Painting (or scribbling with a Sharpie) could open up a whole new line of grifting for Trump.

"Donald Trump Jokes Hunter Biden Inspired Him to Paint, Could Get Over $2M Per Canvas"

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...illion-1639597

"If"... really ..."IF"???

Oh you libz and your short memories on how much worse they were. Surely now you recall this regrettable debacle...



Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones at Trump!

In terms of policy, to what degree does Rick Wilson or any of these "reasonable", "moderate" right-wingers agree with Trump?

85%? 90%? 95%?

They certainly appreciated Trump's tax cuts.

They might disagree on some of the dumber trade war stuff. That's about it.

I think LP's Weaver is a bit like Trump Grab-em-by-the-errrrr-pocketbook. Who could possibly back someone like that?

Lets See Joe Biden on Trumps Stay in Mexico policy


In Joe's defense he didnt say forever

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...order-n1281580

They were secretly very happy with his supreme court picks. And to this day love this the most about Trump presidency.

Lincoln Project (LP) received plenty of support from Democrats, both from direct cash infusions from wealthy Dem donors and rando Dems posting LP material online.

LP supported Democrats who were running against pro-Trump Republicans. Clearly, this is a group that held influence with the Democratic Party and sway on its base.

(LP is happy to take money from ANYBODY, of course, as their actual main purpose is grifting)

"Trumpism" and your "TRUE Republicanism" share countless similarities, particularly when it comes to policy positions such as tax cuts for the wealthy, stringent immigration rules, preventing universal health care, aggressive foreign policy, etc., etc. I don't want any of this to seep (further) into the Democratic Party.

this too

they mainly just objected to the "flouting of norms", and the crassness, and this other stuff that has little-to-no effect on 99.999% of Americans

Edit: and they cared a lot about the Russia stuff too -- yet another thing that definitely affects the daily life of the average American

If we are looking past policy differences with these types, it's because the basic idea of being a democracy is up for grabs next election.

This moment in history requires us to set aside our differences with other's who are pro democracy.

We must defeat Trumpian facism , or none of that other **** makes a damn.

I welcome all who aren't facists.

Biden will be 82? He signaled during the campaign he wasn't running again. Maybe that was before the party stepped into the Kamala dilemma. I think Biden is a longshot to win another term given his declines in presentation and communication. At some point the question of who is really running the country will be insuppressible.

If the republicans field someone who can straddle the line between the rapid base and the mainstream, like have the rabid base be at least apathetic towards them and not raise their hackles too high, they will defeat Biden easily. Maybe that's a tall order given how purist and unpragmatic the Trumpers are, but maybe not given how gullible they are.

That ship sailed long ago or, to keep with your seepage theme, sunk long ago. The Democrat's strategy is to go after "moderate" republicans and forsake working class people. They want to maintain pretty much what the have right now, a neoliberal policy arch that spans all two political parties which are perceived as oppositional through the proliferation of identity politics. On the important matters.

The source of the seepage is the capture of the state by concentrated wealth. The the Lincoln Republican embrace is a byproduct of that, not a driver.

I am sure the LP gets some Dem support in an 'enemy of my enemy' type way.


But are you denying the MAIN support of the LP is not the old guard Reagan, Bush, Cheney classic Republicans?

Are you denying they are not only the support but the members?

Trump would be 78 and Trump is obese.

At those advanced ages obesity is by far a bigger risk factor than the few years difference.

what is the Kamala dilemma> I've never heard that before?

I was going to guess that maybe you were suggesting that her being VP means she must be next in line for Dem Potus considerations but that would be dumb considering the very direct recent history of Biden with Obama.


Biden is only running if Trump runs, IMO.

And if he runs against Trump he is shoe in as Trump's decline is far FAR worse. This is not even close and every time I challenge a Trumper they dick tuck on this one knowing Trump is far more demented.


If the Republicans run someone other than Trump then I am pretty sure Biden won't run, as he indicated. His age then might be a liability. It only goes away as a liability versus Trump.

Actually the deferment of Biden's run underscores the Kamala dilemma. Biden wanted to run in 2016 obviously. He was passed over for Hillary, despite her being one of the most unpopular people in the country's polling history, in part due to considerations of identity politics. Kamala Harris is an even worse politician than Hillary, somehow, who was also chosen in part due to identity politics.

So what are people going to do if Kamala decides she wants to be the first woman president and wants her picture in all history books from that moment on? It's totally up to her. What are people going to do if they tell her not yet and she waves her ID pol pass which has been issued to her? There is no fine print on that pass saying "good for one VP entry only". A large constituency of the Democratic party, which gets little from the Democratic party besides identity politics, will scream bloody murder if Kamala is passed over. The democratic party can lie to people saying M4A is impossible and hide behind the cover of obstructionist Republicans and even the all powerful parliamentarian. But can it go against it's moralizing ethos here, it's justification for its existence at this point, for reasons of practical electoral politics?

If it could, why do we have Kamala in the first place?

Yeah, this was a theme in 2020 with people genuinely admitting they were shocked Biden was so "good" at the debates with Trump because they were bombarded with so much propaganda about how he can't remember his name. Biden did exactly as well as he did in the Democratic debates like a few months earlier but I guess people convinced themselves fictional neurological diseases progress really fast or something.

Nah. They can win, but baring a third party spoiler or something they can't win easily. They haven't won easily since 88 and I don't think they have been a 2:1 favorite to win a presidential election for a single day the past 30 years. It's basic demographics at this point and a very white party that doesn't even do all that great with college educated or urban whites just can't ever win easily.

He is correct that Trump has further captured the Republican party. Banning Trump from Twitter hasn't erased him from the real world. If it were only that easy. It's a pretty solid inference that Trump will run in 2024 - obviously - he's already rallying in Iowa. There is no way if he runs he isn't winning the nomination (see capture).

But the idea that Trump can be stopped with some kind of dragnet thrown on the insurrectionists other then Trump seems far fetched. I mean, it's not like Trump needs those exact people to make another go at it. Is the goal to intimidate or deter via example? I don't know how much that works with people who are so driven by delusion in the first place. They are out there thinking they just didn't go far enough last time, this time they will, and they will pardon all their brethren who they consider political prisoners.

And the idea that some appeal to reason or courage will move the needle one millionth of a millimeter is just stupid. If the belligerent idiocy and lawlessness on display during the insurrection didn't jar some sense back into the Republicans then no traitor shaking their finger at them is going to have any effect. The Republican leadership saw a wave of disinformed rube descend on the capital like hillbilly gremlins and their reaction was "I'm yours".

The battle is against this new vote suppression regime on the local level. I am thinking now that the point of the suppression efforts isn't going to be to suppress the vote so much as open up a much broader pretextual basis from which to claim election fraud. If Trump has enough control over the party and his minions have more pretexts, then there are more "legal" options open whereby states effectively override the real vote totals and send in buffalo caps as electors.

No you are 100% wrong here.

The Dems did not run Hilary over Biden despite Biden being Obama's VP out of Political Correctness. Hilary won the nomination as she was the most powerful establishment candidate in the Party, full stop.

Biden the VP losing to her shows a more powerful establishment candidate can easily over come the 'VP' title that Kamala is wearing now.

The rest of what you say is literal garbage. It is not up to Kamala and Kamala alone if she wants to be the next POTUS candidate. SHe won't even be a favorite to win once the contest is engaged in earnest.

That's a surprisingly nuanced take from you. You are getting better with every post. You're learning and seeing all sides of the issue now. It's like you're on some exclusive neurotropic.

What does that mean exactly? most powerful? According to polls she was the most disliked politician in American history next to Trump. The GOP had their guns trained on her for years. They had piles of dirt. They had tomes of anti-Hillary attack strategies they could just dust right off. He negatives were off the charts. It's anomalous how disliked she was.

Do you know why she didn't "spend more time in Michigan?" as the extremely common criticism of her goes? It wasn't an error or her being lazy or tired. It was strategic. It was because the more time she spent there the worse her numbers got. I bet you didn't know that, but it's true.

She had to cheat to beat an old man calling himself a socialist.

In America.

The part of the effort to get her elected that wasn't driven by identity politics was driven by political patronage.


What she wants isn't up to her? Do you think someone is controlling her desires?

Pretty much all of this post is wrong. I'm only going to correct some of it....

Not with Dem primary voters. She was getting around 50% of the vote. In a primary, with proportional representation, that means you are pretty much unbeatable. It doesn't matter that republicans don't like her. Biden etc read these polls and wisely, especially in his case, stayed out.

It's actually completely in line with a longer term trend of higher disfavorability ratings across the board. Michael Dukakis had a higher net favorability at the start of his campaign than any winning or losing candidate in the past 30 years. The elections with the most % of people saying they don't like either candidate was 2016 and 2020. And that 2024 will certainly join that list. You can't look at these numbers without adjusting for era. Biden, Obama, W. Bush and Bill Clinton all looked like shoe ins to lose re-election if you compared their net favorability to Eisenhower, Truman or Nixon.

This again, makes no sense. She spent more time in PA than any other state. PA was far more important than MI. The reason she didn't spend time in MI was that her campaign correctly understood that if she lost MI or if it was even close there, she had no hope. It is highly correlated but a few points bluer than WI and PA. A loss in any doomed her.

You can not be serious. She makes Sarah Palin look like a rock star. She has come across as a poor speaker and just out of touch.
Remember she was out of the Dems primary race early and was only chosen due to her color and sex. Just like Mccain's pick its a poor one

Heck Hilary will be picked to run before her. Ted Cruz could beat her

LBJ was only chosen because he was Southern (and a white male LDO), Pence was only chosen because of his religion etc. It's basically textbook racism/sexism when you pretend like a VP pick based on demographic reasons is somehow strange just because the important demos are now people that Lozen think look strange in positions of power.

Again nothing you say is accurate or correct.

You speak on topics you are vastly ignorant on.

SO a couple things.

Trump too has massive negatives. He polls nationally at the bottom of the barrel consistently. That does not mean you cannot hold power in a party.

You need to be smarter.

Within the party (what wins Primaries) Hilary's negatives were not that high. Trump enjoys a similar benefit within the hardcore Primary driving base.



Does Kamala? Can you show us Stats that she is what excites the Primary driving base because if you cannot you are again 100% wrong in what you are saying. It is just nonsense.

You seem to think every statement deserves some credibility and respect no matter how obviously wrong or dumb. If I say 'Trump enjoys high positives amongst Progressives' that is jut ignorant of the fact and dumb. The same thing your statements on this topic are and they deserved to be called out as such.

That does not answer the dillemma?

Explain what the dilemma is?

You guys are acting like the Dem party is obligated to run her in 2024 and thus "dilemma".

I am saying no such obligation exists (see Biden post Obama) and thus no dilemma exists.

I guarantee you, if she runs to the POTUS candidate in 2024 or 2028 she will be opposed. I guarantee you if she cannot over come her challenges (favourability, etc) she will lose to another candidate.


So once again, please use your words and explain to me what this "Dilemma" is?

This is a good point.

lozen put aside Kamala for one second.

Do you think it wrong for the Dem party to try to appeal to Black voters and Women specifically?

The history of VP picks seems far more tied to 'strategic pandering' where they pick a person they think has stronger ties to the POTUS nominees weaker areas than not.

Appeals to white Southern Males, appeals to white people in general , appeals to certain States that run more moderate or Red.

It is almost all tactics and strategy. Maybe ALL. It is rare that simply the second strongest candidate gets the VP position especially if all their strengths overlap the POTUS candidate strengths (they appeal to the same voters, win the same States, etc).

So explain very specifically what your issue is with a POTUS candidate choosing a VP that would appeal to Black voters and WOmen and why you think that is wrong or abhorrent as you seem to be suggesting?