FFS, can't people quote and reply without leaving all of the other posts in the reply?! It's not that difficult.
And Trump still sucks.
FFS, can't people quote and reply without leaving all of the other posts in the reply?! It's not that difficult.
And Trump still sucks.
nontrumper wrote:
FFS, can't people quote and reply without leaving all of the other posts in the reply?! It's not that difficult.
And Trump still sucks.
Yes.
Yes.
Uh....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-boltons-written-note-on-troops-to-colombia-raises-eyebrows
Here is Trump’s 2020 plan for election victory....
1) negotiate an exit in Afghanistan
2) pull out of Syria
3) start a War in Venezuela
4) due to #3 declare a state of emergency to build a wall to prevent “insurgents” from the War from crossing the Southern border
5) WIN!
Mojo Nixon wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Edited correctly:
LBJ: More
Nixon: Less
Ford: More (slightly)
Carter: Push (Governor of a state for 4 years doesn't necessarily Trump being a US Senator, especially not for GA; Obama has more appropriate education too)
Reagan: Less. His ONLY qualification was the fact he was Governor of CA. A big job to be sure, but Obama was more appropriately educated and was an elected official for longer than Reagan was.
Bush, Sr.: More (one of the most qualified ever)
Clinton: Push (again, a governor, especially of Arkansas, doesn't necessarily Trump being a US Senator, and only the fact that he was Attorney General of Arkansas makes this a push)
Bush, Jr.: Less. 5 years as Governor doesn't beat Obama's 12 years of elected office.
Trump: A lot Less
Anyone who thinks Obama had more relevant experience to be POTUS than Nixon needs his head examined.
Must be a youngin' who doesn't know his history. Nixon would be near the top, if not the top. - Congressman, Senator, 2x VP
Yeah, that should have been "More" there, and what I meant to put in there. Not sure how I put that in there. Nixon clearly had more relevant experience.
Flagpole wrote:
Stright from the Fox wrote:
Did Limbaugh or Hannity write that. Sheesh. What a partisan hack piece.
Written By Kate Zernikeand Jeff Zeleny for the New York Times in 2008.
Agree or Disagree?
nontrumper wrote:
FFS, can't people quote and reply without leaving all of the other posts in the reply?! It's not that difficult.
And Trump still sucks.
+1
aehyr wrote:
https://pics.me.me/a-seufet-society-of-deep-state-operatives-under-ehe-direction-32827064.png
LOL! Nice! Very, very accurate depiction of the mental gymnastics required to still support Trump now after all of his shenanigans.
L L wrote:
While Trump was shutting the government down over funding for a wall that would hinder illegal immigration, his golf club fired 12 people that were enticed by people like Trump to come to this country illegally for work.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-golf-club-fired-12-workers-living-u-s-illegally-n963341Acting like they didn't know about fake documentation.
They are like the cop in Casablanca:
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Jebus...what a moran.
Paul from MN wrote:
All I know that the next Democrat nominee needs to go to the left if they want to win the election.
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Trumpettes are not American!....
did I do that right?
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
2020 Strategy comes into clear focus wrote:
Uh....
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-boltons-written-note-on-troops-to-colombia-raises-eyebrowsHere is Trump’s 2020 plan for election victory....
1) negotiate an exit in Afghanistan
2) pull out of Syria
3) start a War in Venezuela
4) due to #3 declare a state of emergency to build a wall to prevent “insurgents” from the War from crossing the Southern border
5) WIN!
Well, starting a war is always a good way to get re-elected—so there is definitely precident there. Also, if Trump can manage to cut taxes even more and simultaneously spend even more then he would definitely be following the GOP playbook of “fiscal responsibility”. Time will tell.
Flagpole wrote:
Mojo Nixon wrote:
Anyone who thinks Obama had more relevant experience to be POTUS than Nixon needs his head examined.
Must be a youngin' who doesn't know his history. Nixon would be near the top, if not the top. - Congressman, Senator, 2x VP
Yeah, that should have been "More" there, and what I meant to put in there. Not sure how I put that in there. Nixon clearly had more relevant experience.
Good for you admitting you were wrong.
Um, not so sure bro... wrote:
Paul from MN wrote:
All I know that the next Democrat nominee needs to go to the left if they want to win the election.
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Dems need to go way left.
These base Republicans today wouldn't vote for Reagan if he ran as a Democrat.
No point in trying to appease them or work for their vote.
If Trump is still on the ballot somehow, the moderates won't vote for him.
Get the fringe lefties motivated and excited about their candidate. Many of them didn't vote for Hillary or Obama.
Socialism now!
Trump’s wearing a black muumuu instead of a business suit nowadays. He’ll explode before another election at this rate.
L L wrote:
Um, not so sure bro... wrote:
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Dems need to go way left.
These base Republicans today wouldn't vote for Reagan if he ran as a Democrat.
No point in trying to appease them or work for their vote.
If Trump is still on the ballot somehow, the moderates won't vote for him.
Get the fringe lefties motivated and excited about their candidate. Many of them didn't vote for Hillary or Obama.
Socialism now!
Moderate Republicans didn't vote for Trump in 2016 either. They voted for pro-business judge nominations, less regulation, tax cuts, etc. It's a vote "for the party" which is why they'll always vote R no matter who it is on the ballot.
L L wrote:
Um, not so sure bro... wrote:
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Dems need to go way left.
These base Republicans today wouldn't vote for Reagan if he ran as a Democrat.
No point in trying to appease them or work for their vote.
If Trump is still on the ballot somehow, the moderates won't vote for him.
Get the fringe lefties motivated and excited about their candidate. Many of them didn't vote for Hillary or Obama.
Socialism now!
Perhaps maybe just Democratic Socialism?
For the record before someone accuses me of being the most liberal person ever, I'm not for the most fiscally liberal parts of Bernie's and AOC's ideas...socially yes, but on the fiscal side, what the GOP used to SAY had merit...too bad they actually never put it into practice even before Trump destroyed the party.
I actually fall very similarly to where Alan is...fiscal conservative, social liberal who doesn't believe guns should be outlawed but that there should be SOME restrictions on guns (including a bit more than we have today).
1100 wrote:
Trumpettes are not American!....
did I do that right?
Very nice!
Gonna have to give you a solid A+
///
Here is the official version:
Trumpettes are NOT Americans!
L L wrote:
Um, not so sure bro... wrote:
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Dems need to go way left.
These base Republicans today wouldn't vote for Reagan if he ran as a Democrat.
No point in trying to appease them or work for their vote.
If Trump is still on the ballot somehow, the moderates won't vote for him.
Get the fringe lefties motivated and excited about their candidate. Many of them didn't vote for Hillary or Obama.
Socialism now!
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but the people who decide US prez elections are Indies, and Dems who don't show up.
To get the Indies to show, I don't think you promise to ban their work-provided health insurance (which Harris did already) - you go down the middle.
to get the Dems to show up and vote, you go identity politics and appeal to race, gender, etc.
You don't worry about Rs - they are irrelevant.
So the dems should get a center left person of color. A new Obama, preferably female. Harris fits that.
But I dont' think you go hard left - that would hurt your showing with the Indies, who are absolutely critical swing votes.
Just to be clearer -
the Dems should not go hard left because that would hurt them with indies.
the Dems should put people of color on the ticket, because that will help turnout in the election.
Hard left white guy, like bernie, would be the worst bloody thing ever.
