Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2019 12:11 pm
You two are predictable and not worth the time.

He’s a Tory.

He likes Tories.

He once had dinner with a Tory.

He once did his hair like someone who had dinner with a Tory.

Dishonest $ .87 arguments.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Dec, 2019 12:27 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Editing Trump out for more commercial time is too perfect.

In the years to come, you will see Republicans trying to edit tRump out of their past, like Nixon. It will be very difficult to find anyone who voted for him. When his name does get brought up, all will be never tRumpers".......

It is funny, in the age of the evil Rump, I heard reps reclaim Nixon again. Does one evil relieve the lack of morality to realign to an old disavowed evil? There's a question for the Political Scientist Bernie!
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 07:12 am
Warren's campaign struggling to raise $20 million this quarter, last qtr she raised around $24 million, she's at $17 million right now. Donations are falling with her poll numbers. There's somewhat of a pleading for money message on the campaign website.

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 07:57 am
@BillW,
Quote:
In the years to come, you will see Republicans trying to edit tRump out of their past, like Nixon.
Only if he loses.

But then there won't be much reflection, second thoughts nor guilt. It's not that difficult to imagine how FOX will respond. There will be, first of all, a constant and violently angry trumpeting of how he was brought down by the Deep State, the liberal media and George Soros. That will last a while but its propaganda value will soon diminish because inevitably Trump will take on the coloration of "loser". So attention and propaganda vectors will have to shift. They'll have to engage in rebranding. But probably the main thing to expect is a continuation of gaslighting and strategies to dominate media content so as to make that gaslighting maximally effective. Says me.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 08:10 am
@Brand X,
I think she’s losing contender status. Weird because Obama just started talking her up.

Coincidence?

She’s going to have to start taking Big Money to make it—and then the entire narrative she’s been fooling wanna-be progressives with will be outed as fake.

I think she’ll be caught—again—taking that Big Money to stay viable.

blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 08:42 am
@Lash,
One of the most profound disparities in modern US politics is how much better, wiser and kinder, as a person, Sanders is than some of his followers, the ones like you.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 09:50 am
@blatham,
Your affection for Elizabeth Warren makes you unable to assess her as a candidate. Edit--(Perhaps the sting was re Obama...?)

I have the ability to look at what candidates are doing and saying, contrast that to what they've said and done before - and make an honest statement about it.

But, even considering my highest estimation of my own motives, yes, Bernie is a much better human being than I am.

Infinitely better than you, too.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:34 pm
@Lash,
It's not just about Warren. It's about how you constantly spew your bile over every other candidate (except Gabbard), the party Sanders is asking to lead, the press and anyone here who challenges what you write. You don't turn people on to Sanders, your bilious voice is far more likely to turn potential supporters off the man. You come across far closer to Kellyanne Conway than to Sanders himself.

And you might consider how the "logic" of this...
Quote:
Your affection for Elizabeth Warren makes you unable to assess her as a candidate.
undercuts anything you might say about Sanders.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:49 pm
@blatham,
I like Sanders because of what he does and says—I don’t make excuses for crap he does because I like him. You’re the opposite. All you do is defend a bunch of criminals. Why do you do that?

I’ve shared disagreements with Bernie. Why are you lying about what I’ve said about Gabbard? Can’t you form a disagreement based on facts??

I think you spend too much time thinking and talking about me.

Talk some truth about candidates, instead.

Try!

Edit—You’re sorta more like the Joy Reid of A2K, and I’m sure you take that as a great compliment. Pity.

0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:54 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
In the years to come, you will see Republicans trying to edit tRump out of their past, like Nixon.
Only if he loses.

Even if he wins. It will just be delayed by 4 years (or fewer if the Republicans finally wake up).

After tRump, the Republican party will have to rebuild unless the Government is to come down. theRumps positions are unsustainable for a democracy. He is criminal and very few will defend him after he is gone. He is rightly Impeached and everyone but the best most blind know it.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 12:55 pm
Quote:
Now that we’re just a few weeks away from the Iowa caucuses and the real start to the 2020 voting process, there are still three basic facts the Democrats need to accept if they hope to have any chance to win the White House.

If you are a Democrat reading this, I warn you that this isn’t going to be easy. But no pain, no gain. So here goes:
Trump didn’t steal the 2016 election

Let’s start with what is still the toughest pill to swallow for Democrats: Trump won the White House fair and square.

The two-plus years of laser focus and high hopes connected to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were the clearest examples that all too many Democrats believe the only reason Donald Trump is president is because the Russians somehow helped him cheat. Even the release of the Mueller Report showing no direct evidence of that hasn’t stopped this narrative from continuing to be promoted regularly.

But let’s face it, this is a very good way for the Democrats to lose to Trump again in 2020. Just like in sports, the worst way to overcome a loss in politics is to go around believing you didn’t “really” lose and no real improvements or changes need to be made by your team to win next time.

Now just imagine if the Democrats spent as much time and effort on winning back the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as they have been in pursuing the Russia collusion obsession and the impeachment process. If the latest polls in those states tell us anything, those other efforts have only made things worse for the anti-Trump forces. It’s time to cut bait on the stolen election illusion.

The economy is doing well, even for the little guy

Whether they deserve it or not, Democrats have consistently been viewed by most American voters as the party that is more concerned with the poor and lower middle-income earners in this country. In many ways, that’s been a golden ticket to victory for Democrats in almost every major election. They only seem to mess it up when a Democratic administration presides over a worsening economy, (like under Jimmy Carter in 1980), or when Democratic candidates latch on to non-economic themes like social issues or foreign policy.

The problem for Democrats now is not only the fact that the overall economy and Wall Street are strong, but even Americans further down the income scale are now experiencing record wage gains. In fact, new data shows that the labor market has become so tight that rank-and-file workers are now getting bigger percentage raises than the bosses and top management.

But all is not lost for Democrats when it comes to economics, thanks to the sticky issue of health care. As health care insurance costs continue to rise, voters from both parties are still ranking health care very high on their list of top concerns going into 2020.

Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have made ‘Medicare for All’ a key part of their campaign promises. But compare that to the way then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actively paraded their health coverage plans around in 2008, and you can see how no Democrat has really mined this issue properly this time around.

This issue is simply not going away, and any Democrat willing to offer an attention-grabbing new idea on lowering insurance costs stands to gain substantially in the polls. Of course, that opportunity is also still available for President Trump. So the Democrats don’t have any time to waste.
Stop denigrating the voters

Even mediocre students of American history should know that politics in this country have always been nasty. If you don’t believe that, do a little reading about the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

But the nastiness has really only been effective when it’s directed at opposing candidates or parties. One of the rules just about every major American politician has followed is to never actually go after the opposing candidate’s or party’s voters. It’s an important distinction.
More and more these days, that rule is being broken and it’s mostly being broken by Democrats. The most egregious example from 2016 was Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump voters as a “basket of deplorables,” a term those Trump supporters have since taken on as a badge of honor.

But in another example of not learning from 2016′s mistakes, we’re still seeing 2020 Democrats and their supporters following this line. That includes the Democrat with perhaps the best “nice guy” persona, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who recently said Trump voters are “at best, looking the other way on racism” when asked by a cable news host if casting a vote for Trump could be considered a “racist act.”

So far, Buttigieg’s comments are the most egregious slam on Trump voters from an actual candidate. But prominent liberals and Never Trumpers are increasing their attacks lately. Filmmaker Michael Moore said this week that since two out of three white men voted for Trump in 2016, that means two out of three white men in America are “not good people,” and “you should be afraid of them.” Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said last month that Trump voters are part of a “cult,” a comment that major news media outlets including CNN echoed days later. Never Trumper Republican Jennifer Rubin has recently been pushing the line that Trump voters are poorly educated.

If the DNC has any power to put a lid on these kinds of comments from Democratic candidates and their supporters, it needs to exert that power right now. The “we think you’re stupid and we hate and fear you… now vote for us” line has never worked because there’s no way it can.
The above three points may seem very simple and logical, but anyone who has been watching the Democrats since 2016 knows that this is kind of like an intervention for a stubborn drug addict. Each of the above truths is something many Democrats have been fiercely fighting against for some time.

The irony is, they need to give up that fight to win the contest that should be much more important to them overall.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/democrats-need-to-accept-these-3-truths-to-beat-trump-in-2020.html

This is bitter medicine to swallow. Obviously I disagree with his dismissive attitude on the impeachment and the Russian report. Both were necessary to do and more damaging news concerning Trump than reading his words would lend one to think. However, I agree, politically, it doesn't do to keep harping and blaming the Russian for Trump being President. Hillary lost on her own because of a multitude of factors. To keep harping on it, just makes us look and sound like sore losers and doesn't win any converts. Nor does harping on Trump's overall awfulness in his whole character. He's been around and has shown himself for everyone to made up their own minds one way or another by now. And we do need to cut back on insulting the red states and Trump supporters. Not that we will ever win over his most ardent supporters, but we drive even moderates away with our attitude of thinking we are so much better than them in every way. And the economy has improved, has been improving since 2009 and still continues, like he said, even for the little guy.

We need to find a winning message, find unity in our party, and fight to win the WH back from Trump collectively.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 01:29 pm
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EM5zuo_UcAAhjb1?format=jpg&name=medium
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 01:36 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
After tRump, the Republican party will have to rebuild unless the Government is to come down
. I don't think that's what will happen. Far more likely is a further and faster descent into totalitarianism. Power is all these people care about. I can't see that changing outside of a catastrophe of magnitude and then god knows...

Quote:
theRumps positions are unsustainable for a democracy.
Yes, certainly. But Trump has his position and his traction because of who and what the Republican party has become. His tricks will be carried forward by others.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 02:09 pm
@blatham,
I ha e to be more optimistic than that, as I said - the government comes down. The question then become, how long does it take?

If someone wishes to go back to posts I made during the Bush years with his war hawks, I predicted this was what the Republicans wanted, to bring the government down. Why, they knew they had the wealth behind them and the only thing they needed was to free up the military so it could take sides. Then they could setup their hearts desire - a Fascist government. Koch Brothers, tea baggers and the Feedom Works movement started the original movements in the 80-90's.

Everything tRump is anti real Republican.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 02:49 pm
Inside the Biggest 2020 Advertising War Against Trump

Quote:
Hillary Clinton tried. So did 16 rival Republicans. And after hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on ads attacking Donald Trump in 2016, the results were the same: They never did much damage.

Now Michael R. Bloomberg is trying — his way — spending millions each week in an online advertising onslaught that is guided by polling and data that he and his advisers believe provide unique insight into the president’s vulnerabilities.

The effort, which is targeting seven battleground states where polls show Mr. Trump is likely to be competitive in November, is just one piece of an advertising campaign that is unrivaled in scope and scale. On Facebook and Google alone, where Mr. Bloomberg is most focused on attacking the president, he has spent $18 million on ads over the last month, according to Acronym, a digital messaging firm that works with Democrats.

(...)

nyt

Sometimes having a billionaire on your team is useful! Can you imagine if an ad campaign like Bloomie's had to be financed by small individual contributions?
coldjoint
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 03:12 pm
@hightor,


This has been posted by Real Music in another thread. It seems people approve of someone buying the office of president. Not surprised, but how will progressives handle it, they hate the rich.
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 04:21 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

One of the most profound disparities in modern US politics is how much better, wiser and kinder, as a person, Sanders is than some of his followers, the ones like you.

How do you know all that? Have you ever spent time with Sanders or even met him briefly ? You again are projecting things you can't possibly know. That simply imagining something is true simply because it meets your fixed preconceptions doesn't make it so.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 04:24 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
It seems people approve of someone buying the office of president.

No, it only recognizes the efficacy and necessity of political advertising. Buying the office would involve putting money into the hands of voters somehow...you know, like cutting taxes, ignoring the deficit, or doing both.
Quote:
Not surprised, but how will progressives handle it, they hate the rich.

Is that how you define the term "progressive"? So if you have two liberal Democrats and one hates the rich and the other doesn't, then the first one is a "progressive" and the second could be called, say, a "liberal"? I ask this because I know a lot of Democratic voters who definitely do not hate "the rich"; they may not like particular rich people but they probably don't like some poor people either. The thing about rich people is that, like everyone else, they deserve to be looked at as individuals and not part of a basket of deplorables. They're not all in lock-step with Milton Friedman and many of them spread their wealth generously and spend it constructively. I'll add that a lot of them are, of course, selfish jerks. But you find that any time you characterize a bunch of people as a group because they share one particular trait. You'd find the same thing if you looked at groupings of bicycle owners, school janitors, or Sanders supporters.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 04:41 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You again are projecting things you can't possibly know.

georgeob, I think you're getting carried away with your vituperation here. Was there a jigger of vitriol in the wassail or something?

Sanders has been on the political scene for a long, long time. As I mentioned a few pages ago, as an independent democratic socialist he is a bit more insulated from the smarmiest aspects of party politics than many other officeholders but still, I haven't seen one account of untoward or questionable behavior on his part.* No bitter former staff members, no jilted escorts, no shady business practices, no bragging about having his way with women — really, georgeob, in today's political culture it's not unheard of to take the measure of public figures over the years, marshall the evidence, and make certain assumptions about their character. You certainly extend the benefit of the doubt to your president when his behavior is criticized or his judgment questioned; have you ever spent time with Trump or even met him briefly?

*Well, Sanders did once say that "all lives matter" — that's pretty much unforgivable. Rolling Eyes
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Dec, 2019 07:00 pm
(Haven’t verified this. Haven’t stopped laughing yet)
Dr Kazoo and 5 others liked

Molly Nagle
@MollyNagle3
Wow—quite the start to @JoeBiden’s second event in NH. A man from the back of the room calls Biden a “pervert” and accuses him of touching women and children, before a second man asks Biden where the money is he and his son “earned from Ukraine” from the other side of the room!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 10:02:40