|
HAHAHAHA
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
ex post facho posted:https://twitter.com/ECMcLaughlin/st...ingawful.com%2F What loving fantasy land do you have to live end to think this would have possibly ended another way? Of course no one was going to be indicted or at the absolutely maximum no one that mattered was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
the white hand posted:I love the inevitable parade of rich clowns pritzker represents self-funded candidates are the neolib dream.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
The Jan 6 hearings are going to cause even less people to vote for dems
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Lawlicaust posted:What loving fantasy land do you have to live end to think this would have possibly ended another way? Of course no one was going to be indicted or at the absolutely maximum no one that mattered was. Very bigoted against goldfish-Americans
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Democrats are not only hoping (and, in some cases, praying) that Donald Trump announces his 2024 presidential candidacy in August or September, they are actively planning for it, just in case. First, the Democrats expect Trump's entry to generate a huge financial windfall for the their Party. They are already thinking about how get their donors hopping mad and how to spend the incoming funds. Second, officials know that many base voters are despondent that the Democrats have achieved so little so far in Joe Biden's presidency. They believe that having nothing to run on would be forgotten if they have something (or someone) to run against. Third, a Trump announcement would consume all the political oxygen for weeks and make many people forget about inflation, the war in Ukraine, and much more. All the negative policy issues that could hurt the Democrats would be pushed into the background. Fourth, the continuous squabling between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party would stop in the face of a common enemy both wings desperately want to defeat. This would unify the Party in a way no legislative success could. Fifth, Trump still maintains that he won the 2020 election. Once he is an official candidate, every Republican running for any office from governor to deputy assistant dogcatcher is going to be asked: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" An answer of: "Trump won" is not going to sit will with independents or suburban women, but any other answer is going to get Trump to start yelling: "RINO" at the candidate, thus reducing Republican turnout. Of course, the decision when to jump in is Trump's alone. Factors like his hope that the Dept. of Justice will be scared to indict an active presidential candidate could play a role. If he delays too long and is indicted before he declares, it will be too late. There is no way the DoJ will scratch an indictment just because the suspect is running for office, incidentally, otherwise every suspect in the country would file to run for some office. But Trump presumably doesn't realize that, or else is in denial. If the Democrats were really smart, they'd have folks like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) go on all the news shows to opine that Trump isn't going to jump in anytime soon because he has tiny hands and because he's just too frightened of Mitch McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:https://twitter.com/MarshallCohen/status/1549124501400592385 wild that biden's messaging that the war is making grocery prices go up is making the war less popular
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
This is art
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:06
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:https://twitter.com/ECMcLaughlin/st...ingawful.com%2F loving lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:https://twitter.com/ECMcLaughlin/st...ingawful.com%2F it would be less insulting if they just came out and told everyone to gently caress themselves and that they weren't charging anyone because *fart noise*
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
Cope and seeth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
I don’t understand this idea that trump needs to run for office to shield himself. So what if he runs. It is 2 years before 2024 and that means he will be campaigning. He can be indicted, arrested and tried in that time. He doesn’t announce he is running and then he is president. Why does the media keep saying this like he is shielded from indictment as a candidate. There are plenty of candidates (maga) that are getting arrested, etc while campaigning. The media never says that. The immediately jump to him being president then he can’t be touched. Just because Trump thinks that does the media have to follow that stupid logic too? He has to get there first. And if Garland is working (as I hope he is), he could be indicted before the election for the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
Lawlicaust posted:What loving fantasy land do you have to live end to think this would have possibly ended another way? Of course no one was going to be indicted or at the absolutely maximum no one that mattered was. i mean, i was living in the fantasy land that democrats meant anything they said at one point (in 2008 (when i wasn't old enough to vote yet)) idk how anyone can maintain that illusion post them proudly saying they won't do poo poo post dobbs and jan 6 but maybe someone is that dumb
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Lol at trying to interpret the reason Dems give for their inaction as the actual reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Democrats are dumb to believe a crowd of rustic white trash almost overthrew the government I’m kidding of course they know better. The Jan 6 reality tv hearings are yet another stratagem the dems are cynically doing to avoid discussing the fact they’re materially loving you in the rear end
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Fifth, Trump still maintains that he won the 2020 election. Once he is an official candidate, every Republican running for any office from governor to deputy assistant dogcatcher is going to be asked: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" An answer of: "Trump won" is not going to sit will with independents or suburban women, but any other answer is going to get Trump to start yelling: "RINO" at the candidate, thus reducing Republican turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 10:04
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:
This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Republican voters think. Making a big show of going after RINOs is exactly what will drive Republican turnout. The mistake here is thinking that republicans are as cowed and unwilling to criticise their party as democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 10:24
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Republican voters think. Making a big show of going after RINOs is exactly what will drive Republican turnout. The mistake here is thinking that republicans are as cowed and unwilling to criticise their party as democrats. actually, that’s probably true
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 10:35
|
|
|
Republicans are always looking to purge their own ranks, it's one of the biggest differences between the parties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 10:46
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yeah but only if you're not willing to play chicken. At the end of the day Biden's agenda is hosed either way and self-destructive fury will play a lot better politically than feckless shrugging. Meanwhile Manchin wants to keep his (four! count em!) committee chairmanships as much as anybody else and while the republicans would no doubt lend him seniority, their chairs aren't going to give up their own spots to make the guy whole if he switches parties. That's why I wrote the rest. It only makes sense to play chicken if you care about governing which the dems strictly don't. There is no liberal project left to build, there is no democratic vision of the future yet to be created. It's here, now, and the point is to continue to get more money. That's it. There's nothing else to it. The whole of their politics is just whatever makes them money. Nothing else enters into the equation at any point. There is no ideology, just give them money. FreeRangeHexagon posted:This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how Republican voters think. Making a big show of going after RINOs is exactly what will drive Republican turnout. The mistake here is thinking that republicans are as cowed and unwilling to criticise their party as democrats. We say this all the time in the thread and the only theory that has even the slightest ring of truth to me is that the democratic powers that be literally have never encountered anyone in their daily life who is a normal conservative. Not necessarily chuds or Q crazies, but just your average republican voter. I always think back about the Cum Town ep just after Trump won and Adam mentioning that Michael Moore did predict Trump would win, win big, and did so very early and Nick just said "Of course, he's actually met someone not from a city." I imagine it comes back to the point above though. They don't care. They have no interest in governing at all, have nothing they want to get out of politics other than money, and republicans doing things and winning elections gets them money so who cares about what republican voters think or do? It doesn't affect the money spigot so why interrogate it? I genuinely think it just always comes to the fact that they have no political project so everything they do is absurd when viewed through the lens of politics. It's like asking why Doctors Without Borders isn't winning in the NBA, you can come up with a million reasons why their roster for next season looks weak and how they're well under the salary cap but really the reason is that they aren't a pro basketball franchise. But if you just keep acting like they are then every piece of evidence is more confusing than the last. That's analyzing the dems as a political party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
You'd think they'd put some effort into understanding Republican voters given their entire electoral strategy is this constant game of moving to the right in order to win over "moderate Republicans". The only conclusion I can come to is that they want to imagine that those mythical Republican swing voters are basically decent people (ie. like them) and that illusion disappears when you actually get to know them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
independents and suburban women, me ma mo it's 2004
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:You'd think they'd put some effort into understanding Republican voters given their entire electoral strategy is this constant game of moving to the right in order to win over "moderate Republicans". The only conclusion I can come to is that they want to imagine that those mythical Republican swing voters are basically decent people (ie. like them) and that illusion disappears when you actually get to know them. they want the besuited city slicker ghoul republicans, not the hicks
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
Doktor Avalanche posted:they want the besuited city slicker ghoul republicans, not the hicks didn't Hillary have some comment about how she had won more than two thirds of the country when you counted it by income? like, actively bragging about being unable to convince poor people to vote for her
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:didn't Hillary have some comment about how she had won more than two thirds of the country when you counted it by income? like, actively bragging about being unable to convince poor people to vote for her https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:didn't Hillary have some comment about how she had won more than two thirds of the country when you counted it by income? like, actively bragging about being unable to convince poor people to vote for her I can't find her quote about it, but yes, I do recall that she bragged about that. Here's a pre-election article outlying the phenomenon https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/23/the-rich-vote-republican-maybe-not-this-time.html quote:For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate (quoter's note -
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:22
|
|
).
|
Doktor Avalanche posted:https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/ drat, sure would suck for Hillary if the electoral college meant that power in elections is disproportionately in the hands of states with relatively rural population bases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:drat, sure would suck for Hillary if the electoral college meant that power in elections is disproportionately in the hands of states with relatively rural population bases. Or if it was directly elected and poor people outnumbered rich people by an absurd amount.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:Or if it was directly elected and poor people outnumbered rich people by an absurd amount. Nixon tried to do that in his first term (not because he cared about democracy, he just wanted to screw George Wallace) and I can't help but think about how the democrats would have won at least two more presidential elections if they'd bothered to support that. I'd say they screwed up but I can never decide if they actually want to win or not so I'm not actually sure. FreeRangeHexagon has issued a correction as of 13:38 on Jul 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
lmao that in 2017 the big thing democrats were mad about was that trump and mcconnell stole Marrick Garland's spot on the scrotus he would have been a dogshit justice lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
spacemang_spliff posted:lmao that in 2017 the big thing democrats were mad about was that trump and mcconnell stole Marrick Garland's spot on the scrotus it's still incredible to me that they just kind of got away with that, I really want to see the alternate universe where they kept blocking his appointment throughout the entirety of a Hillary administration because I think that would be funny
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
I enjoyed NPR finding one hundred ways to say "well no they don't have to confirm him, ever"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:it's still incredible to me that they just kind of got away with that, I really want to see the alternate universe where they kept blocking his appointment throughout the entirety of a Hillary administration because I think that would be funny republicans also stole the election in 2000 so the democrats have a long history of meekly rolling over while Republicans gently caress the institutions they claim to hold dear
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:republicans also stole the election in 2000 so the democrats have a long history of meekly rolling over while Republicans gently caress the institutions they claim to hold dear and now they love Bush because he said some vaguely negative things about Trump even though he literally stole an election from them
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:and now they love Bush because he said some vaguely negative things about Trump even though he literally stole an election from them hey that's not fair, he also shared a candy with michelle obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Pepe Silvia Browne posted:hey that's not fair, Yeah, and I guess he did some painting of sad looking dogs. We've figured out the exactly 3 things he has done since leaving office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
FreeRangeHexagon posted:Nixon tried to do that in his first term (not because he cared about democracy, he just wanted to screw George Wallace) and I can't help but think about how the democrats would have won at least two more presidential elections if they'd bothered to support that. I'd say they screwed up but I can never decide if they actually want to win or not so I'm not actually sure. They don’t. Harder to fundraise when you are in power and doing nothing. Easier to fundraise when you don’t have power and can promise a bunch of What If bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I am announcing my candidacy for president of the United States. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Lawlicaust posted:They don’t. Harder to fundraise when you are in power and doing nothing. Easier to fundraise when you don’t have power and can promise a bunch of What If bullshit. yeah, you can see this with how frequently libs try to drag you into arguing about hypothetical poo poo, like Hillary's covid response
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
bush
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2022 15:28
|
|