Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

24567…199

Comments

  • #52
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Loving the new thread title


  • #53
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Primaries should only involve voters from the candidate’s party. It’s no secret Bernie Sanders would be the candidate most easily trounced by Donald Trump. Coming up soon is the South Carolina primary, and the early primaries carry a lot of weight to candidates sticking around. A new Operation Chaos seems to be taking place in SC (it was Democrats who started the gimmick). With Trump guaranteed to be the Republican candidate, Republicans plan to ask their voters to show up for the state’s open primary and vote for Bernie Sanders. Underhanded, yes, but rules are rules. Change the rules or accept the consequences.

    The gimmick just worked in Germany's election.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #54
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Biden keeps slipping in the polls. Absolutely no surprise to me. Most people have been familiar with him over the last 10 years, or so. I’ve had to endure his antics for decades. The guy is delusional and has always thought he deserved to become president. All his presidential runs ended in disaster and he has been on the wrong side of history his entire life. There was never any reason for Trump to enlist Ukraine in order to hurt Biden because he was considered to be a serious candidate. Biden would, as he always has, destroy his own chances. Trump simply wanted to get to the bottom of corruption by a US elected official, which is his job.

    Biden is just plain dumb. But don’t take my word for it, take this guys...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4J9db3V8Ag

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #55
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    There was never any reason for Trump to enlist Ukraine in order to hurt Biden because he was considered to be a serious candidate. Biden would, as he always has, destroy his own chances. Trump simply wanted to get to the bottom of corruption by a US elected official, which is his job.

    There is literally no one buying that bullshít anymore, not even Republicans.

    Try keep up.


  • #56
    Edgware
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,874 ✭✭✭Edgware


    Boggles wrote: »
    There is literally no one buying that bullshít anymore, not even Republicans.

    Try keep up.
    Ya
    Drain the swamp. Lock her up!


  • #57
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Joe Biden might be looking at a fifth place finish in the New Hampshire primary… on the heals of a fourth place showing in Iowa. Also, watching the democratic debate Friday evening it looks like Joe is tired and his heart isn’t in it anymore. And if he starts bleeding money how long does he stay in? If Joe goes, that leaves Buttigieg, Sanders, Warren, a rising Klobuchar, and Bloomber’s money.

    I doubt any one of them will get the 1,990 delegates needed to clinch the party’s presidential nomination. That then leads to a brokered convention where the super delegates probably get to pick the candidate. They won’t go for the socialist Sanders, and socialist-lite Warren in unelectable. I highly doubt they would give it to Mayor Howdy Doody or Klobuchar because she doesn’t have national recognition. So who would the suberdelegates give it to? Hillary Clinton is the first one to come to mind and she did have the election of 2016 stolen from her, if you haven't heard. There’s Mike Bloomberg, who if nominated, would cause a civil war because he is merely buying the nomination with his billions of dollars (But Bloomberg might make sense in the short term if the superdelegates admit there is no way to win the White House this election. Bloomberg has committed to spending $4 or $5 billion of his own money, and not just for his own campaign, but for Democrats everywhere. Every superdelegate at the convention might just think Bloomberg will spends millions in support of each of their districts if they vote for him). Or will the DNC completely shock everyone and nominate their new hero… Mitt Romney -- who hates Orange Man Bad even more than they do?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #58
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    After the New Hampshire primary results came in Michael Bennet and Andrew Yang apparently remembered the first rule of holes (stop digging) and dropped out. Media also reported that Tom Steyer had dropped out but apparently he decided he still has lots of money to burn and was staying in the race.

    Joe Biden got another gut-punch and high-tailed it out of Dodge. With such pitiful showings in the first two primaries how much longer can he stay in the race? His credibility as a viable candidate and his donations are drying up.

    That leaves Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, a rising but broke Amy Klobuchar and a failing-fast Elizabeth Warren with any chance.

    I think you can scratch Klobuchar and Warren from having any chance at this point and I don’t see Mayor Howdy Doody surviving after Super Tuesday. That leaves Democratic-Socialist Bernie Sanders. (Why is it if you put the term “Democratic” in front of something the democrat loyalists eat it up? I think if they renamed the WuFlu to the Democratic-Coronavirus the faithful would be rushing out to catch it). If Sanders becomes the DNC’s candidate to run against Trump then Russia has won the Cold War.

    But the DNC, Democratic establishment, and their wealthy mega-donors who want no part of Sanders, are afraid they’re already out of options to take Sanders down by legitimate means. Does that lead to DNC last-minute convention shenanigans to bestow the nomination on a corrupt Hillary Clinton or Mike Bloomberg who is trying to buy the election with his billions?

    One thing interesting I’ve taken notice to this election is a glaring difference in Bernie Sanders from 2016 to 2020. Back in 2016 he was campaigning on the same platitudes as now only then he was gonna make millionaires and billionaires pay for all the free stuff he was promising. But after that election he capitalized (pun intended) on his notoriety and made a couple million dollars. Now this election its just billionaires according to him who are going to foot the bill. I guess like every other socialist politician he only wants other people to pay for his fantasies.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #59
    MonkeyTennis
    Registered Users Posts: 3,098 ✭✭✭MonkeyTennis


    so any thoughts on William Barr today lads ? Or is this all perfectly normal too ?


  • #60
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    MonkeyTennis wrote: »
    so any thoughts on William Barr today lads ? Or is this all perfectly normal too ?
    Is he running for president now, too?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    MonkeyTennis wrote: »
    so any thoughts on William Barr today lads ? Or is this all perfectly normal too ?

    It's the new normal, hope they enjoy it.

    Brought to you by the party of law and order.

    :)


  • #62
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    It's the new normal, hope they enjoy it.

    Brought to you by the party of law and order.

    :)
    Nine years (which is not within the DOJ guidelines) for Roger Stone and corrupt FBI folks who have been caught lying get book deals and CNN contracts? Good thing those prosecutors resigned before they were investigated for abuse of power. I hear that’s a thing nowadays.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #63
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Donald Trump won the Republican New Hampshire primary. No surprise given his lack of any real competition. But to put things into prospective Trump received 124,000 votes. In 2012 Barack Obama who was running for reelection received just 49,000 votes. And Trump only lost New Hampshire by 3,000 votes in 2016.

    Think Democrats might be a bit worried?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #64
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nine years (which is not within the DOJ guidelines) for Roger Stone and corrupt FBI folks who have been caught lying get book deals and CNN contracts? Good thing those prosecutors resigned before they were investigated for abuse of power. I hear that’s a thing nowadays.

    So what you are saying is Trump got the DOJ to involve themselves in a criminal case involving his buddy.

    Party of Law and Order.

    4 more years, 4 more years!


  • #65
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    I know I'm in a minority here but I think if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination he will beat Trump.

    Trump got in by the skin of his teeth first time around against probably one of the least likeable candidates to ever stand. Sanders is far more dynamic and likeable than Hillary, a totally different prospect that Trump will have far more difficult campaigning against.


  • #66
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    I know I'm in a minority here but I think if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination he will beat Trump.

    Trump got in by the skin of his teeth first time around against probably one of the least likeable candidates to ever stand. Sanders is far more dynamic and likeable than Hillary, a totally different prospect that Trump will have far more difficult campaigning against.
    I don’t think the DNC will ever let Sanders become the nominee. The DNC is starting to panic because they believe his nomination would be suicidal for the party and guarantee Donald Trump’s re-election. Since the heart of the primaries haven’t gotten underway watch for a major change in the DNC’s attitude towards Sanders in the coming weeks as there will be some brutal assaults by the DNC against him. And if all else fails look for a brokered convention where the superdelegates hand the nomination to someone else.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    Like I said; if.


  • #68
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    I know I'm in a minority here but I think if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination he will beat Trump.

    Trump got in by the skin of his teeth first time around against probably one of the least likeable candidates to ever stand. Sanders is far more dynamic and likeable than Hillary, a totally different prospect that Trump will have far more difficult campaigning against.

    If Trump starts rage tweeting Bernie, you know it's on.


  • #69
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I see Pete Buttigieg is on the campaign trail touting the idea of expanding the supreme court to as many as 15 justices. This is something many other democrats are considering since Trump picks have been confirmed. But I’m sure they would never go for it until the democrats take back control of the Senate, as it only take a majority now to confirm a judge. Trump should jump on Buttigieg’s idea and get the supreme court immediately expanded to 15 justices and nominate another 6 right away. He could push for it as a bi-partisan idea. If nothing else it would exposed democrat's blind political ambitions at the cost of the nation.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #70
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    If Trump starts rage tweeting Bernie, you know it's on.
    Trump's got bigger problems at the moment. He hasn't found a good nickname for Mayor Pete yet. :p

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #71
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    A really good read from a 20 year Democrat who experienced a Trump rally. No, she’s not going to switch from Democrat to Republican (but she is becoming an Independent), and she won’t be voting for Trump. But she does dispel some of the myths the left has of the right here in the US. She also gives an insight to the election.

    https://gen.medium.com/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    notobtuse wrote: »
    A really good read from a 20 year Democrat who experienced a Trump rally. No, she’s not going to switch from Democrat to Republican (but she is becoming an Independent), and she won’t be voting for Trump. But she does dispel some of the myths the left has of the right here in the US. She also gives an insight to the election.

    https://gen.medium.com/ive-been-a-democrat-for-20-years-here-s-what-i-experienced-at-trump-s-rally-in-new-hampshire-c69ddaaf6d07

    Took the time to read it. Many of her arguments are familiar from the brexit divide in the uk where many brexit voters felt they too were being painted as narrow minded, xenophobic bigots. But even if they werent, should that change my mind on the utter disaster that was brexit itself? Same with trump. So what if only a minority or maybe none of his supporters are racists. The point is they are voting for one, thats all that counts.

    And if she really sees Bernie Sanders message as simply spreading "doom and gloom", then i can only surmise she just hasn't been listening.


  • #73
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Elizabeth Warren campaign is in serious trouble...

    "I need to level with you: Our movement needs to raise critical funds so I can remain competitive in this race through Super Tuesday."

    Due to low level of campaign donations she’s had to scale back advertising in Nevada and South Carolina.

    Progressives have declared Sanders to be their man. Moderates have been scared off by her magic math in how to pay for 'Medicare for All' and have moved to the Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar, et al, camp. That leaves a rising Bloomberg who appeals to the ‘We Hate Trump’ crowd, and the only crowd Warren currently has a shot at. I’d say look for Warren to go guns-a-blaring after Bloomberg in next Wednesday’s debate as her last stand. If she doesn’t prevail I see donations drying up and she won’t even make it to Super Tuesday.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #74
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Michael Avenatti, recent best hope of our disgraceful media to run on the democratic ticket and become president, has been found guilty in Nike extortion trial.

    Looks like Stormy Daniel will never get her money back from him.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/disgraced-lawyer-michael-avenatti-found-guilty-in-nike-extortion-trial.html

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #75
    Bill 2.0
    Registered Users Posts: 105 ✭✭Bill 2.0


    Isn't that the guy that Trump called a "creepy porn lawyer"?


  • #76
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Bill 2.0 wrote: »
    Isn't that the guy that Trump called a "creepy porn lawyer"?
    Yup, I believe so. Now he's a creepy porn extortionist... the lawyer formally know as The Democrats Great White Hype. :P

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #77
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Michael Avenatti, recent best hope of our disgraceful media to run on the democratic ticket and become president, has been found guilty in Nike extortion trial.

    Looks like Stormy Daniel will never get her money back from him.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/disgraced-lawyer-michael-avenatti-found-guilty-in-nike-extortion-trial.html

    Good.

    He was some cretin.

    At least Stormy got some money off mushroom dick.


  • #78
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Reports keep coming out Mike Bloomberg is considering having Hillary Clinton on his ticket as vice president. Neither is denying it. It he does bring her into the ticket Mike better hire himself a couple of food tasters.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #79
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Reports keep coming out Mike Bloomberg is considering having Hillary Clinton on his ticket as vice president. Neither is denying it. It he does bring her into the ticket Mike better hire himself a couple of food tasters.

    “Suicide squad”


  • #80
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    Amy Klobuchar cant name the Mexican President! It is funny to watch her squirm:D

    Jump to 1min15sec


  • #81
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    I couldn't tell you who the president of Mexico is.

    But almost everyone knows this guys name. Almost

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXofQ7ga174


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    Boggles wrote: »
    I couldn't tell you who the president of Mexico is.

    But almost everyone knows this guys name. Almost

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXofQ7ga174


    That sounds like a genuine mix up by Trump. Not comparable at all to Amy Klobuchar not having a clue who the Mexican President was. Imagine Leo not knowing the name of the British PM!


  • #83
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    That sounds like a genuine mix up by Trump. Not comparable at all to Amy Klobuchar not having a clue who the Mexican President was. Imagine Leo not knowing the name of the British PM!
    The opposition is grasping at straws. Of course it is probably a name mix up. Trump owns between $1.1 million and $2.25 million in stock of Apple. And he’s been calling on Cook to build its Apple products at home.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #84
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    VicMackey1 wrote: »
    That sounds like a genuine mix up by Trump. Not comparable at all to Amy Klobuchar not having a clue who the Mexican President was. Imagine Leo not knowing the name of the British PM!

    Klobuchar is not the leader of a country. It just goes to show how vast and insular America is.

    She is a Senator from a state that borders Canada. About 2000 miles from Mexico.

    A more apt comparison would be like asking a TD who is the President of Slovkia.

    No one cares.


  • #85
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The opposition is grasping at straws. Of course it is probably a name mix up. Trump owns between $1.1 million and $2.25 million in stock of Apple. And he’s been calling on Cook to build its Apple products at home.

    What opposition? :confused:


  • #86
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    What opposition? :confused:
    Trump haters, of course. That would include Democrats and Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, the vast majority of the mainstream media, Hollywood elite, the Deep State, Never-Trumpers, and Grumpy Cat.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #87
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Trump haters, of course. That would include Democrats and Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, the vast majority of the mainstream media, Hollywood elite, the Deep State, Never-Trumpers, and Grumpy Cat.

    But I posted the video.

    Do you think I am the opposition? :)


  • #88
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    But I posted the video.

    Do you think I am the opposition? :)
    Have you ever had a good word, for anything positive he's done, to say about Trump?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #89
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Have you ever had a good word, for anything positive he's done, to say about Trump?

    If you could be so good as to answer my question first.

    I'll then gladly answer yours.


  • #90
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Boggles wrote: »
    If you could be so good as to answer my question first.

    I'll then gladly answer yours.
    Without answering my question I can only take an educated guess, so... if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Without answering my question I can only take an educated guess, so... if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    Well my question was non fowl related.

    Again.

    Do you think I'm "the opposition"? :)


  • #92
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I read something interesting regarding the democrat primary. If Joe Biden gets the black vote, odds are he just might have the best chance at wining the democratic nomination.

    Here is how it goes:
    If Biden’s black support holds up that long, he will have prevented Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from locking up the nomination before the convention. Democrats award their delegates according to a candidate’s share of the popular vote, so long as that person received at least 15 percent either statewide or in a congressional district. If Biden has locked up the black vote and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg are each breaking 15 percent of the white vote, then Sanders will not have a large delegate lead after four states vote on March 17. More than 61 percent of the delegates will have been awarded by that date; Sanders cannot win the remaining states by large enough margins to give him a majority before the convention.

    This means Biden can go into the convention with a good shot of winning because of his support among the Democratic establishment. These party leaders comprise the uncommitted superdelegates, who also will attend the party convention. They won’t be allowed to vote on the first ballot, but they can vote on any ballot after that if the convention is deadlocked. Biden’s black support will ensure such a deadlock if it holds up, and then the establishment can rally behind the man they always hoped would lead the ticket. Gamblers know that the odds are almost always with the house, and in the Democratic Party, the superdelegates are the house.

    Interesting. By being the establishment candidate, it gives Biden probably the best shot at winning the nomination even though he could be well behind in the votes -- if enough candidates keep ahead of the 15% threshold, that is.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/18/dont-bet-against-joe-biden-just-yet-he-has-an-ace-up-his-sleeve/

    Biden still loses to Trump, but the fact that he could win the democratic nomination being so far behind is rather interesting. Oh, those crazy democrats.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #93
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Trump haters, of course. That would include Democrats and Socialists, Liberals, Progressives, the vast majority of the mainstream media, Hollywood elite, the Deep State, Never-Trumpers, and Grumpy Cat.

    you forgot an elderly asian man who used to be on star trek and being gay is his entire personality.


  • #94
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,791 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Think that article's a bit off as regards Biden's grasp of the black vote. He seems to be dropping support to Bloomberg among blacks.
    Very good point as regards the 15% threshold,if enough candidates are in play on super Tuesday the numbers failing to achieve that percentage could make for some interesting outcomes.

    Should throw in a caveat, that's assuming Bloomberg doesn't make a dog's dinner of the debate.


  • #95
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Watched the Nevada democratic debate last night. Most entertaining debate the democrats have had so far. Mike Bloomberg finally got on stage and he and his billions had a target on his back. The claws were out amongst all the candidates which resulted in the debate turning into a train wreck. Bloomberg did have the best line of the debate, though... “I can't think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get re-elected than listening to this conversation.”

    For everyone not a die-hard coastal or urban liberal it was apparent who won the debate... Donald Trump. Even with all his flaws Trump connects with the common man... these clowns on stage don’t.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #96
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I don’t think in US history we’ve ever had so many viable candidates still in a primary race at this point. How do the candidates not run out of money? The one or two major candidate usually left after Super Tuesday usually have a hoard of funds available for them to use in the general election. But this year democrat candidates are having to spend tons of money just battling each other. Will democrat donors feel the bleeding of their donations needs to stop at some point, as there seems to be a need for constant cash inflows to the 6 viable democrats (Steyer and Gabbard have no chance at this point) right up to the DNC convention? Bloomberg is the only one seemingly in no need of cash as he is willing to spend billions of his own money in this election.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Bloomberg is the only one seemingly in no need of cash as he is willing to spend billions of his own money in this election.

    The benefits of being an actual billionaire.


  • #98
    rossie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I don’t think in US history we’ve ever had so many viable candidates still in a primary race at this point. .

    I count 8. There was still 12 Republicans running on February 1st 2016 and half dropped out by February 20th


  • #99
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    I count 8. There was still 12 Republicans running on February 1st 2016 and half dropped out by February 20th
    Yes, 8 democrats (technically 6 democrats, a socialist running as an independent, and a independent), but I noted the 2 democrats who had no choice.

    At this point in 2016 there were only 5 GOP candidates still in the race. Trump, Curz, Rubio, Kaisch, and Carson. Jeb Bush had already quit the race. Carson dropped out March 6, and Rubio on March 15. The other 2 gave up on May 3 & 4.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #100
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Elizabeth Warren is out of money after spending heavily. So much so that her campaign had to take out a $3 million loan because they feared she would run out of cash. Reports are Biden's donors are abandoning him. Buttigieg's campaign raised around $6 million in January but spent $14 million that same month. His campaign only had about $6.6 million in the start of February. Now Mike Bloomberg is throwing around money like he has an unlimited supply (which he pretty much does), which causes the other candidates to spend much more on ad purchases then they ever wanted to in order to continue their campaigns. The writing is on the wall, determined by cash, that the democrats choice will either be Bloomberg or Sanders. And neither of them is a democrat! This is crazy. When will democrats realize radical leftism now controls their party, and something needs to be done about it if they wish to remain a viable political party?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #101
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,578 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Elizabeth Warren is out of money after spending heavily. So much so that her campaign had to take out a $3 million loan because they feared she would run out of cash. Reports are Biden's donors are abandoning him. Buttigieg's campaign raised around $6 million in January but spent $14 million that same month. His campaign only had about $6.6 million in the start of February. Now Mike Bloomberg is throwing around money like he has an unlimited supply (which he pretty much does), which causes the other candidates to spend much more on ad purchases then they ever wanted to in order to continue their campaigns. The writing is on the wall, determined by cash, that the democrats choice will either be Bloomberg or Sanders. And neither of them is a democrat! This is crazy. When will democrats realize radical leftism now controls their party, and something needs to be done about it if they wish to remain a viable political party?

    Is Bloomberg a "radical leftist" even by American standards? :confused:

    I suppose the democrats could go the way of the Republican Party *.

    * High jacked, gutted and remolded by a former Democrat and turned into The Party of Trump.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement