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.

04-04-2017 , 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
The biggest concern Dems should have is not Trump, but Tom Cotton(or comparable) being "the reasonable Republican" in 2020.

Because we've learned that there is absolutely no limit to the media's thirst for false equivalence, if the Dems DO crush the midterms and remove Trump, we all know every No Labels dip**** centrist will be ACHING to show off how objective and reasonable they are by tut-tutting about how liberals are being divisive by not agreeing with his campaign platform of "Make The Handmaid's Tale Real"
I mean this is (sort of) how Reagan won in 1980. The Republicans should not have won an election for 20 years after Nixon, but yeah, that happened.
04-04-2017 , 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Its obvious at this point that Dvault represents the ultimate victory of Russian internet troll house. Long con achieved.
I hope it goes without saying I think Putin is a murderous autocrat and I say that with full-knowledge that my ISP will now sell my internet history to the KGB in exchange for Putin making Ivanka Trump's brand the Official Clothier of the 2018 World Cup.

Also I think any investigations should continue and if Trump is as guilty as we all hope, he is thrown in prison.

Just note that this exchange with bobman proves the point, where he admits Russia is their weapon of choice against Trump because of how they fear most other avenues leads to too much popular will building behind leftist ideals and that's a real threat to moderate centrism and then wonder who's really the stooge on Russia/Trump: the people saying, you know, Trump is a catastrophic holistic failure whose epic screw-job against Americans might really prove a long-term ideological lesson, let's spend our time on areas that builds to lasting, durable political victories -- or the people carrying water for Bill Kristol.
04-04-2017 , 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Let's be clear: GOP filibustered 79 Obama nominees before Reid deployed nuclear option.
McConnell intends to go nuclear the very 1st time Dems filibuster
Let's be clear here, it started under GWB and lasted most of his two terms. So when the republicans gained the senate majority they just reciprocated the action. The dems didn't like it and Reid changed the rules....

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02...l-nominations/



...so here we are today.
04-04-2017 , 06:51 AM
Let's also be clear that Harry Reid and the Democrats killed the filibuster. The SCOTUS exception was only there because there was no active SCOTUS nominee at the time. The republicans did not go nuclear during Bush, they could have, the democrats did the deed and they are responsible for it.
04-04-2017 , 07:34 AM
You're wrong here Dvaut. Right now the #1 priority for people who want the best for the USA, and for the world at large, is for Trumpty Dumpty to have the largest resistance possible and for his power to be curtailed as much as possible (25-35% approval does this). Both of these things are achieved by hammering Russia home.

I mean, what did you learn wrt American public at large and how they respond to sensational stories that allege massive corruption/wrongdoing/lying? I mean, Hillary was the policy master, but lost because of BENGHAZI!!THO and EMAILS!!THO, both of which are complete jokes compared to this Dumpty/Russia bizness. On top of all the Reublicans who ate that **** up, we had/have plenty of Dems who didn't like her and held their nose voting for her (or just not ****in voting at all) because of those things. Given that Russia is 100x more legit, you don't want us to do to the same to Trump? With all due respect - GMAFB. Demmies been talking policy for decades and it hasnt done **** apparently. Now we have a meatball and we plan to blast this **** out of the park whether you like it or not.

Also - can do both at the same this isn't a dichotomy. Just talk about it a secondary focus on days when there's no major Russia stuff. But priority #1 should definitely, without a goddamn doubt, be given to Russia stuff.

Also your arguments of like "Russia seems too distant or irrelevant relative to policy stuff like healthcare that affecrs me and family" is nullified by the impact that Benghazi and emails had.

Now enough of this aids debate. Been going back and forth about this silly hypothetical for too long itt. Media and dems will correctly focus on Russia like it or not.
04-04-2017 , 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
so trump did sellout everyones internet privacy by signing that thing huh?

That was like his last chance to gain back popularity.

Now hes alienating his last firewall that backed him, the internet altright.

Literally NOBODY wanted that signed except the big internet companies.

Saw a lot of "if trump doesnt veto this..." in the past week from altright comments. Hopefully they stay true to their convictions on that one for once
See, this is the kind of **** we need to draw more attention to. Every Dem in front of a TV camera needs to rail about how Republicans are selling out your privacy. Maybe it's possible that by linking this Prince guy to that Arab fellow we'll find direct proof of Trump doing something shady, but this is a guarantee winning play for the Dems.
04-04-2017 , 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
See, this is the kind of **** we need to draw more attention to. Every Dem in front of a TV camera needs to rail about how Republicans are selling out your privacy. Maybe it's possible that by linking this Prince guy to that Arab fellow we'll find direct proof of Trump doing something shady, but this is a guarantee winning play for the Dems.
Did they sell it out or just keep the status quo? The changes hadn't yet taken effect had they?
04-04-2017 , 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
Let's be clear here, it started under GWB and lasted most of his two terms. So when the republicans gained the senate majority they just reciprocated the action. The dems didn't like it and Reid changed the rules....

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02...l-nominations/



...so here we are today.
Hi Mr. Simpleton,

Merrick Garland.

(btw it started with a bipartisan effort to stop Bork, then Republicans went ape**** under Clinton)
04-04-2017 , 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
Hi Mr. Simpleton,

Merrick Garland.

(btw it started with a bipartisan effort to stop Bork, then Republicans went ape**** under Clinton)
See, if you go back far enough all roads lead to dems taking the first steps to block nominations...
04-04-2017 , 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
Did they sell it out or just keep the status quo? The changes hadn't yet taken effect had they?
I don't know. Companies are allowed to sell your sweet ass now. It's Trumps way. Allowing companies to sell your ass isn't the biggest problem, companies actually doing it is. These companies should be shamed to the end of the earth. We must go full einbert on anyone who wants to sell our info.

I'm afraid we are too conected to our Facebook feeds to do anything about it. They have us. Mass boycotts are the only way these ass tasters will get the point.
04-04-2017 , 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
See, if you go back far enough all roads lead to dems taking the first steps to block nominations...
Merrick Garland.

(also I think you missed the word bipartisan: six Republicans blocked Bork, who, I think we can all agree, was a much, much, much worse candidate than Garland/Gorsuch/anyone but Thomas since)
04-04-2017 , 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilu7
You're wrong here Dvaut. Right now the #1 priority for people who want the best for the USA, and for the world at large, is for Trumpty Dumpty to have the largest resistance possible and for his power to be curtailed as much as possible (25-35% approval does this). Both of these things are achieved by hammering Russia home.

I mean, what did you learn wrt American public at large and how they respond to sensational stories that allege massive corruption/wrongdoing/lying? I mean, Hillary was the policy master, but lost because of BENGHAZI!!THO and EMAILS!!THO, both of which are complete jokes compared to this Dumpty/Russia bizness. On top of all the Reublicans who ate that **** up, we had/have plenty of Dems who didn't like her and held their nose voting for her (or just not ****in voting at all) because of those things. Given that Russia is 100x more legit, you don't want us to do to the same to Trump? With all due respect - GMAFB. Demmies been talking policy for decades and it hasnt done **** apparently. Now we have a meatball and we plan to blast this **** out of the park whether you like it or not.
1. Don't talk about policy. Talk about outcomes. See above. I never said talk about policy.
2. There's no actual 'plan' AFAIK, so the idea that it's teed up and ready to blast into the upper deck sounds suspect. Set a line on Trump being President on Jan 1 2019 if you think it's a sure bet this is ready for liftoff. I'll take action. If Democrats have a coherent plan I'd love to hear it.
3. RE: Benghazi emailz. Different messages for different audiences. It's not clear what the dispositive impacts of EMAILZ BENGHAZI since Trump merely turned out the GOP base at a rate they normally turn out at. It may very well have just been a lot of noise rather than truly motivating. The GOP's batting averages on pretend scandals permeating the wide electorate isn't actually that high. Mostly they're just talking amongst themselves in their epistemic closure loop. In any event, stuff like THE BENGHAZI is specifically crafted to appeal to paranoid angry mouthbreathers suspicious about the dark nexus between Clinton, Democrats, Arab rioters, terrorists and dead Americans so the story was pre-written by generations of myth-makers and story-tellers on the right who have been peddling these sort of theories forever.

Democrats can't just pick up the ball and run with "old white rich guy selling out America to the Soviets!" like they've been telling those stories for decades too. Voters have no pre-existing frames for this (e.g., voters inherently can't contextualize the wrong-doing and crimes versus their pre-existing perceptions of what motivates guys like Trump). Which is why the broad outlines of most of this was known prior to Nov. 2016 and Trump won anyway: because most voters don't get it, don't care, and you can't become America First Super Patriots Wholly Concerned with Ukrainian Sovereignty and the Sanctity of Elections Without Foreign Influence Peddling because it's too much virtue, too many impracticalities, too principled. Politics doesn't work like that.

Go do the simple heuristic and talk to 5 ~average informed voters about what the Trump Russia scandal actually *is.* What's the crime? What did he do wrong? What motivated him to do the wrong thing he did? See what kind of answers you get. Judge that against how much then you think Democrats have a coherent 'plan' and whether this is a sound political narrative.
04-04-2017 , 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
Merrick Garland.

(also I think you missed the word bipartisan: six Republicans blocked Bork, who, I think we can all agree, was a much, much, much worse candidate than Garland/Gorsuch/anyone but Thomas since)
Garland wasn't the first nor will he be the last to not get a hearing...

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...es-back-1875-/

Last edited by raradevils; 04-04-2017 at 08:48 AM. Reason: dems seem to never be able to accept the outcome of elections
04-04-2017 , 08:49 AM
I would guess that Benghaziiiiii helped turn out the base. It's not a thing that appeals to persuadable voters, but the name of the game in 2016 was cranking up enthusiasm and getting the base to voting booths.
04-04-2017 , 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
I would guess that Benghaziiiiii helped turn out the base. It's not a thing that appeals to persuadable voters, but the name of the game in 2016 was cranking up enthusiasm and getting the base to voting booths.
Sure. I agree on the whole. So contrast with how many leftists, soft-leftists, sometimes leftists, sometimes and fair-weather Democrats you have heard talking about fealty to America and being incorruptible against foreign Russian influence peddling. That's not what we talk about. Contrast with right-wingers constant fantasies the Democrats are in cahoots with Muslims to murder Americans for whatever reasons. That story was made for their base and they exploited it. Russia/Trump is not the same for the left.
04-04-2017 , 08:55 AM
The 43 senators who plan to filibuster Gorsuch represent 53 percent of the country
https://thinkprogress.org/senators-f...y-bb72b7e0c089
Quote:
At least 43 senators will attempt to block Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court this week. And while these senators make up only a fairly small minority of the Senate, they represent more than half of the nation.

In sum, the 43 senators who announced that they will vote to sustain a filibuster against Judge Gorsuch represent 170,297,633 individuals. By contrast, the sum total of the 57 senators who either support Gorsuch, intend to vote to break the filibuster, or have not yet announced how they will vote on the Gorsuch confirmation represent only 152,148,715 people.

[...]
Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, who won 2,864,974 fewer votes than his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
04-04-2017 , 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
The 43 senators who plan to filibuster Gorsuch represent 53 percent of the country
https://thinkprogress.org/senators-f...y-bb72b7e0c089
the vote that counts/counted however you want to phase it.....306 vs 232.
04-04-2017 , 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
See, if you go back far enough all roads lead to dems taking the first steps to block nominations...
hahahaha I mean it's one thing when ted cruz gets on TV and pretends like the democrats are mean old obstructionists and the republicans are perfect gentlemen. That's his job.

You on the other hand, well, you're just a big old slappy.
04-04-2017 , 09:08 AM
I'm sure rara was in here verbally destroying Mitch McConnell when he, McConnell, said Hillary wouldn't get any SCOTUS noms if she won, right?
04-04-2017 , 09:08 AM
So we have a President that watched Fox and Friends and takes their word as gospel and retweets Drudge.

thisisfinedog.jpg
04-04-2017 , 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
the vote that counts/counted however you want to phase it.....306 vs 232.
You mean for this Supreme Court nomination? No, you're quite mistaken.

Barack Obama 65,915,795
Mitt Romney 60,933,504

Electoral Votes
Barack Obama 332
Mitt Romney 206
04-04-2017 , 09:12 AM
Rand Paul on the morning shows defending Daddy's wire tapp accusations. SUSAN RICE IS A TRAITOR.
04-04-2017 , 09:13 AM
Susan Rice triggers the right-wing lizard brain something fierce.
04-04-2017 , 09:14 AM
For anyone who's interested in the debunking of this Cernovich turd:

The totally phony Susan Rice story, explained
https://thinkprogress.org/susan-rice...d-1a72785b100e
04-04-2017 , 09:17 AM
I thought that guys name sounded familiar. He's that huge white nationalist with an army of trolls waiting to do his harassment bidding.

      
m