It means if the Ruskies don't get their Martha's Vineyard cottage back, they're gonna drop dat peepee tape.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
It means if the Ruskies don't get their Martha's Vineyard cottage back, they're gonna drop dat peepee tape.
whyamihere
Banned
That doesn't actually address the point that there are still voters who disliked Hillary and voted for Obama and given his numbers in November 2016, probably still felt the same way even if they voted for Trump.
Hillary was so popular in 2012 that bogus as it is they contemplated replacing Biden with Hillary on the ticket.
Obama was stuck in the 40's for most of his term aside from the beginning of 09, after his reelect and the 2016 campaign.
Yeah, and again, Republicans also think Obama attempted to sabotage Trump's presidency.
You're crazy if you don't think Obama is still a sore spot for Republicans.
JesseEwiak
Member
Partly because a selfish egotist fanned the flames of a corrupt primary months after he had no chance to win the primary.
Nothing straighter than a sleeveless sailor and a bearded hipster drinking together!
TestOfTide
Banned
Yeah, but the thing is that Hillary wasn't just hated by republicans. Hillary was hated by 60% of voters.
Basileus777
Member
Which Republicans? They aren't a monolithic block even if it depressingly might seem so at times.
aspiegamer
Member
CNN's oppo droppo hour is always a little different because they time it for reveal during Blitzer or Cooper. They've actually had some decent scoops the past few weeks.
This will sound awful(?), but I seriously don't know if someone at his age + health is going to pull that off.
ftfy
got eem
whyamihere
Banned
lol that's good
Basileus777
Member
That's a Ted Cruz joke.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Lol, I think her "grandma jokes" are starting to grow on me once I learn to expect it
Edit: just saw the tweet, maybe there's a reference I didn't get... which makes me the grandma OTL
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Except when Tedward delivers it he licks his lips after every word, and makes a squishy sound after telling it.
BlastProcessing
Member
That has already been proven untrue.
Bc nothing matters. Like actually.
People jump all over me when I say this - but we don't have a functioning oversight arm. The GOP not gonna do anything.
All this does is chip away at his favorability. Which is fine, but nothing's happening til 2018.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Hillary ran a preeeeeetty disgusting and divisive primary against Obama in 2008, so there's arguably something karmic about it, in that sense.
Once the math was showing it was over, though, she completely laid off negative attacks.
It was a brutal bloody fistfight, but they still hugged it out at the end.
Basileus777
Member
How was it corrupt?
Lucky Forward
Member
Boehner Walks Back Criticism Of Trump Presidency As A Complete Disaster
He's not a complete disaster policy-wise, only when he tries to do stuff.
He's not a complete disaster policy-wise, only when he tries to do stuff.
I don't get why people make such a big deal of two time Obama voters voting for Trump. It's only perceived as aberrant because of the candidates involved, but in actuality it happens every single time a party is running for it's third Presidential term in a row. JFK/LBJ voters voted for Nixon, Nixon voters voted for Carter, Reagan/Bush voters voted for Clinton, two time Clinton voters voted for Bush, and two time Bush voters voted for Obama. Besides that, the actual number of "reliable" Democratic voters flipping to Trump was insignificant next to those who voted third party or abstained entirely.
The lack of functioning oversight is definitely an issue, but I don't see how anything will happen even after 2018 when the Democratic party can't get people furious about this stuff. There's so much real fodder here that Kathy Griffin and Twitter typos shouldn't even show up on people's radar.
They don't need to get people furious. They already are.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
TestOfTide
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
True, but I tend to think Bernie probably bought the "Bernie math" stuff for a decently long time (his economic plan certainly indicates he is more than willing to accept shoddy stats if they're what he wants to hear) and then went a few extra weeks to try to build up the progressive wing of the party and affect change in the DNC, itself, which I don't think is that huge of a deal, considering the relatively short memory of the general voting public in the era of 24/7 news. Some of the polling seemed to indicate Bernie primary voters flipped to Hillary in numbers equaling or exceeding those of Hillary to Obama at comparable points in time, and he campaigned for her (and against Trump) pretty hard when the actual general campaign season rolled around. The Bernie or Busters appear to be trivially small, in terms of impact, compared to the Obama -> Trump voters, and the typically non-voting rural whites who showed up.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Torpedo your president in a highly public meltdown of leadership right before the midterms? That's not what the doctor ordered!
Bernie deliberately kept asking for delays on filing tax documents, and then never had to because he pulled out.
He knew exactly what he was doing, he just thought he could have his cake and eat it too.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Honestly, even I'm not so sure. The way that the hearings just have the GOP frantically, and almost in an ironclad fashion, focusing on "unmasking" when the country could be potentially being fucking RULED BY A FOREIGN POWER RIGHT NOW is just killing me.
I'm so fucking exhausted from all this shit.
Yep
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Even so (and I don't buy that this was necessarily him, given campaigns are composed of large teams with many cooks in the kitchen), he appears to have had not that big of an impact on the final ballot box returns.
BlastProcessing
Member
I wish someone other than the NY Post had this, but I still think it's worth at least bringing up here If I get a better source I will make a thread:
NY Post: The government is spying on journalists to find leakers
This seems less than ideal.
NY Post: The government is spying on journalists to find leakers
NY Post said:
This seems less than ideal.
TestOfTide
Banned
Senate is still actually investigating Trump's campaign, but the difference between the FBI investigation and the senate investigation is that the FBI investigation was widening whereas the Senate was focused on just Russia and the Trump campaign.
The House is stupid and hopes to deflect the story by just focusing on legal unmasking, but the senate is playing it a little smarter. They are hoping to get ahead of the story by actually implicating people in Trump's campaign and then ending it there.
Well yeah. Eventually someone was going to get caught. Looks like Trump's people might have figured out three of the leakers.
But the thing is that we know that the Intel and FBI leaks weren't just coming from 3 people. We also know that it's not just Obama era IC people who hate Trump.
The leaks won't stop just because a few leakers were caught. Trump would basically have to fire the entire IC to stop the leaks.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
I think this is gonna be ON quickly guys.
Ronald Raegan's son was just in CNN defending Trump. Whatever. What was remarkable was that he had the EXACT same talking points as Jason Miller did earlier on how to talk about the effect of any Russian meddling.
"No voter has come out and said they changed their votes because of Russian meddling."
It's a pretty bad argument but follow me. They similarly had very similar ways to talk about Hillary, why she lost, etc.
If you've followed the Trump campaign, you know it's close to never that they have so well coordinated talking points. Clearly the war room is functional and operational.
Here's what's interesting. Reagan's son ALSO trotted out the "collision with Russia is not illegal" talking point someone made in Fox News earlier.
Why would Trumps war room have a talking about that? And why so soon?
Ronald Raegan's son was just in CNN defending Trump. Whatever. What was remarkable was that he had the EXACT same talking points as Jason Miller did earlier on how to talk about the effect of any Russian meddling.
"No voter has come out and said they changed their votes because of Russian meddling."
It's a pretty bad argument but follow me. They similarly had very similar ways to talk about Hillary, why she lost, etc.
If you've followed the Trump campaign, you know it's close to never that they have so well coordinated talking points. Clearly the war room is functional and operational.
Here's what's interesting. Reagan's son ALSO trotted out the "collision with Russia is not illegal" talking point someone made in Fox News earlier.
Why would Trumps war room have a talking about that? And why so soon?
BlastProcessing
Member
It's not that they caught the leakers, it's that they issued surveillance warrants against the press. That is a direct assault on the First Amendment and could have a massive chilling effect on journalists communicating with sources.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
I think most of Bernie's support centered on there being an incredibly weak field of candidates, and one establishment pick that was so distasteful to so many people. Bernie was the only alternative for people who didn't like Hillary, basically. In a better field (say for instance, if Biden had run) I don't believe his campaign would have "taken off" the way it did. While I do not think Biden would have won the nomination, I fully believe he would have won the Iowa caucus, with Hillary coming in second. Bernie coming in third right out the gate would have set a narrative that would last throughout, IMO.
Personally I just don't believe the Bernie "coalition" is as focused on anti-establishment/anti Wall St/anti money/etc as advertised. I'm sure you noticed how many hardcore Bernie fans here would often say they would have voted for Biden if he ran. I think this generally boils down to people not standing Hillary Clinton and wanting alternatives - everything else is a narrative created after that fact.
We'll see this in 2020, if Bernie runs. The field will be significantly better and Bernie will trot out the exact same tired campaign and puzzling decisions (like, you know, completely ignoring the south). It won't work. I'm sure a segment of hardcore Bernie fans will be outraged if say Booker or Harris becomes the nominee, but it won't matter. The good thing about 2020 is that none of the major candidates are as flawed as Hillary Clinton.
Personally I just don't believe the Bernie "coalition" is as focused on anti-establishment/anti Wall St/anti money/etc as advertised. I'm sure you noticed how many hardcore Bernie fans here would often say they would have voted for Biden if he ran. I think this generally boils down to people not standing Hillary Clinton and wanting alternatives - everything else is a narrative created after that fact.
We'll see this in 2020, if Bernie runs. The field will be significantly better and Bernie will trot out the exact same tired campaign and puzzling decisions (like, you know, completely ignoring the south). It won't work. I'm sure a segment of hardcore Bernie fans will be outraged if say Booker or Harris becomes the nominee, but it won't matter. The good thing about 2020 is that none of the major candidates are as flawed as Hillary Clinton.
Why? Because that talking point has worked for literally everything Trump has done. "It's not illegal to do X" is kind of their thing now. It's how he's able to keep his business ties and no one gives a shit. Honestly at this point that's what I'd tell the team to lightly spread around. That way if/when it ever does come out the groundwork is laid for why it's not so bad anyway.
I completely agree with this.
EDIT: This post also touches on why I don't think Booker's corporate ties are going to matter much in an actual campaign.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Another republican defending trump on CNN. and third person to say "collusion would be OK; not illegal, or not a big deal."
That exposes them so much because it centers the conversation on COLLUSION. Not something he wants...
Unless they're getting ahead of a massive story that's gonna blow the word collusion wide open
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I've been thinking about this every now and then, and I'm still unsure of what the right play for them would be. Do you remove him as swiftly as possible to defuse the argument? It admits guilt and that can cost you. Do you hold firm? That can be a rallying cry for midterms with the very real statement that if the Dems take the House, impeachment happens.
All of this assumes some guilt is warranted but at this point, somebody's ass is going to jail.
VendettaRed07
Member
Call me crazy but we shouldn't just give up on West Virginia.
It was Trump's best state points wise but it also had the lowest turnout of eligible voters
im a little crazy
TestOfTide
Banned
Accept the FISA warrant is specifically NOT against the press according to the article.
It's only worked for Trump's fanbase. If the story becomes more definitively about collusion, then the death by a thousand cuts just becomes deeper on Trump.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Great to hear.
whyamihere
Banned
I thought that was Hawaii?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
AVR is more beneficial towards presidential elections but where mail-ballots are really incredible is midterm turnout. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington all have way higher than average turnout after adopting mail ballots and I think Colorado's jump from 2010 to 2014 was something absurd like 10 points when they adopted it.
I don't think pursuing it until Democrats can say they've delivered results there would ever work though.
I think if the next Democratic president creates a Green New Deal and uses a lot of that money to transform Appalachia and restore their communities that it might have a chance after that.
I don't think pursuing it until Democrats can say they've delivered results there would ever work though.
- Status