The GOP couldn't even pass their economy boosting, job creating, innovation inspiring tax cuts.

I laughed at iron for saying in the Obamacare thread that Dems could blast the GOP for their failure to repeal Obamacare but that's absolutely now a plausible move from the center-left.

"Our Muslim ban will withstand constitutional challenges because our candidate won't constantly call it a Muslim ban on TV"

This is amazing. Her entire Presidency could be a reality show where she's a prisoner and all the right wing slappies could get their rocks off watching her get ****ed with in the chow line and the shower and **** so they wouldn't have to take it out of the non-whites that they don't even have to live around.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/34...al-contributor

Oh for ****'s sake

Yeah tom really ruined the riffing there by immediately coming up with the best one.

Half of the GOP leadership aren't even proper nazis. They just pander to nazis. Vote dem 2020!

this post is without any doubt the greatest post i have ever seen or read on this website. i, although probably seeing things from a different viewpoint from you good sir, congratulate you. you are now the bestest of the best in my humble opinion on posing on twoplustwo and are now my hero. you from now on and forever be referred to by me as the new Him.

Trolling with wedge issues is standard. Hammering 41 with his tax hike was pretty effective.

What is the context? As an attack on Trump to be used on Fox News, it is basically the smartest thing they can do. Trump failed to deliver any part of the white utopia he promised, preferring to install a bunch of Jews globalists from Goldman Sachs. Politics: it's bad and everyone's the same, even Trump. Now stay the **** home.

I think you might be slightly overestimating the amount of news Trump diehards get from DNC press releases my dude.

OK well you're wrong and you're wrong in a way that is legitimately awful for the country.

Which is fine, this is just a hobby for us, but somebody got PAID for that email. They need to be unemployed tomorrow.

What in ****

Dame Peggy is just there to get the vapors by Trump, doth President Most Foulest, collect a few more underserved Pulitzers for overwrought prose, right up until circa August 2020 when she visits a deli and talks to a single white guy eating a pastrami on rye with spicy mustard who still believes Trump will Make America Great Again before she declares that recieved wisdom from Ghost Reagan and endorses Trump's reelection.

I guess NBC decided they needed a rambling, gin-soaked Reagan dingbat to re-energize their lineup.

Can agree there's a limit? That the Democrats are compelled to have SOME kind of morally affirmative message beyond trolling? That trolling can undermine clarity?

Take it differently: what if the DNC came out with a press release that Trump failed to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, would you guys be like, welp, solid troll work there, the Fox News crowd is gonna be really demoralized. I mean wouldn't -- YOU -- be a little demoralized, too?

Why is this different, then, again? I agree, I guess, that trolling Trump over the wall is qualitatively different than taunting him with the 14 Words but I don't know that any of this is really a good idea.

I mean because ONE message you MIGHT but probably wouldn't take away from "Trump does fascism badly" is to vote for the liberal party. A more plausible outcome would be to demoralize people who wanted the wall. And a similarly plausible outcome is that you actually depress your own voters -- see how you can understand how you might be demoralized by trolling Trump with really egregious frames like saying he failed to secure a future for white children. And then the OTHER consequence might be causing voters to pine for a more authentic, hard-driving fascist to succeed where Trump is failing. Of the four outcomes, only two are good and one of the good ones is actually utterly preposterous. This is a reverse semi bluff where you give yourself more ways to lose than win.

The thing about press releases is they're not really meant for public consumption, they are supposed to influence the press. I personally would not be demoralized seeing a CNN or WaPo piece on Trump's broken promises. I think there are many people here who would agree with that, given how much we enjoy loling at Trump over his dishonesty.

Exactly this. Or put differently, one of the classic and constant criticisms of the modern Democratic Party is that they actually just spend all their time talking to Republicans.

Generally, the criticism is that Republicans activate their voters (they try to rile up right-wing voters). To great success. Democrats convert (they try to convince right-wingers to vote for them or minimally reconsider their allegiance). To their detriment.

This just reinforces that: both parties just fight over conservative voters, and this kind of messaging is really only for them. If a Democrat or potential Democrats stumbles on this, they're either woke proxy strategists ("great troll!") or upset.

OK. But it's not just like vague broken promises, it's a very specific broken promise. So yet again, doesn't this apply -- that voters, upon hearing this message spun through the press (rather than directly from the DNC), has one of four reactions?:

Why is the DNC coaching up the press to produce these kinds of reactions? I suppose you're saying that actually no voter would ever be demoralized (debatable) but then aren't you still only batting like 50% here? Voters are either demoralized or look for more strident fascism. One predictable result of playing out this message over a long period of time on multiple fronts is a bunch of disaffected voters on the one hand. And on the other, a very virulent, aggressive right-wing hellbent on finding a genuine fascist after being stabbed in the back continuously by failures and taunted over it. Hey, come to think of it...THAT SOUNDS EERILY FAMILIAR

Execute anyone who gave this the green light.

SOP for press releases from anyone or any company is that you release some statement and the press more or less spits it out verbatim. I think them being meant for public consumption is exactly right.

And the thing about the wall and whether or not the Dems are trolling is that they did actually campaign on a wall. It's a little confusing when sometimes you mean it, sometimes you're pandering and sometimes you're trolling.

@DVaut: You give four outcomes, but they are not equally likely. How many Trump voters were demoralized when he criticized Obama for pussing out on the red line, even though Trump's own stated policy w.r.t. Syria was non intervention? Did the Breitbart isolationists suddenly say "idk what to believe any more. I guess they're all hawks?" No. Of course, when it was later revealed that Trump was lying about noninterventionism, suddenly the Breitbarters began to kick up a fuss, i.e. they were upset about Trump breaking his promise.

It's not Hold Em Poker for Advanced Players for D voters to see this attack as highlighting failures and broken promises on the other side, rather than a vow to pick up Donald Trump's slack re: the wall. Especially when the rest of the Dem rhetoric promotes diversity and inclusion.

The best argument against this line of attack isn't that it's losing electoral strategy, but rather that it will drive the GOP to more sincere fascists, making the (now less likely) outcome of losing worse. Maybe, but that strikes me as a variant of the Fly shouldn't troll racists because it will drive them to Trump argument, of which I'm sure you are on the other side.

Speaking of both Chelsea and The Tragic Death of the Democratic Party: Chelsea, others defend Barron Trump against The Daily Caller's attack on his wardrobe

88

A+ Post