US Election 2020

[L'Emmerdeur]

Who started it?

There are media sources that have investigated the issues you raise. Since I'm epitome of untrustworthy and there's no point in clicking on any links I post, I won't trouble you with those sources. They're just shills in cahoots with the deep state, no doubt.

Perhaps Molly McKew is the person whose name you couldn't remember. That's got to be wrong though, because I wrote it. Somebody of that name is described as 'a far-left Russia-Gate conspiracy theorist' by one site. Probably better to ignore anything she said.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt doesn't do links or research. If he can't hear it in a podcast or watch it on youtube, it doesn't exist. He might be dyslexic or something.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Cunt doesn't do links or research. If he can't hear it in a podcast or watch it on youtube, it doesn't exist. He might be dyslexic or something.

I disagree with that last sentence; it seems to me that he's perfectly capable of reading and writes with above average proficiency.

However, the world is teeming with NPCs trying to bring a brother down. Treating them with contempt is the only way to preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids.

[Cunt]

Who started it?

There are media sources that have investigated the issues you raise. Since I'm epitome of untrustworthy and there's no point in clicking on any links I post, I won't trouble you with those sources. They're just shills in cahoots with the deep state, no doubt.

Perhaps Molly McKew is the person whose name you couldn't remember. That's got to be wrong though, because I wrote it. Somebody of that name is described as 'a far-left Russia-Gate conspiracy theorist' by one site. Probably better to ignore anything she said.

Thanks, it is McKew who spoke about it.

And I'm glad to hear the media looking into it. Blaming all the other assholes (Indiginous guy, Hebrew Isrealites or CNN) was distracting from the main story. I'm going to try to find out if she weighed in on it, because the methods were so similar to the ones she described.

And I do dismiss most of what you write here, because it is anti-Trump. I already know you are anti-Trump. I don't need to read another article you copy which explains that you are STILL anti-Trump.

You are interesting about other subjects, just not that one.

[trdsf]

No, its the fact that the US is set up just far enough away from democracy so that the 51% can't vote away the rights of the other 49.

I mean, think of how silly it would be if someone from New York had equal say about a border between Texas and Mexico than someone in Texas...now THAT would seem crzay.

Oh, you mean like the New Yorker in the White House right now trying to tell Texas and the other border states about what the border has to be like?

[Seabass]

Well played...

[Cunt]

No, its the fact that the US is set up just far enough away from democracy so that the 51% can't vote away the rights of the other 49.

I mean, think of how silly it would be if someone from New York had equal say about a border between Texas and Mexico than someone in Texas...now THAT would seem crzay.

Oh, you mean like the New Yorker in the White House right now trying to tell Texas and the other border states about what the border has to be like?

It wasn't the New Yorkers choice. It was the nations choice, he got elected on that platform, so it's only the Democrats who suddenly didn't want border improvement. They are also the ones who push for sanctuary cities, right?

[trdsf]

No, its the fact that the US is set up just far enough away from democracy so that the 51% can't vote away the rights of the other 49.

I mean, think of how silly it would be if someone from New York had equal say about a border between Texas and Mexico than someone in Texas...now THAT would seem crzay.

Oh, you mean like the New Yorker in the White House right now trying to tell Texas and the other border states about what the border has to be like?

It wasn't the New Yorkers choice. It was the nations choice, he got elected on that platform, so it's only the Democrats who suddenly didn't want border improvement. They are also the ones who push for sanctuary cities, right?

Selected by the Electoral Collage, not elected. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million. That's not a mandate, that's an anomaly.

[Cunt]

It wasn't the New Yorkers choice. It was the nations choice, he got elected on that platform, so it's only the Democrats who suddenly didn't want border improvement. They are also the ones who push for sanctuary cities, right?

Selected by the Electoral Collage, not elected. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million. That's not a mandate, that's an anomaly.

He won the vote, the way it works in the US.

The 'popular vote' nonsense is just a way to let Hillary down easy. Have to be gentle with someone who lost so unexpectedly.

So anti-border-wall, pro-sanctuary cities and running California into the highest levels of homelessness in the country. Democrats shouldn't expect to do any better this time around either.

If we could only make the Democrats paint those who are against illegal immigrants as 'racist', the 2020 election would be a LOCK for the Republicans. (no matter who they run)

[trdsf]

It wasn't the New Yorkers choice. It was the nations choice, he got elected on that platform, so it's only the Democrats who suddenly didn't want border improvement. They are also the ones who push for sanctuary cities, right?

Selected by the Electoral Collage, not elected. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million. That's not a mandate, that's an anomaly.

He won the vote, the way it works in the US.

The 'popular vote' nonsense is just a way to let Hillary down easy. Have to be gentle with someone who lost so unexpectedly.

So anti-border-wall, pro-sanctuary cities and running California into the highest levels of homelessness in the country. Democrats shouldn't expect to do any better this time around either.

If we could only make the Democrats paint those who are against illegal immigrants as 'racist', the 2020 election would be a LOCK for the Republicans. (no matter who they run)

Rubbish and nonsense yourself. He won only 46% of the vote, hardly "the nation's choice". There's absolutely no way you can spin that into claiming a national mandate of any sort. He was put into office via an 18th century mechanism that was designed to mitigate, not execute, the will of the people, over a deeply divided nation, not one lockstep behind him and everything he wants. Those are the historical facts, nothing "alternative" about them. Sorry reality doesn't agree with you, but hey, that's why they call it reality: it is what it is.

The rest is just strawmanning and can be dismissed without further comment.

[Tero]

46%? That's still a bit alarming. If 39% stay fully in support of him and some BIG event happens that causes national emergency (I think they are working on it!) then another 7% of independents could bring him back to 2106 levels.

[Sean Hayden]

He'll likely die of natural causes soon. Then we get Pence! Al-fuckin-right.

[trdsf]

46%? That's still a bit alarming. If 39% stay fully in support of him and some BIG event happens that causes national emergency (I think they are working on it!) then another 7% of independents could bring him back to 2106 levels.

It's going to depend on a couple factors.

First and foremost, of course, a lot depends on who gets the Democratic nomination, and on what kind of campaign they intend to run. It's not going to be enough to run on "Trump is awful, vote for me!" Whoever it is, is going to have to run *for* something, not just *against* Trump -- even though disgust with Trump is one of the things driving the grassroots.

Second, they're going to have to commit to the Fifty State Strategy. Democrats need to compete everywhere, not just the traditional battlegrounds. This is the strategy that delivered Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia to the D column in the 2008 election; if there's a significant enthusiasm gap in '20, it could make the difference. Remember that twelve states were won by margins less than 5% in '16 -- four of those by less than a percent -- and they account for 133 EVs. A very modest 1.5% swing to the Democrats would have moved 75 EVs from R to D. And campaigning nationally is good practice for when we finally get rid of the Electoral College once and for all.

Some factors are going to be out of the party's control. You've got a media that's more interested in profiting from the rolling circus that is Trump than they are in simply reporting the news; what's to be done about that, I don't know.

[Cunt]

You've got a media that's more interested in profiting from the rolling circus that is Trump than they are in simply reporting the news; what's to be done about that, I don't know.

Sam Harris, in his podcast, has a regular few minutes he dedicates to this around the subject of how he collects subscription fees.

He has thought about it a lot, and made ethical decisions which damaged himself financially, so has earned more of my trust around this issue than many.

Trump sells soap. Holy SHIT does he ever. All you have to do is put his name down, and some people simply MUST read, MUST comment, MUST express their opinion.

I think it's something about his 1980's pro-wrestling style of handling the media. Laugh all you want about how false those performances were, but sounding true wasn't the point of them. It was something about drama, or theatrics. It worked FUCKING amazing.

It worked just as well for Trump, and it was REALLY tough for Dr. Julius Sumner Miller to get my attention away from Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant and Haystack Calhoun. He did, with me, but many other 'kids' my age never heard of him.

So I don't know if the Dem's could win with a good candidate. They may have to go theatrical...

Of course, as our trust in 'video evidence' fails, this might correct itself.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

Trump sells soap. Holy SHIT does he ever. All you have to do is put his name down, and some people simply MUST read, MUST comment, MUST express their opinion.

I think it's something about his 1980's pro-wrestling style of handling the media. Laugh all you want about how false those performances were, but sounding true wasn't the point of them. It was something about drama, or theatrics. It worked FUCKING amazing.

Are you saying that the manipulative techniques of a snake oil salesman are a good basis for being a leader of a major country?