Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

02-09-2017 , 12:58 AM
Nah, go for it guys . She would be perfect.
02-09-2017 , 12:59 AM
40% of the population is writing off any Democrat no matter who they are.
02-09-2017 , 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
40% of the population is writing off any Democrat no matter who they are.
True. So maybe it's more like 55% or even 60% in her case?
02-09-2017 , 01:01 AM
Most right wing men hate women, most right wing women hate women.

Put her vice pres but they'll just treat her as Hillary 2.0 no matter what she says and how different she is if she tries to potus'.

Murica still too dumb for the possibility of a woman president, unless shes hot. (IVANKA PLEASE DONT RUN IN 2020 )
02-09-2017 , 01:05 AM
You guys seemed to have learned a very different lesson in the past 18 months from the one I did.
02-09-2017 , 01:06 AM
Uh, Hillary would've won if she had a remotely competent campaign and wasn't sabotaged by the FBI. So "Hillary 2.0, now with less baggage and no bizarre loyalty to the ****tiest Democratic operatives" is a pretty strong resume.

But my God the Nordstrom's stuff. Spicer has lost his goddamn mind.
02-09-2017 , 01:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I still don't know why they would want to see Warren in 2020. She's a populist who talks about taking on banks, corruption in Washington, etc. Trump was basically able to take the Upper Midwest, in part, by ****-gibboning her language.
Fyp
02-09-2017 , 01:11 AM
You ****ing dip****s are going to nominate Hillary 2.0 and throw the election to the Trump again, aren't you, but of course you are. Lord Jesus, this country just deserves to be burnt down to the foundations.
02-09-2017 , 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Uh, Hillary would've won if she had a remotely competent campaign and wasn't sabotaged by the FBI.
Would just like to point out that any potential 2020 challenger is going to be overtly sabotaged by the FBI and every other federal agency, along with legions of dip**** cracker-ass southern law enforcement dudes who are fully prepared to overlook any voting booth irregularities knowing that noted MLK critic Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is never enforcing a word of the Voting Rights Act.
02-09-2017 , 01:16 AM
Well there's that, yes, a good chance we're all ****ed.

But nominating a woman against because of some imaginary post-facto theory that the issue was entirely misogyny needs at least some support for the claim that people voted against Hillary just because she was a woman.
02-09-2017 , 01:17 AM
I like Warren, I think I want her to run too, but she seems such a reasonable and sensible choice that I just know she'll be wafflecrushed.
02-09-2017 , 01:18 AM
How is Warren = Hillary 2.0? They have nothing in common beyond their gender.
02-09-2017 , 01:21 AM
people who voted trump and hates hillary wont vote Warren

logic doesnt matter
02-09-2017 , 01:22 AM
Y'all, we don't need people that voted for trump to win.
02-09-2017 , 01:23 AM
Judge Judy is wildly popular. Maybe something to think about.
02-09-2017 , 01:23 AM
Vote Suppression 2.0 in 1700 days need every votes
02-09-2017 , 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by d10
How is Warren = Hillary 2.0? They have nothing in common beyond their gender.
It doesn't really matter if she is Hillary 2.0 or not but her entire campaign would be railroaded trying to explain how she isn't Hillary 2.0
02-09-2017 , 01:26 AM
simple question:

Skip to 2020 elections TOMORROW, Who wins between Ivanka Trump and Warren?

Yeah.
02-09-2017 , 01:29 AM
I'd put $100 on Warren.
02-09-2017 , 01:30 AM
deal
02-09-2017 , 01:32 AM
I'm voting Ivanka, she is so ****ing hot. Gotta give my vote to the ice queen, and I like Warren!
02-09-2017 , 01:36 AM
Yeah, were not having a female president in America for a very long time
02-09-2017 , 01:41 AM
If the vote were tomorrow, you could run Hillary and win in a landslide. In 2020, a white superman will lose.
02-09-2017 , 01:41 AM
So do we think Gorsuch really finds Trump's rhetoric disheartening, or it is something he and Trump decided he would say so that dems might be more persuaded to confirm him.

I think it's probably the former, but I think the people who think Trump is some sort of evil genius will claim it was the latter. Trump is never going to sign off on any sort of criticism of himself, even if it advances his agenda. But I'll bet at least some are going to (or already have) claim this is just more 3D (4D?) chess by Trump.
02-09-2017 , 01:41 AM
4 years in the distant post-apocalyptic future;

Donald Trump gets old, the rumours of him having dementia and alzheimer intensify, Ivanka vows to take his torch and bring fear, death and destruction to the country in America just like he would've.

EASY

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melkerson
Trump is never going to sign off on any sort of criticism of himself, even if it advances his agenda.
Yeah in the end it comes back to this very vital point. No matter how smart it could be he would NEVER accept a plan that criticizes him heavily.

I mean, I doubt Trump even frickin cares who the nominee actually is or what he thinks and will do in the long term, as long as it's the right thing to give him more power right now. Which seems to be a pretty big fail and it's biting him already.

      
m