US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    9,832
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    That's probably going to be what ends the shutdown.

    Not sure which way it will go, but there's no way the country is going without those. Too many people factor that into their yearly budget without having a "plan B".
     
  2. Flappydoodle

    Flappydoodle SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    579
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    As a non-American who views your politics for sheer entertainment:

    Biden: Way too old, and also far too mainstream. Trump has changed the boundaries of "normal" now. The most qualified mainstream candidate lost to him, and that's WITH the advantage of being a woman and capturing a disproportionate amount of that demographic. He could have won in 2016, but it's too late for him now.

    Bernie: Way too old, and also unelectable. He made some noise in the primaries, but he's not a serious presidential candidate. He doesn't look like a president or a leader. And he has never actually been under attack.

    Beto and Booker: Nah. Too preachy, seem fake. I don't think people will go for another "Obama" character right now with the grand aspirational speeches etc. Also, Beto looks like a college student. Not presidential enough.

    Warren: She can certainly win, if she can run her campaign better than Hillary did. She's qualified. Has enough popularity with the left-wing Bernie types, but she's also moderate enough not to alienate everybody. Also, I'm surprised that she would be 71 in 2020. She looks younger, which is a plus. Biden and Bernie have too much white hair, so their age works against them. Warren's two problems will be whether she has enough strength of character to take Trump's attacks and dish it back, and whether she can appeal to "ordinary" people. Drinking beer on Instagram feels fake, and has been widely mocked. You're a 69 year old college professor and lawyer. Stop trying to pretend you're down with the kids.

    Kamala Harris is too unknown and she is trying WAY too hard. It looks desperate.

    Maxine Waters seems batshit crazy. She would lose terribly.

    Porn lawyer guy would be absolutely hilarious. From an entertainment point of view, I'd want him to run.

    Hillary, funnily enough, could actually win if she ran in 2020. If she ran a better campaign (actually visiting swing states), showed a little non-scripted humanity (which apparently she does have, and is quite charming and personable in real life), and didn't seem so out of touch, she could definitely win. The "crooked Hillary" angle will fail, now that it's apparent Trump is just as dirty, or more dirty, than her. However, I think everybody is fed up of her.

    Oprah, if she ran, would EASILY win. Female and black, which means she gets >60% of the woman vote, 95% of the black vote. Plus, she is a genuinely self-made billionaire and highly successful, a great speaker, incredibly capable in talking to normal people (years of hosting chat shows). She would effortlessly dominate debates. She is media savvy too, owning her own production company, so she knows all about messaging, branding, and how to keep herself in the news. Her recent speeches have been pretty blatant tests for a run, and the reception has been incredibly positive. Also, it's very hard to launch any sort of attack on her. She isn't corrupt. She doesn't have some dodgy unknown past. She could run as an "outsider" candidate like Trump, who doesn't need lobbyist money, on a centre-left platform with a few key progressive policies. Easy win.

    Michelle Obama, I think it would be a close call. She has no valid claim apart from being his wife, and he is deeply unpopular among Republicans. She would rally the left due to being a black woman, but she would also rally the right who hate the Obamas.

    The Rock could definitely win. He's an impressive guy. Very smart, dedicated, charismatic etc. People like a leader to look like a leader, so being a giant like him would definitely be in his favour. He would make Trump look small, weak and pathetic.

    Zuckerberg stands zero chance. He's creepy and robotic, and the public and political tide is against facebook now. He's a gross, horrible little man-child who doesn't look like a leader, and everybody would be suspicious that he is buying the election, manipulating news etc. Conspiracies would go wild.

    Bloomberg might finally have his chance to win. Again, he's a highly accomplished, highly successful businessman, and he has political experience that other celebrities don't. His speech at the DNC was the most effective anti-Trump speech I've seen. Being a New Yorker, from the same place as Trump, but with a net worth of 10x Trump, his attacks were far more persuasive than an endless stream of people calling Trump racist, sexist etc. Making the argument of "I made myself rich, and I can do the same for the country" is very persuasive. However, being an old, rich white male jew might hurt his chances in the Democratic Party.

    Somebody else who might do well would be a military candidate. Some retired general, admiral etc. If they can be female, even better chance to win. That would take away Trump's "patriotism" angle. It would give the Democratic Party the "pro America" image which it is lacking (perceived as more interested in helping foreigners than helping the US middle class etc). And Trump would have to be careful about how he attacks, because every time he attacks someone in the military, he gets crucified for it. Also, he is still popular among the military, so having a respected general or somebody run would chip away at that.
     
  3. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    9,832
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    Honestly, the candidate doesn't really matter all that much. Just about everyone knows who they are going to vote for and anyone who says they don't on election day are lying.

    Our system is so screwy that the person with the most votes can still lose, which is what happened in 2016.

    The biggest factor is going to be making voting accessible for as many eligible voters as possible. That's why the local government wins by the Democrats were such a big deal. Our voting system is basically the Wild West, very little is standardized across the country, but state and local governments can more easily make access to the polls easier.

    Gerrymandering and subsequent voter suppression is what gets Republicans elected (and wars), so if the newly minted Democratic governors, attorney generals and state legislators do their job, we'll likely wind up with a Democratic victory.

    EDIT: If anything, I'd say the third candidate (or fourth...) is more important.
     
    AxeHappy, xzacx and JoshuaVonFlash like this.
  4. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    651
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    I feel bad for my wife. She's flying 3X (so, 6 flights) for work this month, and the news is reporting that TSA agents are calling-out en masse because they're not being paid. Unless the staff at every airport Chili's can be deputized to perform the necessary TSA activities (full cavity searches and standing-around talking to each other), she'll be living at the airport.
     
  5. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    362
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    No. No celebrities. With all do respect to The Oprah and The Rock, please, sometime with actually political experience in 2020.

    Michelle Obama would be neat, but I'm pretty sure she already said no. Avenatti I'm pretty sure is done being relevant at this point. Also, hell no.
     
  6. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    9,832
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    Ouch. That's rough.

    I hate flying when there's the typical amount of TSA.

    The first three have said they're not running, and I doubt Avenatti will given recent events. :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
  7. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    9,832
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    He's only four years older than Trump, but I get what you're saying.

    I wouldn't say being a women is an "advantage" in America. Sure, those who were already poised to vote for a female candidate would be that much happier, but those on the other side either don't care or actually see it as a "weakness".

    He is very old. No question about that. He would be damn near 80 before taking office.

    He does have a following though, and a not insignificant amount of voters feel he was "robbed" in the last primary.

    Beto has a huge following, and he was damn close to moving a mountain in Texas. That's not insignificant. I think he'll make it pretty far in the primary, but I don't think he'll get the nod.

    Booker is Beto light. Similar following.

    A lot of folks called Obama "not presidential", and he won two terms. I wouldn't call Trump presidential either, and he won. I think "looking presidential" isn't high on the voters' list of priorities, unless that's code for "stuffy, old (but not too old) white guy".

    I definitely think she has a better shot than most, but she's been a conservative boogeyman for awhile, so there's baggage.

    Maybe she's not getting enough coverage where you're looking? Her name has been household for at least the last year nationally and she's well known in California. While that might not seem like much, more than one in ten Americans is a Californian. It's our most populous state where she's been a popular politician since 2004.

    This country is way too racist to even possibly give her a shot. :lol:

    Not this round, but unfortunately I think he's going to be around for awhile.

    As fun as running with a campaign slogan of "I Told You So", I think the Clinton dynasty needs to lay low until Chelsea runs for office.

    See: Maxine Waters. This country doesn't really like black people or women and especially when they're rich and smart.

    Everything she's said has indicated she doesn't want to run.

    So a black woman with a JD from Harvard who was actually in the white house for almost a decade is unqualified, but a guy with no political bona fides could "definitely win"?

    Another who isn't going to run, but I agree with most of your characterization of him.

    He's got an interesting reputation nationally. Mostly seems favorable, but I don't see him going all the way. I think he would do well against Trump, but everything I've read puts him more as a centrist, which is going to be a tough sell against more progressive candidates.

    America is weird. We love the troops...except when we don't. If there's one thing the last couple of Republican administrations have shown is that you can trash veterans, active duty, generals, and military families as much as you want as long as you're not a minority.

    That said, I'd love to see Tammy Duckworth campaign.

    It's interesting reading opinions from folks in different countries. Puts a lot of perspective on things. Where are you getting your news? I would stick to Reuters and AP. NPR isn't bad, same with PBS. Stay away from CNN and Fox.

    I'm way more interested to see who the third party candidates are. That's probably going to have more of an impact.
     
    Solodini likes this.
  8. Flappydoodle

    Flappydoodle SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    579
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Well, Hillary would have won if she'd actually campaigned well. I don't think being a woman held her back in 2016. She simply ran a laughably bad, tone deaf campaign, and even then it was pretty close - less than 200,000 votes across a few swing states. In 2020, the attitude will have changed even more.

    Agreed. But I think Bernie's support will die off. I've barely seen Bernie since he dropped out of the race. And I think many of his supporters would easily cross over to Warren.

    He did come close, but I kinda feel that was more about delivering a progressive "fuck you" to Cruz, rather than Beto actually being any good. The media were pushing him 100%. CNN was leg-humping him. And everybody seems to hate Cruz, including a good portion of Republicans. In a primary with other candidates, I don't see it. And vs Trump, maybe - but again, the image thing holds him back IMO.

    In my own definition, "presidential" basically means looking like a leader. Strong. Preferably tall. Preferably good looking. Or at least having other significant accomplishments as your image - being a billionaire. Beto looks like a college kid. He doesn't seriously look like a president. Bernie has the same problem - he looks like an eccentric college professor with his wild, blustery white hair. He doesn't look like someone who could sit down with Putin and Xi. Trump is a bit of an anomaly, but he is tall, was pretty good looking, and has/had his whole brand of success and previous fame and name recognition to help him.

    True.


    She just seems like a try-hard, if that makes sense. Someone too desperate to make a name for herself.



    Well, I'm not sure about that. I think it's more to do with her being perceived as bonkers, rather than her being black. I think a black candidate could easily win in 2020. Obama won twice. The same swing state voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008. I just don't think there are enough anti-black racists to change the election. In fact, we both know that a black candidate would automatically get a FAR higher proportion of the non-white vote, which is arguably a more influential racially-driven vote.



    Urgh, Chelsea is just awful. I forgot about her too, lol. She was definitely gearing up for something after the election.



    You're saying people don't like Oprah? She's enormously popular. Anybody on her show is instant celebrity. Any book on her list is instant number one. She has a HUGE captive audience. Did you see her speech at whatever Hollywood award ceremony? TV news was glorifying it for days. People were begging her to run. As I said, she'd get the majority of the woman vote, almost 100% of the black and minority vote. How would anybody attack her? Her background and where she came from, what she overcame, is incredible. Her accomplishments are undeniable. Her skillset is broad. None of it can be realistically criticised. The biggest attack would simply be her lack of experience, but that clearly isn't a limitation. A handful of racists won't make any difference against the absolute landslide she would win by.


    Well, they all say that, until they do. :p



    I didn't say she's "unqualified" exactly. Nobody doubts that she's smart. I said she has no "claim" apart from being First Lady. Michelle would rally the left and the right. Someone with less baggage, such as Oprah, would rally the left without rallying the right, even though she's also a black woman. Thus, she has a better chance to win.

    The Rock has the image, power, charisma etc to easily win. He looks tough. He IS tough. He talks well. He's quick and snappy and good looking. Nobody cares about lack of experience, which I expand on later.

    Make no mistake, Zuckerberg definitely was planning to run. And he will almost certainly run for something at some point. Nobody tours the country, visits swing states, visits factories and police stations and farmers and "gets to know the country better" unless they're planning a run. He probably won't run in 2020 due to all of the negative publicity around Facebook.

    Bloomberg could win because people might actually WANT a centrist candidate. In fact, I predict that people on both sides will be fed up. Trump is too much drama. The Democrats are also driving themselves absolutely insane. None of them look great. I don't think there will be a progressive wave. I think people will be fed up, and looking for a middle ground. They're already talking about starting primaries later this year.

    Well, I don't think being a minority or not matters. Trump is certainly taking heat for every time he criticises someone related to the military - even when some of his attacks were perfectly justified. But as long as Republicans support increased defence spending, the military will support them.

    A bit of everywhere. FT, WSJ, check Drudge occasionally, reddit.

    Good point about 3rd party candidates. I suspect that there will either be none, or lots.
     
  9. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    9,832
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    She did run a bad campaign, but if wasn't for a third party candidate that swooped up progressive voters she would have won those states.

    Again though, she did win the popular vote. She received millions more votes, but our system can easily be gamed, which is what happened.

    I don't think her visiting the Midwest would have done anything. I've lived out here for almost a decade. Folks in the boonies vote red no matter what.

    It's been years and his support seems to be ever growing. He doesn't have a sweet pundit gig on a major cable network, but him and his team are incredibly active on social media. I hate to say it, but social media matters these days.

    I never perceived that he wasn't liked by Republicans. He's been beholden to modern conservative orthodoxy his whole political career. He's a reliable Republican, which is why he's stayed in office so long.

    There's a lot to unpack here. Maybe another time. :lol:

    For the record, Beto is 46 years old and 6' 4". He's also a self made multi-millionaire.

    Bernie is 6' tall, making him taller than both Xi and Vlad. He's also a multi-millionaire.

    We'll have a much better idea after the first few debates.

    Do you have any examples?

    Nothing she's done recently is different than how she's governed her whole political career. It's not like she's changed her positions on key issues very recently, at least from what I've followed. Though, certain media outlets have been giving her a heck of a lot of coverage the last year.

    I don't think voters are as liquid as you're implying. The left already has the minority vote, at least those who aren't stopped from voting.

    If she's "bonkers" what does that make Trump? Her policy positions are sound, and obviously Trump and the larger right are threatened enough to single her out with name calling.

    I can't say I've ever had as strong of an opinion on her. Any reason she's especially awful?

    She wouldn't get any more votes that any other left leaning, progressive candidate would get. I highly doubt she'd covert any Republicans.

    She's not necessarily perfect either. She's had her controversies over the years, especially how she's run her businesses.

    True point. :lol:

    What does "claim" mean?

    You have a type. We get it. :lol:

    I can see him trying to run, but not yet. :agreed:

    If the mid terms proved anything is that centrists are not in demand.

    The demographics of the armed forces are changing rapidly, as is their political association.

    That certainly explains a lot. FT isn't bad, but WSJ definitely skews right, but usually is fact-based. Drudge is garbage though, it's the right's answer to rags like Daily Kos. :lol:

    We'll see if the left learned their lesson.
     
    Solodini likes this.
  10. Flappydoodle

    Flappydoodle SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    579
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    "Experience" certainly doesn't matter when it comes to winning elections. Firstly, the public don't understand experience. They can't weigh it or compare it. How do we compare a former senator, city mayor, governor, military leader, attorney general, CEO, etc? Who the hell knows. Only Vice President we know would be relevant and have true insight to the job. Secondly, in 2020 Trump will be the most experienced candidate possible, so that argument about experience doesn't work in Democrats' favour.

    I saw an article in The Hill today saying that Warren is trying to bulk up her foreign policy credibility. She has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee since last year. Again, nobody cares. Nobody knows what that Committee is, or whether that "experience" is worth anything. She'd be better off repeatedly emphasising that she's from a military family and that all 3 of her brothers served etc. That's what people understand and can relate to. She gave her first speech at Iowa, going on about healthcare for all etc. You know what the first audience question was? About her DNA test. Trump is a fucking master of this sort of stuff. Something so stupid and unimportant is causing problems for her. And she's done everything possible to combat it - taking every fact-based approach she can, including all her university transcripts, comments from the people who interviewed her for the job, and even releasing DNA test results. And none of it matters. Anybody wanting to defeat Trump needs to know how to play this game. You can't defeat opinions with facts. It simply doesn't work.

    Winning the primary is mostly about making a name for yourself, standing out and capturing the mood at the time. A celebrity candidate could easily do that. Winning the election is about looking like a winner and running a successful campaign - in other words, visiting the right places and having some sort of brand which people can identify with which suits the moment. Bush had his "regular guy to have a beer with" image. Obama had his grand aspirational speeches of hope and change. Trump had his tough-guy successful businessman image.

    Also, nobody gives two shits about policies and campaigns are not a suitable format for educating people about them. Hillary had all sorts of detailed plans. Nobody actually could tell you any of them. Nobody listens. Nobody cares. You need one or two simple, one-line statements which let people interpret them positively. Besides, we all know that the policies rarely come into fruition anyway, so whatever promises they make are irrelevant.

    You can always give lots of "what ifs". Hillary was just as unpopular as Trump, so no guarantee that Dr. Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. They might have just stayed at home. Turnout is king - not vote-flipping.

    I totally disagree. Winning the popular vote is irrelevant under the system which has always been used for US elections. Since that isn't a winning metric, even considering it is pointless. The system wasn't gamed, because both candidates and their teams know in advance what they have to do to win - i.e. capture swing states. They should plan their strategy accordingly. She assumed she would win by default and was going for a "kill" with a huge victory. I believe she didn't visit Wisconsin a single time in 2016. Huge tactical errors on her part.

    And if people in those states voted red no matter what, they wouldn't be swing states. The fact that Obama won those states twice kinda disproves that.


    True. I do totally ignore social media. We'll see how it carries over into real life support. It clearly worked a few times during the mid-terms.


    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-dinner/index.html


    Forbes says Bernie declared his own net worth at $700K in 2016. If that's his net worth at his age after decades in a good job, I wouldn't call that successful by a long shot.

    As for Beto, he's apparently worth about $8M, but his father sold a multi-billion dollar company and his wife is also from incredibly rich parents, so it's hard to believe that his money isn't from there. I've no problem with that, but it isn't exactly a selling point unless he's going to get up there and brag about how successful he is.

    I'll admit, I did go check and my mental image of Beto was out of date. He looks much better now with the grey hair and grown up hair style. His wiki page has a kinda dorky, floppy college student look, lol.


    Sure, but look at the difference in black turnout between Obama and Hillary.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cc6afd7141d

    Again, not about flipping voters. It's about driving turnout.

    Trump is far more bonkers. But Republicans can be nuts and still win. Democrats (probably) can't.

    Looks like a horse, lol. Also, from all the leaked emails she sounds like a total cuntbag. Whiny, petulant, spoiled, demanding. Also, even though I'm British, the idea of political dynasties is kinda gross. The Clintons need to go away IMO.

    Nah. Again, it's not about converting anybody. It's about turnout. See the link above. Only maybe 10-12% of people flip their vote.

    Drudge just links to other news - 90% being regular NBC, CNN, WaPo, Fox etc. He writes dramatic headlines, but it's still a pretty good instant snapshot of the day. He also quite often use local sources, like Demoines Register for covering Warren in Iowa.

    Also, reddit certainly provides enough left-wing garbage to counter it - Shareblue, MoveOn etc all at the top.

    Well, again you're assuming that Dr. Stein voters would have preferred Hillary. :p
     
  11. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,937
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    With the huge caveat that I think Clinton running would be a mistake...

    ...this is kind of an interesting argument, and I'm not convinced you're wrong. I'm not sure I agree Clinton ran a bad campaign in 2016 - a lot of armchair quarterbacks are saying she should have campaigned more in the Rust Belt, but that overlooks the fact most of those races only got competitive in the final week of the campaign. Beyond that... I think the single biggest flaw in her campaign was never successfully managing to turn it into an issue-based campaign (her platform was pretty solid, and as much as the progressives complain, there really wasn't much daylight between herself and Sanders on the issues), and instead allowing Trump to continue to dominate the news cycle and keep it a personality-based campaign, which despite Trump's myriad personality issues, probably played in his favor, given her low personal approval numbers. Hell, you could almost make "But, her emails..." the campaign slogan. :lol: I think, deep down inside, though, she knows that door is closed to her.

    I think you're overestimating how much it "helps" to be a woman in American politics, too - it'll likely help Warren with the progressive base, but will be the basis of a lot of attacks about her being too "emotional" and not "controlled" or "experienced" enough to steer the nation, because we need a calm, controlled, stable (read: male) leader, which will hurt her with independents and center-right voters who might otherwise want to see an alternative to Trump.

    I'd love to see Bloomberg run, but I don't think he can win - he's a man who made his fortune selling a data analysis platform to Wall Street, the progressive left won't accept him.

    Best case scenario, IMO, is Trump gets primaried by a moderate like Kucinich, and it matters a lot less who the left runs.
     
    JSanta likes this.
  12. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    362
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Bloomberg reporting that tax refunds will indeed get paid during the shutdown. The downside being that it will put less pressure on the government being reopened...
     
  13. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,608
    Likes Received:
    4,076
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Even still. Trump already backpeddled on it being a "wall", backpeddled on it being included in this legislation by saying he'll do it by "emergency funding" military funding. For a guy that thinks he's going to get what he wants and he's supposed to be some "expert negotiator", he's sure spent the last week downplaying expectations.

    Huge miscalculation on his part. Shutdown blame almost universally falls in the lap of the president at the time and the majority party in Congress when it was initiated. Republicans had all three branches when this started, lots of news about it for weeks and increasingly negative coverage of the people put out of work in the meantime, and ultimately it's going to end during Democratic control of HoR with a high likelihood it will NOT include wall funding. Those optics are pretty much inescapable at this point.
     
  14. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,937
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Technically, Bloomberg reported the White House stated that tax refunds will get paid during the shutdown. Considering the IRS is currently shut down, and there are still open questions the IRS has to resolve on the implications of certain sections of the TCJA, I'm not entirely sure how they plan on doing that.
     
  15. bostjan

    bostjan MicroMetal Contributor

    Messages:
    15,228
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Location:
    St. Johnsbury, VT USA
    Re: tax refunds - Sadly, we've seen more than a few examples of information like that coming out of the White House that are simply not steeped in any factual background whatsoever; so it has come to the point where I simply disbelieve it.

    Re: candidates - The DNC isn't likely to back a male candidate in 2020 for the simple fact that, if anyone, female or male, comes forward with any sort of accusation of personal misconduct, it would embarassingly torpedo the campaign. We're at the point now that if you are a man and you ever patted someone on the shoulder, you are at risk of being career-blacklisted a la Garrison Keillor.
     
  16. MFB

    MFB ExBendable

    Messages:
    12,310
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    This might be the first year I file my taxes as early as possible in the hopes a human is there to actually get to them :lol:
     
  17. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,937
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    I agree with you on the White House, clearly. :lol:

    Re: a male candidate in 2020... I'm not so sure I agree, for the simple reason that I don't think that's territory Trump really wants to find himself in. His allegations of sexual assault, and the Access Hollywood tape, by rights should have torpedoed his campaign, had it not been for an 11th hour Hail Mary in the form of the Comey Letter. If Trump's the nominee, and his handlers do at ALL a good job keeping him on script (yeah, yeah... :lol:) then I don't know if that works in Trump's favor, because if you're going after a male Democrat for an inappropriate pat on the shoulder or something, it's way too easy to question the integrity of this attack coming from a man who has bragged about, and been accused of by a number of women, sexual assault, and who is under federal investigation for paying off porn stars to bury their stories about affairs he had with them while married to his current wife.

    I do think that against Clinton, it may not have been a bad strategy to make the campaign about personal likability rather than policy... But against any Democrat facing accusations at or below the level of say Al Franken, I think that's too likely to backfire.
     
    JoshuaVonFlash and vilk like this.
  18. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,608
    Likes Received:
    4,076
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    All Al Franken ever did was air honk'a titty!
     
  19. BlackSG91

    BlackSG91 Loves Black Guitars

    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    266
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Location:
    Oshawa, ON
    It looks like Trump will have to build an even bigger wall along the Canada-U.S. border if he wants to protect the country from terrorists and how many billions will that cost since that border is far much longer than the U.S.-Mexico border. I think Trump is painting himself into a corner with all the lies he spews since he won the election. How long will this freak show last?




    ;>)/
     
  20. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    362
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    So that conference last night accomished absolutely nothing but more fact checking.
     

Share This Page