2020 questions

bystander said:
I know some long-time Liberals from another web-site that were very bitter about how Obama ripped Hillary during the 2008 campaign. But Obama did what he had to do to win the nomination and his attacks are all on YouTube. Later of course, when it was her turn to be anointed, all was forgiven and Obama's attacks were buried in the sand as suddenly those things didn't mean anything anymore (especially her vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution which Bernie opposed, giving a very eloquent and rational speech back in the day explaining why).
Click to expand...

The ability of Democrats to effectively "eliminate" past statements and positions is really remarkable. I'm no Trump lover and didn't like how he talked about illegal immigration. However, in the 1990s, plenty of Democrats made statements about illegal immigrants that were every bit as inflammatory, but those were buried, allowing them to get righteous about it.

On another front, "Birtherism" is often treated as a racist conspiracy by Trump and Tea Partiers, but of course, they didn't start birtherism. Sidney Blumenthal did on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

And of course Trump got ripped for going after white working class voters (the so-called "deplorables"), but who was going after them in 2008 with much more racially-charged rhetoric? Hillary Clinton, who was proud to have the support of "hardworking white Americans." That's George Wallace-level stuff and would be an immediate career-destroyer for a Republican. However, after the 2008 Democratic nomination, that stuff was immediately ancient history and never brought up in 2016.

But if you're a Republican? Every dumbass comment will hound you forever, even if you didn't say it. Hell, we still hear about the Willie Horton ad from 1988.
 
Mr. Deez said:
...that stuff was immediately ancient history
Click to expand...

Like Robert Byrd's KKK background? Virtue signaling cleanses the past for these people.

Remember how many Democrats said Saddam had WMD? Their comments helped kneed the American people into being receptive about the war. Some of those same Liberals on that website tried to blame Bush and his intelligence reports for "fooling" the Democrats in Congress who voted in favor of the war resolution. They just refused to accept her vote. And the social engineering of getting a woman elected overwhelmed all reason. They were very hostile. To them, Bush and Cheney were war criminals and should have been sent to The Hague, tried and hung. That's how hard-core they were about the Iraq War (2nd one). Not one Democrat on their side deserved an ounce of condemnation for their vote.

These same sycophants turned on Bernie later. His vote against the war resolution was not to be discussed. It was Hillary's (a woman) turn to be President; that was her qualification.
 
Last edited:
bystander said:
Remember how many Democrats said Saddam had WMD?
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember that WMD wasn't the only stated reason for returning to Iraq ...

harboring AQ/et al ... and that they did no farther back than 3 years prior to 9/11 ... but even this gets no affirmation for some reason. Just W got us in there on a lie (not really, but it made for good copy)

... so ... the media really has become a threat; just like The Don said.
 
Monahorns said:
What are Booker, Harris, and Castro going to say?
Click to expand...

They won't directly attack his race or his sex. They know that looks bad. Their surrogates and media allies will say things directly, and the candidates will say a bunch of passive aggressive crap. See Barack Obama. Was he a race hustler? If you just look at the words that directly came out of his mouth, not really. His allies most definitely were, and he said what he needed to say.

Monahorns said:
The problem is that Beto is not an unknown. If he didn't already have a high visibility campaign I think they attack his cultural appropriation hard. But the narrative has already been set. People around the country have already seen Cruz swing and miss on that issue. The Dems may try to reopen up that can of worms, but all the Dem voters around the country who were impressed with him, gave him money, and saw celebrities and athletes openly campaign, will not all of sudden change their opinion. Just don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

The narrative has been set, but bigger narratives can trump smaller ones, especially when race and sex are on the table. Again, consider the the 2008 campaign. Hillary Clinton had a very strong narrative, especially with black voters. Then Barack Obama came onto the scene, and suddenly the entire black vote didn't give two squirts of piss about the Clintons.
 
bystander said:
Like Robert Byrd's KKK background? Virtue signaling cleanses the past for these people.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post, but to be fair to Byrd, he did actually renounce his KKK days. There was an actual reckoning about that. I don't have a big problem with that. People can sincerely change their views over time, but Byrd didn't become a self-righteous racial virtue signaler like so many other Democrats did.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I agree with your post, but to be fair to Byrd, he did actually renounce his KKK days. There was an actual reckoning about that. I don't have a big problem with that. People can sincerely change their views over time, but Byrd didn't become a self-righteous racial virtue signaler like so many other Democrats did.
Click to expand...

To me it's the fact that he was allowed to repent. Do you think a 12 year old or more comment about grabbing p*ssy to be the equivalent of being in the KKK?
 
bystander said:
To me it's the fact that he was allowed to repent. Do you think a 12 year old or more comment about grabbing p*ssy to be the equivalent of being in the KKK?
Click to expand...

No, they aren't remotely equivalent, but you're comparing a Republican with a Democrat. Obviously, if a Republican had been in the Klan, no amount of contrition would be enough for him to be forgiven. Trent Lott lost his career for telling a joke at a 100 year old man's birthday party.
 
Mr. Deez said:
No, they aren't remotely equivalent, but you're comparing a Republican with a Democrat. Obviously, if a Republican had been in the Klan, no amount of contrition would be enough for him to be forgiven. Trent Lott lost his career for telling a joke at a 100 year old man's birthday party.
Click to expand...

That was more of a rhetorical question. But that was my point. The level of forgiveness exhibited is hypocritical. I guess they would argue that Byrd truly changed while Trump has not. So they can't forgive him (as if they would). The thing is, it's a political knife-fight and I shake my head when they ask, "How could you vote for him?" Well, I can understand that question in the primary but in the general election, party platforms tend to transcend the candidate because the platform theoretically matches a value system that cannot be compromised to the extremes we see today. So a Catholic who believes abortion is murder has a hard time with Planned Parenthood (especially if tax payer money leaks over and pays for abortion; it's all fungible anyway).

So forgiveness is one thing; power is another.

As we have discussed; Trump has a big mouth. I wish he would control it and deliver his agenda the way Obama could deliver his; calm, thoughtful and with class. His big mouth makes it far too easy to hold his p*ssy comments over his head as if he said it yesterday.
 
bystander said:
That was more of a rhetorical question. But that was my point. The level of forgiveness exhibited is hypocritical. I guess they would argue that Byrd truly changed while Trump has not. So they can't forgive him (as if they would). The thing is, it's a political knife-fight and I shake my head when they ask, "How could you vote for him?" Well, I can understand that question in the primary but in the general election, party platforms tend to transcend the candidate because the platform theoretically matches a value system that cannot be compromised to the extremes we see today. So a Catholic who believes abortion is murder has a hard time with Planned Parenthood (especially if tax payer money leaks over and pays for abortion; it's all fungible anyway).

So forgiveness is one thing; power is another.

As we have discussed; Trump has a big mouth. I wish he would control it and deliver his agenda the way Obama could deliver his; calm, thoughtful and with class. His big mouth makes it far too easy to hold his p*ssy comments over his head as if he said it yesterday.
Click to expand...

I understand. The forgiveness is hypocritical. Basically, the key to forgiveness is adopting more liberal politics. The only reason I distinguish Byrd is that he has actually renounced his Klan days, and it wasn't entirely self-serving for him to do so. Most nutty things Democrats say just get glossed over and never get addressed in any meaningful way.
 
Garmel said:
Although Trump is a flawed man I wouldn't say that. Trump is not the monster that the left makes him out to be.
Click to expand...

Trump has always been a counter puncher. Lately he will go on the offense and I believe that’s because he’s come to the conclusion that no matter what he does they are coming after him. Some here thinks he has a big mouth, but it’s his barking back that help get him elected. The voters on the right got to a point of being fed up with the left and the MSM bullying tactics on our candidates. It was frustrated to watch our party leaders get bullied, public shaming, and attacked by the left and our candidates always backed down. If we let the bullying tactics from the left to be successful and Trump doesnt win the 2020 election then it will be full throttle on steroids from here on out by the media. But if we get him re-elected again after the left selling their soul to the devil with fake news then they will have to step back and re-evaluate if what they are doing is the cause of the election losses. The American people are tired of it. They really are.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I'll defer to Mick Mulvaney's 2016 claim that "Trump is a terrible human being".
Click to expand...

That's y'all's opinion. I don't agree. I save the "terrible human being" for murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, people who don't work in America's best interest, etc.. A guy who says mean things and lies to feed his ego? Not even close.
 
Mr. Trump is a terrific politican. As much as apologizing sometimes might seem appropriate on a human level, I honestly think defiance and belligerence play better to his audience.
 
Crockett said:
Mr. Trump is a terrific politican. As much as apologizing sometimes might seem appropriate on a human level, I honestly think defiance and belligerence play better to his audience.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the belligerence and hate comes more often from Trump haters than Trump or his fans. I find it so strange how one man can live in a liberal's head 24/7. It's not mentally healthy.
 
Last edited:
Crockett said:
Mr. Trump is a terrific politican. As much as apologizing sometimes might seem appropriate on a human level, I honestly think defiance and belligerence play better to his audience.
Click to expand...

You're right that it plays better to one's audience, but I don't think that makes one a good politician. If you're a Republican and throw away the suburbs in part by being belligerent and defiant, you're not a good politician. At best, you're forcing yourself to be dependent on your opponent sucking worse.

I know some dismiss the 2018 midterms and point to Obama's and Clinton's reelections after midterm defeats as reasons not to worry, but they ignore some key factors.

First, they both changed course significantly after their losses. Obama deemphasized the least popular parts of his agenda, and of course, Clinton completely reinvented himself. He made a 180 degree change in his politics.

Second, they were both Democrats. That means the political media went out of their way to help them adjust and reinvent themselves. Trump won't get that luxury.

What's sad is that I don't think Trump would have to significantly change his agenda like Obama and especially Clinton did. He would mostly just have to stop being a jackass.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
179 degree. He remained, as you have previously noted, 100% loyal to his ****. No red wave election was going to change that.
Click to expand...

Well, I think his cock transcended his politics. In fact, I don't think he actually had any political believe. I think his espoused politics were mostly an enabler for his cock.

But the policy change was really astounding. Before the 1994 elections, he was hard Left in ways that even Obama was never willing to entertain. He pushed a big tax hike, cut the military massively, pushed for gays in the military (which was considered very extreme in 1993), pushed the assault weapons ban, pushed HillaryCare (which was further Left than Obamacare), and was even willing to go along with John Conyers's crackpot affirmative action plan for the death penalty being in the crime bill. Furthermore, he surrounded himself with left-wing freaks - people like Lani Guinier, Joycelyn Elders, and of course, Hillary before she sold out.

After 1994, he pushed, went along with, or was willing to go along with welfare reform, cutting taxes, boosting defense spending, abortion restrictions, DOMA, financial deregulation, and even private investment of Social Security funds. And of course, the cavalcade of freaks was pushed aside and basically replaced by Dick Morris. He was in Reagan territory without the integrity.
 
But if we get him re-elected again after the left selling their soul to the devil with fake news then they will have to step back and re-evaluate if what they are doing is the cause of the election losses.
Click to expand...

No, they won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top