2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

notobtuse

Englo wrote: »

I see that Trump supporters have now switched from years of "Bernie was a good candidate who could have spoken to and worked for the everyday people better than anyone, but the Democrats conspired to rig the 2016 primaries against him" to "Bernie Sanders is just the worst thing ever", right in line with him taking a notable lead in the democrat primaries.

Gee, nobody could have seen that coming. If he doesn't get the nomination this year, they'll slip back to the former within 48 hours.

Nah, probably the best thing that could happen for Trump supporters would be for a Sanders to get the democrat nomination. Besides a Trump landslide win it would probably help us to take back the House as an added bonus.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

A potential problem for Trump is that Bernie and his supporters are basically the other side of the coin of himself. Both sides are basically a cult of personality so it will be interesting how things unfold

Can't say I agree there, if Bernie wound up screwing over as many of his voters as trump has I can't see them hiding anything resembling that kind of loyalty.

Sanders supportera see a guy who has been pushing for these items for decades, who is consistent and who they truly believe they can actually trust to look at the interests of all Americans, and not just the baby boomer generation and ultra wealthy (each of which have been among the worst things to ever happen to the US) at the expense of everyone else.

If he failed to deliver that in the way that Trump has failed to build much of any kind of wall, has caused farms to fail at record numbers thanks to a trade war where he made the US look like China's plaything, or has failed at bringing back the mining jobs, I could see him being voted out in a landslide in 2024. Would you?

If you would, then this is not the same as Trumpism. If you think they wouldnt, I would like to know why not?

Englo

notobtuse wrote: »

Nah, probably the best thing that could happen for Biden supporters would be for a Sanders to get the democrat nomination. .

I edited this quote to exactly what Trump supporters were saying prior to the last few weeks. It's boring and predictable.

Whichever of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Bloomberg, Warren, Sanders, Yang and so on is in the lead at any moment instantly becomes "the worst of them all!", because Trump supporters prefer to exude unquestioning loyalty over critical thinking skulls.

But with all the constant efforts to smear Biden over the last year having been for nothing (the man is perfectly capable of putting his foot in his own mouth without any assistance) I can see why they would be eager to shift focus.

How long until the Sanders investigation begins, and what do you think Barr will be trying to charge him for? I'm going for a June announcement by the DOJ, set to ramp up and keep in the news over the months leading into the election.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

Can't say I agree there, if Bernie wound up screwing over as many of his voters as trump has I can't see them hiding anything resembling that kind of loyalty.

Sanders supportera see a guy who has been pushing for these items for decades, who is consistent and who they truly believe they can actually trust to look at the interests of all Americans, and not just the baby boomer generation and ultra wealthy (each of which have been among the worst things to ever happen to the US) at the expense of everyone else.

If he failed to deliver that in the way that Trump has failed to build much of any kind of wall, has caused farms to fail at record numbers thanks to a trade war where he made the US look like China's plaything, or has failed at bringing back the mining jobs, I could see him being voted out in a landslide in 2024. Would you?

If you would, then this is not the same as Trumpism. If you think they wouldnt, I would like to know why not?

Sad fact is that many disillusioned folk see Trump as this figure that will look out for their interests. Trump gives them an excuse to blame liberals, foreigners, or non-white folk for all that is wrong in their lives and has them believing he cares for them.

Bernie is as good a man for blaming others for his failures as Trump is and so far Bernie's supporters have eaten it up. Last election Hillary beat him no matter what way you looked at the votes, yet it was 'stolen' from him'. The democrats bent over backwards after that election to change the rules and allowed Bernie direct input to them (which no other person running now had) and yet he still claims the establishment is rigged things against him. Because he has flip flopped on his stance regarding the plurality of votes prior to the convention which he screamed murder about last time and his supporters are cheering him on.

If Bernie is elected and can't get things through he'll blame the opposition or moderates in his own party, just like Trump and his base will lap it up. Most of his plans are already dead on arrival and the likes of AOC are already flagging that not everything will happen.

I don't think he'd be healthy enough to run again but he would be in the same position as Trump if he did and failed to push thing through. His base would support him still but moderates would be on the fence or negative.

Dotsie~tmp

Foxtrol wrote: »

A potential problem for Trump is that Bernie and his supporters are basically the other side of the coin of himself. Both sides are basically a cult of personality so it will be interesting how things unfold

"Cult of personality"

Its called being liked. Bernie is and Trump is. Lecturing authoritarians disdain these men because people are getting wide to the authoritarian bull****.

Englo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sad fact is that many disillusioned folk see Trump as this figure that will look out for their interests. Trump gives them an excuse to blame liberals, foreigners, or non-white folk for all that is wrong in their lives and has them believing he cares for them.

Which was fine in 2016. When those same farmers and miners are calling him their saviour in 2020 after he has down nothing for the latter and made the former considerably worse off, that's when you have a cult.

Bernie is as good a man for blaming others for his failures as Trump is and so far Bernie's supporters have eaten it up. Last election Hillary beat him no matter what way you looked at the votes, yet it was 'stolen' from him'. The democrats bent over backwards after that election to change the rules and allowed Bernie direct input to them (which no other person running now had) and yet he still claims the establishment is rigged things against him. Because he has flip flopped on his stance regarding the plurality of votes prior to the convention which he screamed murder about last time and his supporters are cheering him on.

That's pretty unfair on him, to be mild. First, while I think she would have won anyway and don't think it constituted outright fixing, there is zero doubt that in 2016 the DNC went out of their way to make it easier for her to win. Secondly, despite this he still campaigned for her and held over 30 rallies doing so leading into the election.

In response, she has decided to slur him from the sidelines this time around. And then the Iowa disaster definitely, definitely looked very suspicious. Beyond that, he has to deal with being repeatedly compared to the nazis to whom he being Jewish lost much of his direct family to, by MSNBC. This after months ofittle tricks like reporting how Biden was in number 1, while Warren or buttigieg were doing well in 3rd, with no mention of the guy in second. Just the other day one of the most demicrat prominent political pundits in the country said he might prefer 4 more years under Trump so the democrats don't ha e to change as a party and "can try to get someone they like" in there in 2024.

There's a lot of weird stuff going on there that you would need to have your fingers rammed in your ears for. I didn't buy into it much over the last cycle, but on this one - and especially since he has pushed ahead in the primaries - its pretty undeniable.

If Bernie is elected and can't get things through he'll blame the opposition or moderates in his own party, just like Trump and his base will lap it up. Most of his plans are already dead on arrival and the likes of AOC are already flagging that not everything will happen.

Since he has been in politics for over 40 years, you should have umpteen examples of him doing this before. Could you provide some?

I don't think he'd be healthy enough to run again but he would be in the same position as Trump if he did and failed to push thing through. His base would support him still but moderates would be on the fence or negative.

and this is based on what, exactly?


It's also worth noting that if all of the above were true, Sanders would have blamed the democrats as spreading 'fake news' about Russia trying to aid his campaign, perfect opportunity for a scapegoat eh? So why then did he instead make a very clear statement for Russian to keep out of US elections?

Calhoun

Englo wrote: »

Which was fine in 2016. When those same farmers and miners are calling him their saviour in 2020 after he has down nothing for the latter and made the former considerably worse off, that's when you have a cult.

That's pretty unfair on him, to be mild. First, while I think she would have won anyway and don't think it constituted outright fixing, there is zero doubt that in 2016 the DNC went out of their way to make it easier for her to win. Secondly, despite this he still campaigned for her and held over 30 rallies doing so leading into the election.

In response, she has decided to slur him from the sidelines this time around. And then the Iowa disaster definitely, definitely looked very suspicious. Beyond that, he has to deal with being repeatedly compared to the nazis to whom he being Jewish lost much of his direct family to, by MSNBC. This after months ofittle tricks like reporting how Biden was in number 1, while Warren or buttigieg were doing well in 3rd, with no mention of the guy in second. Just the other day one of the most demicrat prominent political pundits in the country said he might prefer 4 more years under Trump so the democrats don't ha e to change as a party and "can try to get someone they like" in there in 2024.

There's a lot of weird stuff going on there that you would need to have your fingers rammed in your ears for. I didn't buy into it much over the last cycle, but on this one - and especially since he has pushed ahead in the primaries - its pretty undeniable.

Since he has been in politics for over 40 years, you should have umpteen examples of him doing this before. Could you provide some?

and this is based on what, exactly?

Could it also be that the reason people are going back to Trump is not because he has delivered for them but because of what the democrats represent at the moment.

They are so caught up in identity politics that they cannot see the wood from the trees at times and have been fairly scathing of each other and of the American public that it turns voters off.

Its like with allot of the left in Ireland, what is so toxic about them people would rather have someone like Trump instead.

Englo

Calhoun wrote: »

Could it also be that the reason people are going back to Trump is not because he has delivered for them but because of what the democrats represent at the moment.

They are so caught up in identity politics that they cannot see the wood from the trees at times and have been fairly scathing of each other and of the American public that it turns voters off.

Its like with allot of the left in Ireland, what is so toxic about them people would rather have someone like Trump instead.

The irony is, it is actually the GOP who are perhaps the most embedded party in identity politics in the US, and they have been for quite some time.

Identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics ... Examples include identity politics based on age, religion, social class, profession, culture, language, disability, education, race or ethnicity, sex, gender identity, occupation, sexual orientation, urban or rural habitation, and veteran status.

The truth is that the Americans larger love identity politics, but vehemently hate identity politics that do not align with their worldview. This is true if the left and the right, urban and rural, young and old. They need to put serious investment into their education system and how they present their news, as well as focusing strongly on critical thinking skills, if they are to ever overcome this.

But we just saw how well our 'mini Trumps' did a few weeks ago, his particular brand of right wing to far right identity politics is one that doesnt really go over in Ireland at all, which may be in part down to our history and our less common situation of our nationalist movement typically being more on the left than the right side of the political spectrum.

Calhoun

Englo wrote: »

The irony is, it is actually the GOP who are perhaps the most embedded party in identity politics in the US, and they have been for quite some time.

Identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics ... Examples include identity politics based on age, religion, social class, profession, culture, language, disability, education, race or ethnicity, sex, gender identity, occupation, sexual orientation, urban or rural habitation, and veteran status.

The truth is that the Americans larger love identity politics, but vehemently hate identity politics that do not align with their worldview. This is true if the left and the right, urban and rural, young and old. They need to put serious investment into their education system and how they present their news, as well as focusing strongly on critical thinking skills, if they are to ever overcome this.

But we just saw how well our 'mini Trumps' did a few weeks ago, his particular brand of right wing to far right identity politics is one that doesnt really go over in Ireland at all, which may be in part down to our history and our less common situation of our nationalist movement typically being more on the left than the right side of the political spectrum.

I assume you mean embattled party? and they probably are but they know they are sticking with trump for the most part.

Agreed they do love it very much but you think they would at least try and calm it down internally before an election. There are different levels and variance of identity politics as well and discounting based on sex, race, or gender identity is not the best way to win votes. That goes for either side of the political spectrum.

We did indeed see how well our mini-trumps did but they are as toxic as allot of the left in Ireland in terms of message. The parties that were more centre focused are the ones that won out. You would think in a social democratic republic that this would not be the case but it is.

Englo

Calhoun wrote: »

I assume you mean embattled party? and they probably are but they know they are sticking with trump for the most part.

Agreed they do love it very much but you think they would at least try and calm it down internally before an election. There are different levels and variance of identity politics as well and discounting based on sex, race, or gender identity is not the best way to win votes. That goes for either side of the political spectrum.

We did indeed see how well our mini-trumps did but they are as toxic as allot of the left in Ireland in terms of message. The parties that were more centre focused are the ones that won out. You would think in a social democratic republic that this would not be the case but it is.

Well that's an interesting one - remember Never Trumpers? There was at least as much division in the republican party in early 2016 as there is in the democrats now, it's part of their weird and broken political system.

The democrats had a similar issue in 2016, after which sanders came out and openly campaigned for Clinton. What will be interesting to me is which establishment type democrats will do the same for Sanders. The talk on MSNBC of possibly preferring Trump over someone who will raise taxes on billionaires and corporations is an yew opener that its far from any kind of certainty.

I don't think I could consider SF to be centrist though.

Calhoun

Englo wrote: »

Well that's an interesting one - remember Never Trumpers? There was at least as much division in the republican party in early 2016 as there is in the democrats now, it's part of their weird and broken political system.

The democrats had a similar issue in 2016, after which sanders came out and openly campaigned for Clinton. What will be interesting to me is which establishment type democrats will do the same for Sanders. The talk on MSNBC of possibly preferring Trump over someone who will raise taxes on billionaires and corporations is an yew opener that its far from any kind of certainty.

I don't think I could consider SF to be centrist though.

The republican party for the most part have seemed to have fallen in line, as when they step out of line he runs a candidate in their area.

It will be interesting alright, I would prefer the democrats to the republicans any day of the week its frustrating to see them fall apart compared to years gone by. Could be because all this was kept in house pre-internet age.

SF are centre left but they are definitely not hard left. They have issues in and of themselves because allot of their new supporters are not hard liners like their old supporters and they could loose them if they don't move closer to them. However i meant more the traditional left were completely ignored.

Foxtrol

Englo wrote: »

Which was fine in 2016. When those same farmers and miners are calling him their saviour in 2020 after he has down nothing for the latter and made the former considerably worse off, that's when you have a cult.

Agreed

That's pretty unfair on him, to be mild. First, while I think she would have won anyway and don't think it constituted outright fixing, there is zero doubt that in 2016 the DNC went out of their way to make it easier for her to win. Secondly, despite this he still campaigned for her and held over 30 rallies doing so leading into the election.

In response, she has decided to slur him from the sidelines this time around. And then the Iowa disaster definitely, definitely looked very suspicious. Beyond that, he has to deal with being repeatedly compared to the nazis to whom he being Jewish lost much of his direct family to, by MSNBC. This after months ofittle tricks like reporting how Biden was in number 1, while Warren or buttigieg were doing well in 3rd, with no mention of the guy in second. Just the other day one of the most demicrat prominent political pundits in the country said he might prefer 4 more years under Trump so the democrats don't ha e to change as a party and "can try to get someone they like" in there in 2024.

There's a lot of weird stuff going on there that you would need to have your fingers rammed in your ears for. I didn't buy into it much over the last cycle, but on this one - and especially since he has pushed ahead in the primaries - its pretty undeniable.

You've stated your view of what happened, what I saw was a guy moaning that the rules for the democratic primary suited democrats over outsiders (how dare they!) and then he chose to held out for much longer than he should have before dropping out and endorsing her (something he is suddenly against now being the front runner). There's no point in going around in circles on 2016, I'm not going there any further.

Since he has been in politics for over 40 years, you should have umpteen examples of him doing this before. Could you provide some?

and this is based on what, exactly?

I've given examples of his actions of blaming others for his failures during both the 2016 and 2020 elections and quite frankly he doesn't have a huge amount to show outside that for his 40 years in politics. He was on the right side of some issues but leadership on tangible legislative changes is pretty minimal.

It's also worth noting that if all of the above were true, Sanders would have blamed the democrats as spreading 'fake news' about Russia trying to aid his campaign, perfect opportunity for a scapegoat eh? So why then did he instead make a very clear statement for Russian to keep out of US elections?

He could have gone that route but it would have been a bigger loser for him due to keeping the story in the news cycle for longer. The problem is that it appears to be 'real news' that he preferred wasn't released, rather than anything 'fake', and there was no sign of a smoking gun that the release was a Dem.

Foxtrol

Calhoun wrote: »

The republican party for the most part have seemed to have fallen in line, as when they step out of line he runs a candidate in their area.

Never Trumpers have either gotten in line or left the party at this point. There is no place for dissent in that party now and there will be nowhere for them to go if Bernie is the nominee.

It will be interesting alright, I would prefer the democrats to the republicans any day of the week its frustrating to see them fall apart compared to years gone by. Could be because all this was kept in house pre-internet age.

Problem with the internet age brings is that with online funding candidates can stay in the race much longer and it messes up clear options emerging until it is too late. By the time people drop out the other candidate has too much of a lead, it helped Trump in 2016 and Bernie in 2020.

SF are centre left but they are definitely not hard left. They have issues in and of themselves because allot of their new supporters are not hard liners like their old supporters and they could loose them if they don't move closer to them. However i meant more the traditional left were completely ignored.

SF would be extremely hard left in the US, even more radical than what even Bernie is proposing.

Outlaw Pete

Oh dear, sleepy Joe just keeps coming out with the doozies.


https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1232482489693683712

notobtuse

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh dear, sleepy Joe just keeps coming out with the doozies.


https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1232482489693683712

Foxtrol

Bernie looked rattled for the first time last night. It doesn't look like he is dealing well with the scrutiny of being the front runner and having focus put on him.

I always thought a debate between him and Trump would be a grumble off but Bernie getting rattled isn't a good sign with how he would deal with him face to face.

notobtuse

Foxtrol wrote: »

Bernie looked rattled for the first time last night. It doesn't look like he is dealing well with the scrutiny of being the front runner and having focus put on him.

I always thought a debate between him and Trump would be a grumble off but Bernie getting rattled isn't a good sign with how he would deal with him face to face.

I had to Tivo the debate because I worked. The debate sure was something, starting out with that shouting match.

Sanders is out of step with a majority of democrats and will get few votes from suburban voters and middle America in the general election. Two candidates nailed it in regards to Sanders and his pie in the sky policies. Klobuchar… “a bunch of broken promises that sound good on bumper stickers.” Buttigieg… “It adds up to four more years of Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House, and the inability to get the Senate into Democratic hands.”

A senior South Carolina Democratic official, on condition of anonymity, said after the debate... “The staff of these candidates are performing political malpractice.” “This was an opportunity to connect with the folks of South Carolina — to share the stories and heartaches, the dreams and pains of the people they have met over the past year.” “They all failed miserably,”

All the candidates needed a good debate but instead got a bad on. There was no winner from those on stage, just a bunch of survivors with all but Sanders and Bloomberg barely hanging on until Super Tuesday.

Maybe it would be best if all the democrat candidates should just stop talking before Super Tuesday after that incoherent mess last night.

And once again the winner of a democrat debate goes to Donald Trump.

Foxtrol

notobtuse wrote: »

I had to Tivo the debate because I worked. The debate sure was something, starting out with that shouting match.

Sanders is out of step with a majority of democrats and will get few votes from suburban voters and middle America in the general election. Two candidates nailed it in regards to Sanders and his pie in the sky policies. Klobuchar… “a bunch of broken promises that sound good on bumper stickers.” Buttigieg… “It adds up to four more years of Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House, and the inability to get the Senate into Democratic hands.”

A senior South Carolina Democratic official, on condition of anonymity, said after the debate... “The staff of these candidates are performing political malpractice.” “This was an opportunity to connect with the folks of South Carolina — to share the stories and heartaches, the dreams and pains of the people they have met over the past year.” “They all failed miserably,”

All the candidates needed a good debate but instead got a bad on. There was no winner from those on stage, just a bunch of survivors with all but Sanders and Bloomberg barely hanging on until Super Tuesday.

Maybe it would be best if all the democrat candidates should just stop talking before Super Tuesday after that incoherent mess last night.

And once again the winner of a democrat debate goes to Donald Trump.

South Carolina is gone for all but Biden and Sanders, with Steyer taking some votes. No point the others bothering with it, they were all making their pitch for Super Tuesday.

It is a good thing that candidates are barely holding on, prior to internet funding we'd be down to 3 people on the stage by this point.

Id argue Biden and Pete had good nights. Biden could potential have a comeback if he can win SC by a decent amount.

notobtuse

Foxtrol wrote: »

Id argue Biden and Pete had good nights. Biden could potential have a comeback if he can win SC by a decent amount.

I disagree. What we saw was all the rats devouring each other.

Someone should have told Sanders numbers and numbskulls don’t mix. How about Bloomberg’s slip of the tongue (aka… the truth) and stopping himself from saying he ‘bought’ all of the new Democrats seats? Mayor Pete is attacking “revolution politics”... Isn’t that what has made his candidacy possible? It's now apparent Warren has resolved herself to losing her bid and is showing Bernie she could be a good attack dog as his vice president. And poor old Joe... in a bid to stay viable he’s now taking credit for everything ever.

Englo

Bloomberg funding of GOP candidates being hammered didn't do him any good, Twomey had been mentioned before but Lindsey Graham is a much worse one because he is so prominent and one of the most subservient to Trump in all of Congress.

Anyone else notice the "fans" in the audience boo heavily when billionaires were criticised, when Bloomberg was asked to release his tax returns, or when Elizabeth Warren brought up his NDAs and telling staff to "kill it" in relation to pregnancies?

Now call me skeptical, but i have a hard time believing that the audience was full of fanboys of billionaires who would angrily boo calls for tax returns being released. I also can't see there being a large enough anti-woman cohort at the Democratic debates to boo and hiss at Warren for pointing out Bloombergs scummy past. And I really can't help but notice that tickets were $1,700 each (wtf by the way!?), keeping out everyday people and making it very easy for someone enough money to have already spe t half a billion on their campaign, to drop a few hundred grand to buy a chunk of the audience. Kind of like paying "grassroots campaigners" $2,500 a month - https://www.businessinsider.com/bloombergs-2500-month-campaign-fee-is-attracting-lukewarm-workers-2020-2

Tldr: looks like Bloomberg bought the audience. Or the audience just love women being treated terribly in the workplace and are avid fans of the billionaire class. Which... doesn't really add up.

notobtuse

DEFCON 1 FOR THE DNC! No matter what the DNC says publicly, they can’t let Bernie Sanders be their nominee in the general election. They know his $60 Trillion agenda of fantasy programs will never become a reality. And running him for president would only guarantee Trump the win and would hamper their chances to be viable for decades in presidential elections. The DNC says they need to win back Pennsylvania (the state where I live) but Sanders is campaigning on a ban of fracking and the elimination of private health insurance, steps which would put a large amount of folks in the state out of work. And there is another factor to look at with a Sanders ticket... Democrats in the House would have to tell their constituents they don’t support any of the Sanders agenda or risk losing democratic control of the House. And the democratic senators would have to follow suit or risk losing even more seats. Apparently the DNC is now relying on superdelegates and party officials to stop Sanders at the Democratic convention this July because he many only have a plurality of delegates. I guess this is an incentive for other democrat candidates to stay in the race as long as they can.

Unfortunately for the DNC they will be moving into the general election without adequate funds to fight back against the war chest the Trump campaign has and will amass.

And now the DNC seems to have come up with Plan B to combat Trump... Hoping the coronavirus spreads throughout the US causing a lack of confidence in the stock market and economy which will harm Trump’s reelection efforts. Lovely people those democrats... Hoping for a crash to our economy and death to Americans because they hate Trump so much.

Foxtrol

notobtuse wrote: »

DEFCON 1 FOR THE DNC! No matter what the DNC says publicly, they can’t let Bernie Sanders be their nominee in the general election. They know his $60 Trillion agenda of fantasy programs will never become a reality. And running him for president would only guarantee Trump the win and would hamper their chances to be viable for decades in presidential elections. The DNC says they need to win back Pennsylvania (the state where I live) but Sanders is campaigning on a ban of fracking and the elimination of private health insurance, steps which would put a large amount of folks in the state out of work. And there is another factor to look at with a Sanders ticket... Democrats in the House would have to tell their constituents they don’t support any of the Sanders agenda or risk losing democratic control of the House. And the democratic senators would have to follow suit or risk losing even more seats. Apparently the DNC is now relying on superdelegates and party officials to stop Sanders at the Democratic convention this July because he many only have a plurality of delegates. I guess this is an incentive for other democrat candidates to stay in the race as long as they can.

Like many Republican's did in 2016 and 2020 against Trump? It worked for many of them so it isn't the end of the world.

Unfortunately for the DNC they will be moving into the general election without adequate funds to fight back against the war chest the Trump campaign has and will amass.

Democrats will get a huge boost in fundraising as soon as the primary is over. Most, like myself, are waiting it out and will donate to whoever is running against Trump.

And now the DNC seems to have come up with Plan B to combat Trump... Hoping the coronavirus spreads throughout the US causing a lack of confidence in the stock market and economy which will harm Trump’s reelection efforts. Lovely people those democrats... Hoping for a crash to our economy and death to Americans because they hate Trump so much.

Same as Trump did during the ebola outbreak, when he sent much more politicised tweets? The difference however is Obama had a competent well funded response team whereas Trump is relying on a group starved of resources and headed by someone who doesn't believe in science.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

And now the DNC seems to have come up with Plan B to combat Trump... Hoping the coronavirus spreads throughout the US causing a lack of confidence in the stock market and economy which will harm Trump’s reelection efforts. Lovely people those democrats... Hoping for a crash to our economy and death to Americans because they hate Trump so much.

Jaysus, you just went full tin hat.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus, you just went full tin hat.

Au contraire

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schumer-blasts-president-trump-for-lack-of-leadership-and-lack-of-plan-to-address-spread-of-coronavirus
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/liz-peek-democrats-coronavirus-trump
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/white-house-media-hopes-virus-will-bring-down-trump

notobtuse

Foxtrol wrote: »

Like many Republican's did in 2016 and 2020 against Trump? It worked for many of them so it isn't the end of the world.



Democrats will get a huge boost in fundraising as soon as the primary is over. Most, like myself, are waiting it out and will donate to whoever is running against Trump.



Same as Trump did during the ebola outbreak, when he sent much more politicised tweets? The difference however is Obama had a competent well funded response team whereas Trump is relying on a group starved of resources and headed by someone who doesn't believe in science.

I can't see donations going through the roof if either non-democrat (Sanders and Bloomberg) gets the nomination.

And the one BIG difference is the republicans worked WITH Obama regarding the Ebola scare. Democrats DON'T work with Trump on ANYTHING.

Joe_ Public

notobtuse wrote: »

Au contraire

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schumer-blasts-president-trump-for-lack-of-leadership-and-lack-of-plan-to-address-spread-of-coronavirus
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/liz-peek-democrats-coronavirus-trump
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/white-house-media-hopes-virus-will-bring-down-trump

I dont see any evidence there of democrats actively hoping for the spread of the virus. Is there any other sources? I suppose there might be a few online crackpots alright if thats what's implied.

notobtuse

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont see any evidence there of democrats actively hoping for the spread of the virus. Is there any other sources? I suppose there might be a few online crackpots alright if thats what's implied.

Just use commons sense, man. If the democrats are hopping the coronavirus will hurt trump politically it only comes to reason they are hoping the virus will spread in the US. That IS the only way it will hurt Trump.

Englo

notobtuse wrote: »

Just use commons sense, man. If the democrats are hopping the coronavirus will hurt trump politically it only comes to reason they are hoping the virus will spread in the US. That IS the only way it will hurt Trump.

Projection it is then, in other words if this were 2016 or if Trump were running against a democrat president this year, you'd be eager for a disease to spread so you think this is how everyones mind works.

Standard Trumpism.

Joe_ Public

notobtuse wrote: »

Just use commons sense, man. If the democrats are hopping the coronavirus will hurt trump politically it only comes to reason they are hoping the virus will spread in the US. That IS the only way it will hurt Trump.

Ok, you're just assuming americans want fellow americans to die just to promote a political point. Thats fair enough, only you were acting like you had slam dunk proof of it above.

notobtuse

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, you're just assuming americans want fellow americans to die just to promote a political point. Thats fair enough, only you were acting like you had slam dunk proof of it above.

I'd say I had more proof than did Adam Schiff for when he guaranteed he had proof of collusion between Trump and Russia for two hole years.