Donald Trump 2019

[Mojo Hand 4580]

FWIW Tribe thinks it's constitutional 

 

[Js1 85341]

9 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

 

I disagree.  It is important for dems to fight fire with fire.  Although this will get struck down by SC, it is valuable to get the SC on record to set limits on what is allowed cause I guarantee you the repubs will be pushing the boundaries in other states.

The only way to fight the SC’s illogical decisions is to box them in.  For instance, the dems should make a congressional district where you have to attest that you are a democrat to be included, then let it get taken to the SC.   Wait..that’s unconstitutional?? Why?  Cause you can’t exclude based on political affiliation?  Oh, so then extreme politics CAN be a basis for striking down gerrymandering...got it.   Then keep taking the repubs tactics and take them to the extreme  and force SC decisions limiting such actions which they will only do if it benefits dems.

25 states have or had these bills in their legislatures.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45688]

10 hours ago, DCA_HORN said:

10 hours ago, Party_Taco said:

Sure, because he doomed the boundary waters for millennia so that a couple hundred of them could have mining jobs for the next few years. Seems like a fair trade...

Wait what did I miss? How did he doom the boundary waters?

This.  Please expand.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Their whole govt is a troll farm

[4th&Five 41554]

Generel 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

FWIW Tribe thinks it's constitutional 
 

To the extent Tribe is right, and he certainly knows more about constitutional law than me, no way the kavanaugh gorsuch court finds this constitutional.

We're fiddling with stuff that will go nowhere while Rome burns.

[4th&Five 41554]

 

[Js1 85341]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Bookmark this one.  Because this isn't a sustainable economy for the next 16 months. 

[Brisketexan 105144]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Bookmark this one.  Because this isn't a sustainable economy for the next 16 months. 

Emphasized quite strongly in the segment on NPR this morning.  Look at interest rates -- not just here, but globally.  They should be significantly higher....but the economy can't handle it.  Which helps us hold off a recession for a while longer....but puts us in a much more precarious position when it hits.  Lowering interest rates 3-4% is a good stimulating response to a recession.  That's hard to do when the rate is at 2.5% or so.

[4th&Five 41554]

 

[retread 2951]

 

[jimmyjazz 45957]

50 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I respectfully disagree vehemently. 

She played a very large role in that, and had for quite a long time.

Hillary's approval rating hit 66% not long before she resigned as Secretary of State, and was still at 64% when she left that post, after which it soon began an extended free fall.  The Benghazi hearings had already taken place.  Mounting disapproval was largely related to relentless political pressure exploiting the email scandal, and had very little to do with her personality, which we can all agree is not exactly magnetic, but was never the overriding issue in two prior decades.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Emphasized quite strongly in the segment on NPR this morning.  Look at interest rates -- not just here, but globally.  They should be significantly higher....but the economy can't handle it.  Which helps us hold off a recession for a while longer....but puts us in a much more precarious position when it hits.  Lowering interest rates 3-4% is a good stimulating response to a recession.  That's hard to do when the rate is at 2.5% or so.

It's even harder to do when the Fed lowers rates while the economy is still "humming" (which is about to happen).

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hillary's approval rating hit 66% not long before she resigned as Secretary of State, and was still at 64% when she left that post, after which it soon began an extended free fall.  The Benghazi hearings had already taken place.  Mounting disapproval was largely related to relentless political pressure exploiting the email scandal, and had very little to do with her personality, which we can all agree is not exactly magnetic, but was never the overriding issue in two prior decades.

People hated HRC and she fostered that over decades: stay at home making cookies, taking charge of health care, defending her husband against sexual assault charges (and then saying we should believe the women), basket of deplorables.....

 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

It's dumb, but the fact that Trump is still seemingly uncomfortable with giving Kamala a nickname is an eyebrow raiser to me.

[Brisketexan 105144]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hillary's approval rating hit 66% not long before she resigned as Secretary of State, and was still at 64% when she left that post, after which it soon began an extended free fall.  The Benghazi hearings had already taken place.  Mounting disapproval was largely related to relentless political pressure exploiting the email scandal, and had very little to do with her personality, which we can all agree is not exactly magnetic, but was never the overriding issue in two prior decades.

Her "personality" -- a pretty broad category there, but let's acknowledge that it was a negative.  That meant that while folks may have "approved" of her, that approval was fragile.  Thus, when the hits to her reputation came, they broke right through that fragile approval.

Whereas a candidate who is "likable" can better handle hits to his/her reputation.

Her crappiness as a person made her vulnerable.  The other side exploited that vulnerability.  And then served us a shit sandwich.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

People hated HRC and she fostered that over decades: stay at home making cookies, taking charge of health care, defending her husband against sexual assault charges (and then saying we should believe the women), basket of deplorables.....

 

I just posted the fucking graph.  You need to let go of the myth and learn the reality.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Her crappiness as a person made her vulnerable.  The other side exploited that vulnerability.  And then served us a shit sandwich.

Boy, that's really working against Trump, isn't it?

[David Dennison 18860]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Her "personality" -- a pretty broad category there, but let's acknowledge that it was a negative.  That meant that while folks may have "approved" of her, that approval was fragile.  Thus, when the hits to her reputation came, they broke right through that fragile approval.

Whereas a candidate who is "likable" can better handle hits to his/her reputation.

Her crappiness as a person made her vulnerable.  The other side exploited that vulnerability.  And then served us a shit sandwich.

Her shitty campaign and taking voters for granted made her way more vulnerable than her personality.

[Brisketexan 105144]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Her shitty campaign and taking voters for granted made her way more vulnerable than her personality.

Well, I think that the shitty campaign and taking voters for granted went hand-in-hand with her personality -- it did for me, at least.  It all folded into her raging sense of entitlement (seriously, "it's her turn" STILL pisses me off).  She felt we OWED it to her.  Sorry, it's a position of public service, you serve ME.

[Js1 85341]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I just posted the fucking graph.  You need to let go of the myth and learn the reality.

People like her...….. when she's not running for anything.

Her favorability happens to have been in the toilet during 92 (Bill's first campaign), 96 (Bill's second campaign), 00 (first Senate race), 07-08 (first presidential run) and 15-16 (second presidential run).  And that's when the right wing fear machine was going into overdrive against her. 

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, I think that the shitty campaign and taking voters for granted went hand-in-hand with her personality -- it did for me, at least.  It all folded into her raging sense of entitlement (seriously, "it's her turn" STILL pisses me off).  She felt we OWED it to her.  Sorry, it's a position of public service, you serve ME.

I don't disagree with this take.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

People like her...….. when she's not running for anything.

Her favorability happens to have been in the toilet during 92 (Bill's first campaign), 96 (Bill's second campaign), 00 (first Senate race), 07-08 (first presidential run) and 15-16 (second presidential run).  And that's when the right wing fear machine was going into overdrive against her. 

I think this is largely correct.  I'm not sure her favorability was ever "in the toilet", but it was certainly low enough.  I suspect Brisket could be right in his assertion that her lack of personality makes her vulnerable, but honestly, I'm not entirely sure some of it isn't just because she's an uppity woman.

I'll believe the US is ready for a female President once we actually elect one.

[SquishMitten 10408]

Yeah, you don’t know my family.  And I’m tired of the “if you support Trump, you are a racist!” bullshit.  It’s a flawed syllogism, and it’s counterproductive.  
Now are Trump supporters capable of breathtaking acts of cognitive dissonance?  Absolutely.  But they don’t think they’re racist, in the sense that they don’t dislike non-whites or view whites as superior.  Which makes sense, because the vast majority of Trump supporters are white and are not superior to anyone.  I honestly think many of them see Trump’s rants in the same personal terms he does.  

Not to attack you personally, but this is a problem with racism in general. Most white people have non-white friends. On a micro level, they aren’t racist. But on a macro level, they have a negative view of non-whites in other places. You’re not quite saying this, but you’re coming really close to saying: “They have black friends, they can’t be racist.”

[Chad Fuck 17682]

 

He’s like the Sgt. York of racism!

[SquishMitten 10408]

It's dumb, but the fact that Trump is still seemingly uncomfortable with giving Kamala a nickname is an eyebrow raiser to me.

My money is on Lame-ala

[David Dennison 18860]

I wish someone would just start calling him Dumb Donald and never let up.

[Red Five 40859]

My money is on Lame-ala

Kunty Kamala

[shnsajax 3591]

45 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It's dumb, but the fact that Trump is still seemingly uncomfortable with giving Kamala a nickname is an eyebrow raiser to me.

I'm sure he has one he says only in private.

[Js1 85341]

13 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

 

My money is on Lame-ala

 

Lame-ala Hairweave

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Cop killa Kamala 

works on many levels.

[Pancho 44805]

 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

 

Not to attack you personally, but this is a problem with racism in general. Most white people have non-white friends. On a micro level, they aren’t racist. But on a macro level, they have a negative view of non-whites in other places. You’re not quite saying this, but you’re coming really close to saying: “They have black friends, they can’t be racist.”

 

It can be tough to conclude that people we care about don't meet a certain moral standard, but it's not a stretch to say that someone who supports a racist person doing racist things is also racist themselves.  It doesn't have to mean that they want segregation or slavery or like calling black people the n-word.  But when they support a clearly racist person saying clearly racist things and implementing clearly racist policies then they support racism and are also racist.   

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

 

 

[Nivek 16930]

Well, I think that the shitty campaign and taking voters for granted went hand-in-hand with her personality -- it did for me, at least.  It all folded into her raging sense of entitlement (seriously, "it's her turn" STILL pisses me off).  She felt we OWED it to her.  Sorry, it's a position of public service, you serve ME.

Personally I do not need to like a person to respect them or their qualifications. The right has demonized her for so long people just bought into it. My mother “hates” her and yet cannot provide even a single reason.

She was the only qualified candidate. She knew it. Everyone with an IQ above 80 knew Trump was lying constantly and the media played right into his hands by not saying he was a fucking liar and conman he was. Hardly any issue was made of his numerous scandals and how he constantly fucked everyone over.

Her campaign was not prepared to deal with foreign intervention, the targeting of data manipulation and idiocy of our media. He received non stop coverage and his charisma was on display non stop while a propaganda network, propaganda radio, dismissed all criticism and attacked.
The “left” media was gutless and bent over backwards to try to be “fair” and they fucking failed at even that. Her campaign was far from horrible, she still won the popular vote.

She was right. We owed it to America to elect the adult and behave like adults. Instead we jumped the fence and started slinging shit with primates and rubbed it on our face.

So fuck non-hillary voters. Enjoy the racists, dipshits, puppets, and morons you voted for.

[BrickHorn 18236]

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

 

Not to attack you personally, but this is a problem with racism in general. Most white people have non-white friends. On a micro level, they aren’t racist. But on a macro level, they have a negative view of non-whites in other places. You’re not quite saying this, but you’re coming really close to saying: “They have black friends, they can’t be racist.”

 

No, that’s NOT what I’m saying.  What I’m saying is: they aren’t fucking racist in any meaningful sense of the word.  They do not hold views that any one race is superior to any other.  At least, I’ve never heard them express such views and their personal interactions with non-white people (which I’ve witnessed) further support that they are not racist.

Some of y’all need to get it through your thick skulls that many people support Trump despite his racism.  They may do this for any number of reasons (e.g. they find another policy position of his more important; they are unaware of his behavior; they truly believe the media is lying; they interpret his attacks as personal, rather than an attack against the victim’s race, etc.)

Trump’s racism is a potential wedge issue with many of his voters.  Stop throwing away that advantage by resorting to binary thinking. It’s ironic and counterproductive.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by BrickHorn

[jimmyjazz 45957]

I understand that there are voters for whom a single (or few) issues inform which lever they pull, and for them, the candidate doesn't matter.  Abortion is the most obvious example.  The irony is that I don't believe many Republican candidates are truly pro-life -- they are pro-power.  They will say and do anything to capture that vote.  Sure, that's part of being a political animal, but I honestly believe the right has taken it way farther than the left in the era of Trump.

I also believe that Trump's racism hits a little close to the heart for a majority of those on the right.  Is it reasonable to paint the entire demographic with that broad brush?  Of course not.  I bet that brush doesn't color outside the lines very often, though.  I for damn sure am not going to lose any sleep for thinking "yeah, you probably get a little tingly down there when you see Trump constantly attacking people who are darker than 'pale', don't you?" when it comes to most Republicans.  Can I prove it's a fact?  Nope.  Again, no sleep lost.  They should be castigated for supporting Trump, that's more than enough for me.

[atomheartbevo 89674]

Dershowitz may not fuck 16 year-olds, but he has defended those who do, and even tries to justify it legally.  

I see and know plenty of Trump supporters who I think are probably not racist, but I don’t see them calling out Trump during his tirades, and when they start to even defend them, either through the “it’s fake news” bullshit, or the “he dated a black girl” crap, or his comments are actually about economics and not race  (“there’s white people in Baltimore as well”), then, well, see Alan Dershowitz. 

[atomheartbevo 89674]

I would give Trump supporters a free pass on the racism thing if they vote against him next year.  They can claim to have been ignorant prior to 2016, I.e. not researching his past, voting against Hillary, etc. 

If a lot of Republicans, including the prime time lineup on Fox News, would denounce Trump’s attacks, he’d do a 180.  He has a pathological need to be loved, and those around him and who support him could easily use that against him.   If he believed his base was against him saying such things, he would do a 180 on a dime.   

Edited July 31, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[Nivek 16930]

I don’t give anyone a free pass (whatever that means). It was all there before the election.

[Jograves 357]

A buddy and I were talking to a friend who mainlines Fox and is a trump supporter the other day. Our friend said, "hey! I don't like his tweets and I don't agree with them." I said, "ok, fine. Maybe you don't support the division that he's trying to cultivate through Twitter but that just sounds like you're ok with the rape accusations, the damage he's doing to the environment, the damage he's doing to our allies and other friendly nations. and the family separation policy. But hey, at least you oppose his tweets." 

[wildcat09 29354]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Dershowitz may not fuck 16 year-olds, but he has defended those who do, and even tries to justify it legally.  

I see and know plenty of Trump supporters who I think are probably not racist, but I don’t see them calling out Trump during his tirades, and when they start to even defend them, either through the “it’s fake news” bullshit, or the “he dated a black girl” crap, or his comments are actually about economics and not race  (“there’s white people in Baltimore as well”), then, well, see Alan Dershowitz. 

Also, Dersh has definitely actually fucked 16-year-olds (and younger).

[Pancho 44805]

 

[Brisketexan 105144]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

I mean, if we're being accurate, I need to report a U.S. government property that's infested with vermin.  It's the property at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C.  It's pretty bad.  

[Gatorubet 30239]

No, that’s NOT what I’m saying.  What I’m saying is: they aren’t fucking racist in any meaningful sense of the word.  

If you support a racist and refuse to distance yourself from his constant racism, you are a fucking racist....in every sense of the word. At best. cowardly shit stain hypocrite is the best you could say about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

If you support a racist and refuse to distance yourself from his constant racism, you are a fucking racist....in every sense of the word. At best. cowardly shit stain hypocrite is the best you could say about them.

There were plenty of Germans that supported Hitler but opposed his hateful rhetoric.  They supported him because they liked his economic policies and renewed sense of German pride.

These people were Nazis.  This is not debatable. 

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There were plenty of Germans that supported Hitler but opposed his hateful rhetoric.  They supported him because they liked his economic policies and renewed sense of German pride.

These people were Nazis.  This is not debatable. 

You can't support Hitler without also supporting his hateful rhetoric.

[RomaVicta 29908]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can't support Hitler without also supporting his hateful rhetoric.

You're not the boss of me.

[NowThis 931]

a recession is coming starting this winter, Fed cut the rates, market drops 300+.  Ultimately the economy is God, candidate is meaningless.