take-all system? Or is it just left up to the states?

You mean electoral votes?  No, Nebraska and Maine (I think) split their EC votes.  One vote for each district, and winner take all for the bonus 2 EC votes.  Obama actually won NE-2 in 2008, so the state Republicans hastily discussed changing to a winner take all.  That didn't work, so they just gerrymandered the district. 

But that's not the only problem.  You could change up the EC system, but that wouldn't be enough.  I think you'd need to go to a parliament/pm system to get a multi-party system.   

[David Dennison 19567]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Y'all are missing an important point.  Voting for Trump does not make one, by definition, a "Trumpist".

I know a shit ton of people who voted R (i.e. Trump) despite hating the man and (almost) everything he stands for -- in most cases, abortion was the issue that pushed them to hold their nose and pull the lever.  Now, I'm not so naive as to think many of them can be swayed otherwise, but some could.  They're not all MAGA-hat wearing sub-90 IQ "patriots".

Yep. There are also a lot of people who voted for Trump who did not like him but voted for him anyway as a vote against Hillary Clinton.

That's a big problem for Donald Trump because a lot of those people will not vote for him again. I know some of these people and they hate him.

[David Dennison 19567]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not really, we already have our own oligarchy class, in fact wealth inequality in America is currently worse than it is in Russia.

Of course we do, but we also have a shit ton of publicly traded companies owned in part by millions of Americans and others around the globe.

Russia was a smidge different after the Soviet Union shit the bed.

[Brisketexan 106981]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Y'all are missing an important point.  Voting for Trump does not make one, by definition, a "Trumpist".

I know a shit ton of people who voted R (i.e. Trump) despite hating the man and (almost) everything he stands for -- in most cases, abortion was the issue that pushed them to hold their nose and pull the lever.  Now, I'm not so naive as to think many of them can be swayed otherwise, but some could.  They're not all MAGA-hat wearing sub-90 IQ "patriots".

They don't have to be.  They just have to continue to be single issue voters (abortion), which is actually and often a proxy for the white-fear bullshit noted in the Atlantic piece above.

The GOP has seen the recipe for success INSIDE the party.  And it looks exactly like Trump.  Say you're pro-life, use dog-whistles against minorities.  Lather, rinse, repeat, and WIN THE NOMINATION.

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. There are also a lot of people who voted for Trump who did not like him but voted for him anyway as a vote against Hillary Clinton.

That's a big problem for Donald Trump because a lot of those people will not vote for him again. I know some of these people and they hate him.

When it comes ballot box time....they'll vote for him again.  And then, in 2024, they'll vote for the NEXT Trump -- someone following his lead/pattern, and using the same recipe to cook up success.

"I'm pro life.  All these mexicans are crime-ing up our country!  All lives matter!"  Play that on repeat, collect White House.

[bolverk 30362]

You mean electoral votes?  No, Nebraska and Maine (I think) split their EC votes.  One vote for each district, and winner take all for the bonus 2 EC votes.  Obama actually won NE-2 in 2008, so the state Republicans hastily discussed changing to a winner take all.  That didn't work, so they just gerrymandered the district. 
But that's not the only problem.  You could change up the EC system, but that wouldn't be enough.  I think you'd need to go to a parliament/pm system to get a multi-party system.   

Not really sure how Congressional districts would get divvied up. Maybe do away with them altogether and just go by voting percentage.

[jimmyjazz 47262]

I'm not arguing with you, and I think you're probably on point with regards to the R nominee.  The question becomes whether that's enough to beat the D nominee, and there is enough gray area there that your newly-minted cloak of fake fatalism may be overdone.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3874]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They don't have to be.  They just have to continue to be single issue voters (abortion), which is actually and often a proxy for the white-fear bullshit noted in the Atlantic piece above.

The GOP has seen the recipe for success INSIDE the party.  And it looks exactly like Trump.  Say you're pro-life, use dog-whistles against minorities.  Lather, rinse, repeat, and WIN THE NOMINATION.

When it comes ballot box time....they'll vote for him again.  And then, in 2024, they'll vote for the NEXT Trump -- someone following his lead/pattern, and using the same recipe to cook up success.

"I'm pro life.  All these mexicans are crime-ing up our country!  All lives matter!"  Play that on repeat, collect White House.

How are you going to explain the pounding Rs are going to take midterms?

[deadshank 24654]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Postmodernism basically.

There is no objective truth.  Facts don’t matter.  There is no compromising. You’re either with us or against us.  There are no solutions, only problems to bitch about.

That started before Trump.

[RPM 26668]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I called that the second he denied staying over night.  His wording was something like “and talking about this with other people, they reminded me I left immediately and didn’t stay.”  Tell tale for bullshit when someone attributes the assertion to someone else while reserving the right to claim a lack of memory to themselves in case evidence is uncovered. 

He was just there for a quick shower.

[Brisketexan 106981]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not arguing with you, and I think you're probably on point with regards to the R nominee.  The question becomes whether that's enough to beat the D nominee, and there is enough gray area there that your newly-minted cloak of fake fatalism may be overdone.

As for the office of POTUS, it just comes down to whether that candidate can whip up the base into enough of a froth to win Fla., Ohio, and 1-2 of the upper midwest states (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.).  And that's an ENTHUSIASTIC base - scared people vote.  The EC makes this very doable for a demagogue selling fear.

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

How are you going to explain the pounding Rs are going to take midterms?

Ummm, it's the midterms after one party takes power?  So the other party typically does quite well?  And, the enthusiasm of the base for the presidential candidate isn't a big motivator on the other side (as he's not on the ballot in the midterm).  That's my explanation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Y'all are missing an important point.  Voting for Trump does not make one, by definition, a "Trumpist".

I know a shit ton of people who voted R (i.e. Trump) despite hating the man and (almost) everything he stands for -- in most cases, abortion was the issue that pushed them to hold their nose and pull the lever.  Now, I'm not so naive as to think many of them can be swayed otherwise, but some could.  They're not all MAGA-hat wearing sub-90 IQ "patriots".

They are liable for him.  I don’t care where you fall on your sacred cow single issue.  You voted for a race baiting mysoginst that supports child molesters and loves Russia.

They can GTFO with the rationalization.

ETA: In some ways, they are worse than the Trumpkins

Edited April 23, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pescado_Rojo 19592]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They don't have to be.  They just have to continue to be single issue voters (abortion), which is actually and often a proxy for the white-fear bullshit noted in the Atlantic piece above.

The GOP has seen the recipe for success INSIDE the party.  And it looks exactly like Trump.  Say you're pro-life, use dog-whistles against minorities.  Lather, rinse, repeat, and WIN THE NOMINATION.

When it comes ballot box time....they'll vote for him again.  And then, in 2024, they'll vote for the NEXT Trump -- someone following his lead/pattern, and using the same recipe to cook up success.

"I'm pro life.  All these mexicans are crime-ing up our country!  All lives matter!"  Play that on repeat, collect White House.

One thing I've never understood about that demo...Depending on the source, between 60-80% of abortions are performed on minorities and 75% of the women getting them are impoverished. What do these fearful honky, anti-abortionists think this country will look like in a generation if they "win"? Two generations? Outlawing abortion would likely be a faster path to the decline of the white majority.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 19567]

Quote

The percentage of Americans who say Trump deserves to be reelected stands at 37 percent, roughly in line with the support that former President Obama and former President Clinton had during midterm elections in their first terms, according to Gallup.

Gallup points out that Trump’s approval ratings have been lower than past presidents at similar points in their tenure. Also, Gallup notes, Trump’s reelection figures are actually lower than Clinton's and Obama's when compared to their figures from the spring before the midterm elections. 

In March 2010, 46 percent of voters said Obama deserved reelection and, in April 1994, 40 percent said the same of Clinton. Both Democrats ultimately won a second term.

Lolwut?

Edited April 23, 2018 by David Dennison

[bolverk 30362]

[/url]

Willful ignorance and obstinance. Trump don't give a fuck.

 

[Brisketexan 106981]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Lolwut?

Translation: based on past performance, he is likely to win re-election in 2020.

I said "president Trump" in the summer of 2016,

I've said "eight years" since election day.

He's going to be re-elected.  Because fuck you libtards and your sweet libtears!  Few things motivate voters like anger and the chance to be cruel.  His voters are dedicated, and they will ALL show up for him in 2020.  Yes, including those folks who say, today, they don't like him, regret voting for him, etc.  They'll come around.  For the same damned reasons they voted for him in the first place.

[David Dennison 19567]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Translation: based on past performance, he is likely to win re-election in 2020.

I said "president Trump" in the summer of 2016,

I've said "eight years" since election day.

He's going to be re-elected.  Because fuck you libtards and your sweet libtears!  Few things motivate voters like anger and the chance to be cruel.  His voters are dedicated, and they will ALL show up for him in 2020.  Yes, including those folks who say, today, they don't like him, regret voting for him, etc.  They'll come around.  For the same damned reasons they voted for him in the first place.

Um, 37 percent is nowhere close to mirroring 46 percent, hence the lolwut.

I think he's going to get demolished in 2020. 

[Anastasis 23724]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Translation: based on past performance, he is likely to win re-election in 2020.

I said "president Trump" in the summer of 2016,

I've said "eight years" since election day.

He's going to be re-elected.  Because fuck you libtards and your sweet libtears!  Few things motivate voters like anger and the chance to be cruel.  His voters are dedicated, and they will ALL show up for him in 2020.  Yes, including those folks who say, today, they don't like him, regret voting for him, etc.  They'll come around.  For the same damned reasons they voted for him in the first place.

I will bet you any sum of money you wish that trump is not sitting in the oval office in February of 2021.  Loser makes contribution to charity of choice by winner. If you give me some odds, I will lay down on Trump isn't the GOP nominee. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I still don’t think Trump runs in 2020. 

[Brisketexan 106981]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Um, 37 percent is nowhere close to mirroring 46 percent, hence the lolwut.

I think he's going to get demolished in 2020. 

His polling numbers weren't world-beaters before November 8, 2016, either.  I think that polling does a shitty job accounting for both shy Trump supporters and the level of enthusiasm (translating to turnout) for his voters.  

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I will bet you any sum of money you wish that trump is not sitting in the oval office in February of 2021.  Loser makes contribution to charity of choice by winner. If you give me some odds, I will lay down on Trump isn't the GOP nominee. 

I like that idea.  Either way, I win.

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I still don’t think Trump runs in 2020. 

His ego will not allow him to resign, be pushed out, etc.  He is like a shark, except he needs to move from perceived win to perceived win, without stopping.  It's the only thing that keeps him alive.  His problem is that he's now in a position where there are no worlds left to conquer (and he has no interest in governing any of them anyway).  He wants another WIN.  He'll run.

[David Dennison 19567]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

His polling numbers weren't world-beaters before November 8, 2016, either.  I think that polling does a shitty job accounting for both shy Trump supporters and the level of enthusiasm (translating to turnout) for his voters.  

 

I hear ya. I just think that enthusiasm on the Dem side is going to be off the charts compared to Republicans. Think Obama in 2008.

[Brisketexan 106981]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I hear ya. I just think that enthusiasm on the Dem side is going to be off the charts compared to Republicans. Think Obama in 2008.

From your lips to voters' ears.

Look, I'm going to be volunteering to drive people to the polls on election day.  I'm all-in on driving up good turnout.  But angry, hateful people are dedicated motherfuckers. Never bet against them.  They have a pretty solid, lopsided W-L record throughout human history.

[cmontexas 3377]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

From your lips to voters' ears.

Look, I'm going to be volunteering to drive people to the polls on election day.  I'm all-in on driving up good turnout.  But angry, hateful people are dedicated motherfuckers. Never bet against them.  They have a pretty solid, lopsided W-L record throughout human history.

People hate Trump too though

[Brisketexan 106981]

4 minutes ago, cmontexas said:

People hate Trump too though

Not enough.

They can never hate him enough.  Because hate for Trump doesn't come from inner anger, rage, and burning hate.  It doesn't come from a place of wanting to see others suffer.  It's just not enough.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump not running in 2020 scenarios:

1. He drops dead 

2. Dem house impeaches and he resigns before Senate Trial

3. Legal issues overwhelm the administration and force him to resign 

4. Long shot - he actually gets removed via impeachment 

 

Not going to happen: 25th amendment 

[Brisketexan 106981]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump not running in 2020 scenarios:

1. He drops dead 

2. Dem house impeaches and he resigns before Senate Trial

3. Legal issues overwhelm the administration and force him to resign 

4. Long shot - he actually gets removed via impeachment 

 

Not going to happen: 25th amendment 

Only one with a chance is option 1.

Even if impeached, he'll never resign, because the Senate will never convict and he knows it (so that kills options 2 and 4).

And as for 3, bitch please.  Donald Trump has been involved in more litigation than any lawyer I know.  Legal issues don't mean shit to him.

Our best hope is option 1.  Relentlessly hound him, call him out for the pathetic fucking charlatan that he is at every opportunity, make sure he knows how fucking hated he is.  He's PROBABLY completely immune to it...but maybe not.

[lemonlime 5503]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I hear ya. I just think that enthusiasm on the Dem side is going to be off the charts compared to Republicans. Think Obama in 2008.

This.  But we haven't done a goddamn thing about Russian interference in the election.  And it doesn't look like we're going to.  I'm not at all sure 2020 will be a free and fair election.  And even if it is, half the country won't believe it.  Either the Dem wins, and Trump insists the election was "rigged" and there were millions of illegal votes, and half the country believes that to be true.  Or Trump wins and even if the Russians didn't help, no reason to believe the federal government when the government has been lying repeatedly about Russian involvement in 2016.

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

Grifters gonna grift.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republican-national-committee-spent-dollar225k-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-resort-just-last-month

Quote

The Republican National Committee spent more than $224,000 at President Donald Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago club in March, according to newly filed FEC reports. The expenditures, which were for rental and catering fees, were to cover the costs of an RNC fundraiser there early in the month. It was, far and away, the largest amount that the committee has spent at that specific Trump property (in January, the RNC spent $62,700 at Mar-a-Lago) and it is a reflection of how the president’s private business holdings continue to be intertwined with his political activities. Mar-a-Lago didn’t see every cent of the $224,857.68 spent by the RNC, since much of it was reimbursement for hosting the event. But it did certainly profit from the fundraiser, in addition to the added allure and promotional value that came with hosting. Outside of that expense, the RNC dropped nearly $30,000 for venue rental and catering at the Trump National Doral in Miami. It also spent $4,796.82 on “donor mementos” to Simon & Schuster. The expense report does not detail which book the committee purchases in order to give to donors. But Simon & Schuster is the publishing house for Trump’s book, Crippled America, which was later retitled Great Again. 

 

[cmontexas 3377]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Only one with a chance is option 1.

Even if impeached, he'll never resign, because the Senate will never convict and he knows it (so that kills options 2 and 4).

And as for 3, bitch please.  Donald Trump has been involved in more litigation than any lawyer I know.  Legal issues don't mean shit to him.

Our best hope is option 1.  Relentlessly hound him, call him out for the pathetic fucking charlatan that he is at every opportunity, make sure he knows how fucking hated he is.  He's PROBABLY completely immune to it...but maybe not.

1 would be the worst outcome imo because when celebrities die people instantly deify them and forget all their flaws and would probably result in his dumbass sons ascending to power

[Brisketexan 106981]

1 minute ago, cmontexas said:

1 would be the worst outcome imo because when celebrities die people instantly deify them and forget all their flaws and would probably result in his dumbass sons ascending to power

I didn't say there was a good option.

We're out of good options.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

7 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  But we haven't done a goddamn thing about Russian interference in the election.  And it doesn't look like we're going to.  I'm not at all sure 2020 will be a free and fair election.  And even if it is, half the country won't believe it.  Either the Dem wins, and Trump insists the election was "rigged" and there were millions of illegal votes, and half the country believes that to be true.  Or Trump wins and even if the Russians didn't help, no reason to believe the federal government when the government has been lying repeatedly about Russian involvement in 2016.

The Russians aren’t going to put much into a midterm election because what is their payoff?  More sanctions and anti-Russia sentiment?

The fact that you have doubts about our election being free and fair means the Russians have already achieved their goal...To cast doubt and undermine faith in the democratic process.

The 2016 election was a Hail Mary juggernaut several years in the making for the Russians.  They threw everything they had at us. They’re not going all out for the 2018 midterms.  They’re likely working on their attack for 2020 instead.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[sachick 1189]

Trump not running in 2020 scenarios:
1. He drops dead 
2. Dem house impeaches and he resigns before Senate Trial
3. Legal issues overwhelm the administration and force him to resign 
4. Long shot - he actually gets removed via impeachment 
 
Not going to happen: 25th amendment 

5. He chooses not to run again because he says he fixed everything and there’s nothing left for him to do. He was the perfect president.

[Brisketexan 106981]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The fact that you have doubts about our election being free and fair means the Russians have already achieved their goal...To cast doubt and undermine faith in the democratic process.

That's correct.  They won.  We lost.  And there's no do-over.  

Again, that's one of many reasons why I say we're irreparably broken.  Do you think the Trumpkins will EVER believe that they lost an election that wasn't tainted by "millions of illegals voting?"  Nope.  Do you think that everyone else will EVER believe that an election isn't tainted by foreign interference?  Nope.  The belief that we have free and fair elections with a functioning democratic process is deader than Jim Morrison.  And it ain't ever coming back.

[Francisco 2.0 32607]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Russians aren’t going to put much into a midterm election because what is their payoff?  More sanctions and anti-Russia sentiment?

The fact that you have doubts about our election being free and fair means the Russians have already achieved their goal...To cast doubt and undermine faith in the democratic process.

The 2016 election was a Hail Mary juggernaut several years in the making for the Russians.  They threw everything they had at us. They’re not going all out for the 2018 midterms.  They’re likely working on their attack for 2020 instead.

What better time to work on an attack then?  I can see them trying new techniques, methodologies, etc because what better trial run would they have?

 

Or better yet, flip the script and run a bunch of anti-Trump pro Dem shit, just because they can.  No, it doesn't serve Mother Russia any favors in regards to sanctions, etc...but it sure as hell goes further into proving just how fucked up our country's electoral process is.  

Edited April 23, 2018 by Francisco 2.0

[WhatTheBuck 28937]

17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not enough.

They can never hate him enough.  Because hate for Trump doesn't come from inner anger, rage, and burning hate.  It doesn't come from a place of wanting to see others suffer.  It's just not enough.

Hillary won't be on the ballot. I don't think Trump is attracting any new members to his base. Some will die off, some will have a change of heart, some will just be fatigued from all the bullshit and won't bother to turn out at the polls. I have a hard time seeing how Trump can get more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. 

[Brisketexan 106981]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Hillary won't be on the ballot. I don't think Trump is attracting any new members to his base. Some will die off, some will have a change of heart, some will just be fatigued from all the bullshit and won't bother to turn out at the polls. I have a hard time seeing how Trump can get more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. 

He'll just ramp up the hate/blame machine again.  Find a story of an illegal who committed a crime, call some black guys thugs, and you're good.