nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

notobtuse

With Nancy Pelosi’s Schiff Show Sham of an impeachment over (well, all but over, anyway) time to turn to the US presidential election.

So, who is left:

Donald Trump (R): You wanted change, you got change... Trump change!

Joe Biden (D): Distracted by shiny objects!
Bernie Sanders (I - running as a D, what's up with that?): On a scale of Mao to Stalin, how bad would a president Bernie be?
Elizabeth Warren (D): Little Chief Gonna Spend A Lot.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D): Portrait of a young bull$hit artist.
Andrew Yang : Vote for me and I’ll give you $12,000.
Mike Bloomberg (?): Who says you can’t buy an election?
Tulsi Gabbard (D): I guess it’s true you never piss off the Clintons.
Amy Klobuchar (D) and the rest of the also-rans: Who?

And then there’s Hillary Clinton (Witch), waiting in the wings for a contested convention so her superdelegates buddies can hand her the nomination: Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire!

Personally, when Pelosi, who had to impeach Trump immediately because he was such a threat to the nation, and then waited a month to walk the articles of impeachment in a stupid procession over to the Senate... it was like she was walking with Trump’s reelection papers.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mainstream liberal news media in the States are really just political activists pedaling in propaganda.

https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1258046139707936769

Jesus, that twitter stream makes Gemmaroids look like the BBC

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would they ? would the democrats rush through candiadates that are not qualified for the job? have they a history of that?

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Things have changed in recent years. In the past it required a 60-vote Senate vote on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, so any nominations had to be extremely qualified. But in 2013, in a pure political move, the Democrats went nuclear and changed the rules requiring only a majority vote. Unfortunately for democrats they have now reaped what they sowed.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Things have changed in recent years. In the past it required a 60-vote Senate vote on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, so any nominations had to be extremely qualified. But in 2013, in a pure political move, the Democrats went nuclear and changed the rules requiring only a majority vote. Unfortunately for democrats they have now reaped what they sowed.

so you have some examples of judges rated unqualified that the democrats rushed through?

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I think the republicans should have at least gone through the process. Using delay tactics in the hearings they could have drug it beyond the election... that’s what democrats would have done. I think it was wrong of them to not even allowing him the process. It will come back to bite republicans in the a$$ sometime in the future... and it should.

Why do you think that's what the Dems would have done? Did they ever do anything like this is the past?

But I can somewhat understand why republicans did it. Unlike democrats who vote on their political ideals when it comes to SCOTUS picks instead of the qualifications of the nominee, republicans ultimately vote on the qualifications of the nomination. And the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if a vote were taken.

Again, have you any evidence for this claim that the Dems only vote on ideological basis?

I agree the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if McConnell hadn't have pulled a fast one. It was a disgrace, don't you agree?

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you have some examples of judges rated unqualified that the democrats rushed through?

No, I don't and I don't intend to investigate the many Obama nominees the Democrats rushed through.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Why do you think that's what the Dems would have done? Did they ever do anything like this is the past?

Again, have you any evidence for this claim that the Dems only vote on ideological basis?

I agree the Senate GOP would have confirmed Garland if McConnell hadn't have pulled a fast one. It was a disgrace, don't you agree?

Look up the term 'Borked.'

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

No, I don't and I don't intend to investigate the many Obama nominees the Democrats rushed through.

so you will retract your claim that the democrats have the same thing the GOP are doing now and rushing through unqualified candidates?

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you will retract your claim that the democrats have the same thing the GOP are doing now and rushing through unqualified candidates?

No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Look up the term 'Borked.'

Done.

It's not really an answer to my post.

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

So you make a claim, and when called out on that claim you ask others to do your work for you to prove your claim

statesaver

Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184

duploelabs

statesaver wrote: »

Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184

Jesus, its like whack-a-mole

notobtuse

statesaver wrote: »

Democrats need to get rid of Biden.

It's embarrassing. Trump will destroy him in the debates.

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1257858123576029184

Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

statesaver

notobtuse wrote: »

Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

Trump needs to say feck all and watch Biden make an unelectable fool of himself.

When is the first debate on ?

notobtuse

statesaver wrote: »

Trump needs to say feck all and watch Biden make an unelectable fool of himself.

When is the first debate on ?

Way too early. Democrats don't even know who their candidate will be yet.

amdublin

notobtuse wrote: »

Way too early. Democrats don't even know who their candidate will be yet.

Today I learnt about something called "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals". You told me about it actually!

I did a little research on it after you mentioned it in an earlier post today.

Omg, it seems to me that you are totally following it rule for rule!!!!

Good luck to you in your campaign

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

No. I don’t recall them right now, some 7 years later. Tell you what… Give me a list of every Obama nominated judge that was rushed through, that was considered ‘controversial’ at the time, and I’ll take a look at them.

you made the claim, you do the work to support it.

notobtuse

amdublin wrote: »

Today I learnt about something called "Alinsky's Rules for Radicals". You told me about it actually!

I did a little research on it after you mentioned it in an earlier post today.

Omg, it seems to me that you are totally following it rule for rule!!!!

Good luck to you in your campaign

LOL. Not following Alinsky’s rules. I’m utilizing my deprogramming training from back in the 70’s. I was a ‘certified’ deprogrammer for kids that got hooked up with brainwashing religious cults. Hare krishna cults were my specialty. I figure the same deprogramming principles could apply to help out the unfortunate individuals here brainwashed by Leftist ideals. Gotta keep my training sharp, ya know. Believe it or not I was a hippie back in the old days... long hair, hippie clothes, bare feet, liberal ideals, protested the Vietnam war, handed out Leftist flyers, lived on a commune, went to Woodstock, and even hooked up with one of the girls from Charlie Manson’s family for a short while. If you ever wonder what happens to old hippies in the US... well some of them turn into diehard republicans, after growing up.

Outlaw Pete

statesaver wrote: »

When is the first debate on ?

Sep 29th in Indiana.

Second debate is in Michigan on October 15th and the final debate is on Oct 22nd in Nashville.

VP Debate in on Oct 7th.

notobtuse

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sep 29th in Indiana.

Second debate is in Michigan on October 15th and the final debate is on Oct 22nd in Nashville.

VP Debate in on Oct 7th.

Really? I didn't know any were set. Who is moderating them?

Outlaw Pete

Don't think that's been decided yet:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/presidential-debate-planning-proceeds-despite-virus-worries/2276941/

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

even hooked up with one of the girls from Charlie Manson’s family for a short while.

Was she part of the family at the time or had left?

Realt Dearg Sec

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Was she part of the family at the time or had left?

She's fictional, so, just pick whichever.

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Was she part of the family at the time or had left?

It was several years after the trial of Manson family ended. She was not involved with the murders. I didn't believe her at first until she pulled back her bangs exposing the 'X' cut in her forehead.

Realt Dearg Sec

notobtuse wrote: »

It was several years after the trial of Manson family ended. She was not involved with the murders. I didn't believe her at first until she pulled back her bangs exposing the 'X' cut in her forehead.

Ah lads, come on, he's basically making fun of your credulity here.

notobtuse

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Ah lads, come on, he's basically making fun of your credulity here.

“Credulity”... Great word, but what do I care if you or anyone thinks it’s true or not? There's no way to prove it all. I’ve never told anyone the entire story of that wild, bizarre and sordid month in the summer of ’74 and I don’t intend to here. Hell, I doubt anybody would believe the whole story... I wouldn’t if it was told to me. But I lived and survived it. Sex, booze, drugs, Bavarian music, friends, parties, jealousy, four large garbage bags of festival beer tickets that never made it to the incinerator, quick thinking, a psycho, murder, police, leaches, motorcycle gang and the Manson family girl... Oh, my. But someday the story might be an interesting basis for someone thinking of making a retro ‘Dazed and Confused’ type movie.

The Nal

notobtuse wrote: »

Yeah, they should dump him, but I'm hoping they stick with him. The question is should Trump be kind and understanding towards the old fool in the debates or go for the jugular?

Oh he'll go to town on him. Joe will be good party lining it but as soon as theres conflict and quick retorts needed he'll be shown up. Badly.

Whats this Manson girl post Im seeing? Missed that.

Brian?

The Nal wrote: »

Oh he'll go to town on him. Joe will be good party lining it but as soon as theres conflict and quick retorts needed he'll be shown up. Badly.

Whats this Manson girl post Im seeing? Missed that.

Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.

The Nal

Brian? wrote: »

Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.

He was. Because it was two sensible men civilly discussing politics and important stuff like healthcare. The "nastiest" stuff was about Bernie outspending him and Biden talking about cutting social security. A debate the way they should be.

Trump is going to bring up Biden being a rapist, Biden being senile, Hunter Biden banging his brothers widow and so on. Different playing field.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Did you see Biden v Bernie? He was fine.

No pressure, no major challenges from Bernie, and sympathetic moderators. Biden won’t experience that in the debate against Trump. Did you see Biden’s interview with Mika on MSNBC? Hard to believe he had weeks to prepare and that was his performance? It's like he had absolutely no clue someone at the University of Delaware could simply do a computer search on just someone's name in the records kept there.

I’ll almost feel sorry for him going into the general election debates... if he makes it that far. What do you think the chances are the biased moderators will cheat again and give him the questions ahead of time like they did Hillary?