ADVERTISEMENT

Democrats BEST course of action...

You do realize that the reason they're pushing back on Biden's nomination is that they're afraid he'll lose, right?

If you believe that has to do with some kind of principled stand, you're naive.
Of course it's ultimately about winning and losing. So what?

You know what's really crazy though, crazed? The fact that Trump, with all his turd-filled baggage, still has the unwavering loyalty and support of his party and has a real chance of winning in November!
 
But would you agree that this has been the implication? I mean, many people very much have flat out said that Russia got Trump elected. But even those who have stopped short of saying it have implied it -- or, at best, not pushed back on it. And the whole idea behind this messaging was to delegitimize Trump's presidency, or even push him out of office.

Well, guess what Trump's motivation was in spreading his lie?

I realize people who have strong opinions one way or the other about these political personalities are going to scoff at the notion that they're like those other guys -- the other guys are nutcases.

But the people who have bought into one or the other of this pair of notions are, to me, more alike than they are different.
Agree.
 
Kinda a win-win bet for you, no?

I'll take the bet even up because it will be fun and I'm not sure anyone's ever done it here. dbmhoosier wouldn't even respond to the bet I offered him. I don't care about you posting for 30 days--do what you like. But since it matters to you, I won't post for 30 days if Biden isn't the nominee coming out of the convention.
What a roundabout way of saying you accept.

It's a bet. None of what happens on the WC "matters to me." If I lose, I couldn't care less that I can't/won't post here for a month. For others, that would be devastating.

Anyway, game on. Bowl out for now.
 
Of course it's ultimately about winning and losing. So what?

You know what's really crazy though, crazed? The fact that Trump, with all his turd-filled baggage, still has the unwavering loyalty and support of his party and has a real chance of winning in November!

Given that party support is all about winning and losing, and that Trump has a real chance of winning, why then should we be surprised that most Republicans are supportive of Donald Trump?

Don't get me wrong: I think Donald Trump is a reckless man. Ask me to list the 10 most appropriate adjectives to describe him, and each one of them are going to be negative. So don't take anything I'm saying as an endorsement of him -- or even of the concept that the ends justify the means in all things political. I don't believe that -- if I did, I'd have joined my fellow Republicans in supporting him.

I'm just saying that the parties are quite similar in this regard. And, honestly, I'm fine with that. I wouldn't really expect anything different from political parties, tbh.
 
Fraud? You’re just pulling stuff out of your ass.

We have two unfit candidates for president of the United States. Let’s start with Biden. First, he’s not the nominee. This is probably news to you, but a majority of Dems and Independents want him to step aside. Many Democratic members of Congress have publicly stated he should drop out of the race, and the list grows longer by the day. He’s not going to make it to the convention.

Now let’s consider your twice-impeached, four times indicted, criminally convicted, patron of political violence, supporter of cop-beaters, election denier, adjudicated-rapist candidate. Where’s the party pushback against his candidacy? Answer: there isn’t any. Disgraceful.

“It is a national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to have a similar debate about the manifest moral and temperamental unfitness of their standard-bearer, instead setting aside their longstanding values, closing ranks and choosing to overlook what those who worked most closely with the former president have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption and incompetence.”

If I were you I wouldn’t be too worried about the Democrats’ nominating process. Instead, you should be concerned about the destructive malignancy within your own party named Donald Trump.
You do realize that the reason they're pushing back on Biden's nomination is that they're afraid he'll lose, right?

If you believe that has to do with some kind of principled stand, you're naive.
This
 
Maybe. But it’s hard for me to imagine a ticket consisting of Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro losing to a ticket led by Donald Trump.

It’s worth noting that Dem candidates in AZ, NV, and OH are running strong and well ahead of Biden in states that Trump is poised to win.
Is there any chance that keeping Biden on the ticket will negatively impact those down ballot races? That would be my big concern if I was at the DNC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
198 house democrats voted against the bill requiring proof of citizenship to register in federal elections. The Democrats oppose every measure to protect elections from fraudsters. I’ve always believed that people will take advantage of loopholes to commit election fraud.

It doesn’t take “wide spread” fraud to affect an election. It only requires a handful of people in a few deep blue cities.

This isn’t to say there is fraud. But it is to say, the democrats oppose all measures to limit fraud.
They can’t win without fraud.


 
Last edited:
Is there any chance that keeping Biden on the ticket will negatively impact those down ballot races? That would be my big concern if I was at the DNC.
Yes, of course there’s a chance of that. And I’m sure candidates in competitive races are concerned about that.

However, a lot the polling I’ve glanced at suggests it’s been largely limited.

Tammy Baldwin, for instance, was about 11 points better Biden in Wisconsin in a recent poll there. And it wasn’t an outlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cortez88
There's a maxim in presidential politics that you never, ever surrender the inherent advantages of incumbency. I think this notion was central to the Dems' decision to shoo away suggestions that Biden's condition would be a problem. I wouldn't call it a "cover-up", really (though I can understand why some are).

I think really it was more akin to a collective denial.


I'd go with cover-up.
Oh man. Even Clooney is coming after him.



nicely done
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Given that party support is all about winning and losing, and that Trump has a real chance of winning, why then should we be surprised that most Republicans are supportive of Donald Trump?

Don't get me wrong: I think Donald Trump is a reckless man. Ask me to list the 10 most appropriate adjectives to describe him, and each one of them are going to be negative. So don't take anything I'm saying as an endorsement of him -- or even of the concept that the ends justify the means in all things political. I don't believe that -- if I did, I'd have joined my fellow Republicans in supporting him.

I'm just saying that the parties are quite similar in this regard. And, honestly, I'm fine with that. I wouldn't really expect anything different from political parties, tbh.


Surviving two hoax impeachments and coming out the other end of 4 politically motivated prosecutions doesn't rate at least one adjective on the list of your 10 most appropriate?
 
Yes, of course there’s a chance of that. And I’m sure candidates in competitive races are concerned about that.

However, a lot the polling I’ve glanced at suggests it’s been largely limited.

Tammy Baldwin, for instance, was about 11 points better Biden in Wisconsin in a recent poll there. And it wasn’t an outlier.
Baris addressed the concept of ticket splitting on his show yesterday. There has only been one example of any real ticket splitting in the modern era in a Presidential election and that was Collins winning ME in 2020. It just doesn't happen or hasn't in the modern era. It's why DecisionDesk now has Kari Lake favored in AZ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Baris addressed the concept of ticket splitting on his show yesterday. There has only been one example of any real ticket splitting in the modern era in a Presidential election and that was Collins winning ME in 2020. It just doesn't happen or hasn't in the modern era. It's why DecisionDesk now has Kari Lake favored in AZ.
Baris?!? He’s probably the dumbest of your incredibly dumb go to Trumpster Twitter Twits but he does know his followers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
That's a great movie. Evokes many emotions if you've ever been on either side of a RIF.

It is a great movie, I love Anna Kendrick. Is that a real thing though, companies being so cowardly that they have outside firms to do their layoffs?

IK there are strategy consultants who will advocate RIF but I figured companies would at least manage their own terminations.
 
It wasn't stupid people. It was an orchestrated campaign of deception. Both parties do it. Both parties have people in the media that assist or enable it. Only partisans on each side fail to see it.

One of the scariest things in all of this over the last decade has been that intelligent people accept the deception as long as it's their side doing it, because they believe the ends justify the means. End of democracy, indeed.
I don't get this 'both sides do it' argument. When have Republicans pulled any ruse like this?

This is a Democrat phenomenon, with no Republican equivalent. Republicans got rid of their corrupt President. This has been a massive cover up for over 3 years.

'Both parties' don''t do it. Yes, partisans do rationalize bad behavior and overlook things on their side, but there is no comparable Republican cover up of this magnitude.
 
I don't get this 'both sides do it' argument. When have Republicans pulled any ruse like this?

This is a Democrat phenomenon, with no Republican equivalent. Republicans got rid of their corrupt President. This has been a massive cover up for over 3 years.

'Both parties' don''t do it. Yes, partisans do rationalize bad behavior and overlook things on their side, but there is no comparable Republican cover up of this magnitude.
What corrupt president? We nominated trump. He’s corrupt. We just prefer corruption to progressives
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
It is a great movie, I love Anna Kendrick. Is that a real thing though, companies being so cowardly that they have outside firms to do their layoffs?

IK there are strategy consultants who will advocate RIF but I figured companies would at least manage their own terminations.
I've never been in a situation where that was farmed out to a consultant, but like you said, I've been situations where an outside consultant made the recommendations of who or where the RIF should be.
 
Very true.

That's why it's a little naive to think the other nations aren't doing it in ours, especially now that it is so easy to do.
I don't know many who think they don't try to interfere - the fallacy is that they're interfering to help Trump.

That's just false, without any basis other than Trump isn't beating war drums against Russia.

Russia and China both want to undermine confidence in our elections, and they've succeeded, to an extent. But it doesn't explain real election anomalies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Kinda a win-win bet for you, no?

I'll take the bet even up because it will be fun and I'm not sure anyone's ever done it here. dbmhoosier wouldn't even respond to the bet I offered him. I don't care about you posting for 30 days--do what you like. But since it matters to you, I won't post for 30 days if Biden isn't the nominee coming out of the convention.
He'll just post under his other IDs
 
It is a great movie, I love Anna Kendrick. Is that a real thing though, companies being so cowardly that they have outside firms to do their layoffs?

IK there are strategy consultants who will advocate RIF but I figured companies would at least manage their own terminations.
My best friend, IU grad, known him since Kindergarten, essentially did this within his company in Europe. He was ROTC, and they figured he'd be a cold bastard because he was in the Army. He was. They kept him around just to do this kind of stuff, sometimes to high-ranking executives because their superiors were scared of them in some way.
He said the amount of cowardice in the European higher ups was incredible.

By working in Europe so much, he too has become a perks/mileage hoss. Every year he would fly his family to some exotic locale for a week or two vacation, all flights and hotels/resorts paid for by points.
 
I don't get this 'both sides do it' argument. When have Republicans pulled any ruse like this?

This is a Democrat phenomenon, with no Republican equivalent. Republicans got rid of their corrupt President. This has been a massive cover up for over 3 years.

'Both parties' don''t do it. Yes, partisans do rationalize bad behavior and overlook things on their side, but there is no comparable Republican cover up of this magnitude.
I've been hammering the Dems on the coverup and gaslighting of this since the debate. Even started a thread on it. So I'm not downplaying this example. But per your request for Republican counterparts, the 2020 Stop the Steal post-election voter-fraud-turned-the-election argument was a pretty big ruse.

Other possible examples:

WMDs in Iraq

1980s Reagan mental competence, Iran/Contra.

Nixon Watergate coverup. Vietnam--Cambodia/Laos bombing campaign.

I'm not historically knowledgeable enough to know how deep in the party at that time the deceptions ran in comparison to this.
 
Watergate which was a deep state set up but Nixon stupidly took the bait.
You think the deep state punked Nixon by conspiring with John Ehrlichman and John Mitchell to approve Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt’s plan to use Nixon campaign funds to finance an operation to break in to Democratic HQ to photograph documents?

Or are you saying that Mitchell, Liddy, and Ehrlichman (etal) were the deep state?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
He said the amount of cowardice in the European higher ups was incredible.

By working in Europe so much, he too has become a perks/mileage hoss. Every year he would fly his family to some exotic locale for a week or two vacation, all flights and hotels/resorts paid for by points.
So true. I've seen guys who act like HItler just dominate their co-workers in Europe. That shit wouldn't fly in the US very long. I saw a few try it with US execs and they were shot down pretty quickly. I used to laugh in meetings where they'd try that - they didn't know how to respond.

Hilton Honors and Northwest mileage points..... ah, that was the life. Spent some weeks in Hawaii on their dime. Of course, the price was traveling so much and missing out on family time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hookyIU1990
Ford Nixon Agnew. Would have been an interesting time.
Ford was fine. Just a good guy thrown into a bad situation. He still almost beat Carter, even with his stupid inflation fighting measures - he actually had WIN (Whip Inflation Now) lapel pins printed up to hand out. lol Crazy times.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mcmurtry66
I don't know many who think they don't try to interfere - the fallacy is that they're interfering to help Trump.

That's just false, without any basis other than Trump isn't beating war drums against Russia.

Russia and China both want to undermined confidence in our elections, and they've succeeded, to an extent. But it doesn't explain real election anomalies.
I think you can admit Russia put more out there against Clinton than against Trump and not have to admit that Trump was somehow in the bag for Russia.

The Russians aren't stupid. They were looking at the same polling data as everyone else in 2016. No one thought Trump could win. So if you're them, what do you do? You prime the pump against the person you think is going to win, more than the longshot. That's strategy 101. As for any evidence that shows Putin's "true intent," I take all of that with a huge grain of salt. Dude is former KGB. He's all about planting false evidence, deception, etc.

Finally, I think it more likely than not that Putin preferred Trump. I don't find that particularly relevant or interesting, though. Stalin might have preferred FDR to his Republican challengers (there might be another, better example). So what? Judge them on their policies and actions, not what the other leaders might be (possibly incorrectly) predicting they might do, or what they might say they want in order to affect our elections.
 
I've been hammering the Dems on the coverup and gaslighting of this since the debate. Even started a thread on it. So I'm not downplaying this example. But per your request for Republican counterparts, the 2020 Stop the Steal post-election voter-fraud-turned-the-election argument was a pretty big ruse.

Other possible examples:

WMDs in Iraq

1980s Reagan mental competence, Iran/Contra.

Nixon Watergate coverup. Vietnam--Cambodia/Laos bombing campaign.

I'm not historically knowledgeable enough to know how deep in the party at that time the deceptions ran in comparison to this.
WMDs in Iraq - not a Party cover up. All intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMDs and it was only when an invations was imminent that some doubt krept in. The UN though he had WMDs. I don't think it was a cover up as much as an excuse to take Saddam out after 9/11.

1980s Reagan mental competence, Iran/Contra - Reagan wasn't incompetent and the CIA and his staff engineered Iran/Contra. It may have been a cover up, to some extent, but it was quickly exposed and dealt with. Nowhere comparable to the Democrat Party today.

Nixon Watergate coverup. Vietnam--Cambodia/Laos bombing campaign. - Watergate was not a cover up by Republicans and, in fact, Republicans called for Nixon to resign or be impeached. Vietnam-Cambodia was a Nixon cover up, but again, not one supported by the Republican Party.

The media does a much better job exposing any Republican incidents. The Party doesn't rally around people like George Soros like Democrats to Bob Menendez.
 
I think you can admit Russia put more out there against Clinton than against Trump and not have to admit that Trump was somehow in the bag for Russia.

The Russians aren't stupid. They were looking at the same polling data as everyone else in 2016. No one thought Trump could win. So if you're them, what do you do? You prime the pump against the person you think is going to win, more than the longshot. That's strategy 101. As for any evidence that shows Putin's "true intent," I take all of that with a huge grain of salt. Dude is former KGB. He's all about planting false evidence, deception, etc.

Finally, I think it more likely than not that Putin preferred Trump. I don't find that particularly relevant or interesting, though. Stalin might have preferred FDR to his Republican challengers (there might be another, better example). So what? Judge them on their policies and actions, not what the other leaders might be (possibly incorrectly) predicting they might do, or what they might say they want in order to affect our elections.
I think Putin preferred dealing with a man than a woman. I think her personally disliked Hillary and was struck somewhat by Trump's star power. People forget how famous Trump was before he was President.

It doesn't bother me when people say he preferred Trump, but when they say Trump cooperated and colluded with him, that's just not proved or apparent in how Trump ran his Presidency. Being pro-Putin doesn't mean advising Europe against being depended on them for energy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT