Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

  • Thanks 1

  • Replies 79.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vermillion

    12278

  • GhostBox

    5758

  • ClashAndBurn

    3337

  • Communion

    3042

Posted

:coffee2: 

 

Posted

:coffee2: 

 

Posted

 

  • Like 1
Posted

So Trump called in to Fox and Friends this morning and Steve Doocy asked him about how he felt that it was revealed the shooter searched "How far was Oswald from Kennedy?" the day it happened. Instead of him answering the question or his feelings he started blabbering about this crowd size and how "He has 60-70k crowds that show up for him, and only 30 people for Biden." :rip:  like what? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I'm nervous at the lack of rigorous and fair primaries that the Dems have normalized now. We've essentially not had a proper primary where the DNC and donors didn't put their finger on the scale since 2008. 

What is considered a proper primary? Primary presidential elections are a pretty new concept in US politics. The norm has been decisions made in smoke filled rooms. 1992 is when multi state presidential primaries became popular 

 

Everyone would have preferred a primary in early 2024, but these are the cards we have been dealt. If we start nitpicking this, people should also be outraged with Trump not attending primary debates 

  • Like 3
Posted
29 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I'm nervous at the lack of rigorous and fair primaries that the Dems have normalized now. We've essentially not had a proper primary where the DNC and donors didn't put their finger on the scale since 2008. 

At the end of the day, I think Dem voters are… content with this? They want the power brokers to make the choice for them because they trust their establishment wholeheartedly. The only ones who don't, Bernie voters, are a loud minority who don't rally have a place or a voice within the party structure. Rank-and-file Democrats have made that clear by rejecting rabble-rousers and gadfly candidates like Mike Gravel, Bernie, and Marianne Williamson even going back to 2008.

 

Part of the reason I'm expecting them to pick Shapiro, personally. By doing so, they make it clearer to Bernie voters and young people that their support is neither needed nor wanted.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Everyone trying to control the narrative in these comments is fascinating. Confirms the conservative bias on Kamala's drop-out before Iowa, center-left saying it's too early

 

 

Since we're discussing his outlooks I might as well put this here too :coffee2: (already did Vance's historical unpopularity)

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Part of the reason I'm expecting them to pick Shapiro, personally. By doing so, they make it clearer to Bernie voters and young people that their support is neither needed nor wanted.

Since we got the top 4 contenders this is what I've been afraid of. The New Republic piece articulated it well.

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

 

Like... everything they say here, she's not actually fully agreeing with? The only thing I think could stick here is the "banning fracking". Wasn't that a big thing they tried to hit Biden with, which ultimately didn't work.

 

49 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

I'm nervous at the lack of rigorous and fair primaries that the Dems have normalized now. We've essentially not had a proper primary where the DNC and donors didn't put their finger on the scale since 2008. 

No, you're not nervous. You're just upset about Williamson as usual lol.

 

We had a rigorous and fair primary in 2020 where the American people rejected Williamson (again) and chose Biden.  We had a fair primary in 2016 when the voters chose HRC. You could argue the voters are choosing "Safe bets" that are presented to them and that's fine, but they still voted for those two candidates overwhelmingly. This obsession with blaming the "establishment" when the fault lies on the young people who claimed to love people like Bernie and Williamson but apparently not enough to leave their houses to vote is no one's fault but theirs.

 

This time around, as has been mentioned, is just incredibly different. We are the incumbent party so Biden was the default nominee. That's how it always is with the incumbency... Biden just happened to drop out and we don't have time for a do-over. Just accept it.

Edited by Sannie
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

So Trump called in to Fox and Friends this morning and Steve Doocy asked him about how he felt that it was revealed the shooter searched "How far was Oswald from Kennedy?" the day it happened. Instead of him answering the question or his feelings he started blabbering about this crowd size and how "He has 60-70k crowds that show up for him, and only 30 people for Biden." :rip:  like what? 

While we're on that subject :coffee2: 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

Everyone trying to control the narrative in these comments is fascinating. Confirms the conservative bias on Kamala's drop-out before Iowa, center-left saying it's too early

 

 

Since we're discussing his outlooks I might as well put this here too :coffee2: (already did Vance's historical unpopularity)

 

 

 

The clocking.

 

 

 

How does this make any sense? I understand the desperation to "figure out" the race coming from these people, but my God. They can be patient too.

It's like how desperate these media sites are to be the one to break the VP pick so they're just throwing out names over and over. 

Posted

 

Posted

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Context:

 

Posted (edited)

:ahh:

 

They're mad-mad. So mad they are refusing to believe reality. They have the honorable James O'Keefe figuring this out. :ahh:

 

 

 

Edited by Sannie
  • Haha 3
Posted

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Sannie said:

Like... everything they say here, she's not actually fully agreeing with? The only thing I think could stick here is the "banning fracking". Wasn't that a big thing they tried to hit Biden with, which ultimately didn't work.

 

You sure about that? I remember Dems thinking "Texas" was in play, and it was nowhere near as close as they thought. In fact, Trump won in 56 of the 59 counties that rely on fracking, which offset the gains Dems made in larger cities.

 

I know we should take recent polls with a grain of salt, but Arizona is the only swing state that went Trump +2 after Harris became the likely candidate. The oil and gas industry contributes 15.6B to Arizona's economy.

 

 

Posted

Several schools of thought which again I don't have the energy to unpack

And I'll have to post this too

 

Posted

 

  • Like 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, NausAllien said:

You sure about that? I remember Dems thinking "Texas" was in play, and it was nowhere near as close as they thought. In fact, Trump won in 56 of the 59 counties that rely on fracking, which offset the gains Dems made in larger cities.

 

I know we should take recent polls with a grain of salt, but Arizona is the only swing state that went Trump +2 after Harris became the likely candidate. The oil and gas industry contributes 15.6B to Arizona's economy.

 

 

:ahh:

 

No one in their right mind thought Texas was at play. That is something Dems say every election but nobody actually believes that. You are a very gullible person lol. More proof you don't actually understand Americans and their political beliefs.

 

Also, Dems don't need AZ.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
2 hours ago, nadiamendell said:


 

 

I mean we all knew this.

They probably are gonna do a big rally/event together where he'll announce it, it's not as nefarious as some claim :rip:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted

 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.