Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Waingro said:

The fringe left works the same way, but the difference is that their mainstream doesn't allow the fringe ideas to dominate the conversation. The mainstream left has certainly embraced that side of the party, with Sanders, AOC, Warren et al. If Trump had won this general election though, no chance you'd see 75% of the house Democrats refusing to acknowledge it, or discussions about sending a pro-Dem slate of electors forward anyway, etc. Embracing that level of kookiness would destroy the future prospects of the party, which are already not looking bright for the Dems.

As you said, they'd like to keep moving the ball, without being hijacked by the extreme crazies in the party. I'm shocked that the GOP is allowing it to happen. What on earth for? They're no longer beholden to Trump, they're likely to keep the senate, just jettison your dead orange weight and start thinking pragmatically about 2022 midterms and beyond. 

To quote a famous TV show, “Follow the money”.  The Trump campaign has raised over $200 million since Election Day, much of it with no strings attached in regards to spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Waingro said:

The fringe left works the same way, but the difference is that their mainstream doesn't allow the fringe ideas to dominate the conversation. The mainstream left has certainly embraced that side of the party, with Sanders, AOC, Warren et al. If Trump had won this general election though, no chance you'd see 75% of the house Democrats refusing to acknowledge it, or discussions about sending a pro-Dem slate of electors forward anyway, etc. Embracing that level of kookiness would destroy the future prospects of the party, which are already not looking bright for the Dems.

As you said, they'd like to keep moving the ball, without being hijacked by the extreme crazies in the party. I'm shocked that the GOP is allowing it to happen. What on earth for? They're no longer beholden to Trump, they're likely to keep the senate, just jettison your dead orange weight and start thinking pragmatically about 2022 midterms and beyond. 

Perhaps Loyalty? They can thank Trump and his relentless exposure of lunatics like AOC and Sanders for bringing in more conservative votes. Trump is not dead orange weight whether you like him or not.  He’s inspired a new wave of conservatism that goes for the throat of neocons like the toxic Bush family.  First president to not get us in a new foreign conflict; in fact he is ending many of them (granted I get to miss Christmas for one of them but that’s neither here nor there).  Trump isn’t going anywhere, whether that means he starts his own cable news network to rival Fox News or runs again in 2024 (I hope the latter because I love seeing the left so triggered about him.)  

Also, generally speaking, Biden is irrelevant in this conversation much like he is as a person, he will be shoved aside for Kamala and sit and watch like a dolt as the radical left starts to take over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dream big said:

Also, generally speaking, Biden is irrelevant in this conversation much like he is as a person, he will be shoved aside for Kamala and sit and watch like a dolt as the radical left starts to take over.  

I find this sentiment hilarious.  I guess Biden has no say in the matter...  What proof do you guys have that this is what they have planned?  How would you say they're going to enforce this crazy idea?  Still working on the whole dementia thing?  Let me know how that works out for you.  

No fan of the guy, but I highly doubt he is intentionally going to be cool with people trying to sideline him, if in fact, these crazy ideas are what the nuts on the left intend.  I doubt they do, even if they want to.  It's a non-starter because it just falls DOA as an idea with no merit.  Dude just won the highest office in the land, could still argue if Trump hasn't done too much damage, the world.  That's gotta be more than a little empowering, and my bet is that the man aint gonna stand idly by while people try to cram radical ideas down our throats.  He'll do what he has to do, compromise and give some (highly likely that he gives more ground to the left because he's a democrat after all) ground to the left, and little to the right.  He's not suicidal, he's not gonna just start giving the right whatever they want.  Both sides of the aisle have proven they're cool with accomplishing nothing, so that's probably what will happen here.  Hopefully he'll continue on a similar path with China, hopefully he'll do some good for the environment.  After that, he won't do much good or bad...  

 

 

Wanted to add I love how the left is attacking their own demi-god, Obama because he hit the nail on the head regarding the whole "defund the police" messaging.  He didn't shoot down the idea of re-allocating some funding, or fixing training focus areas, he simply said something along the lines of "snappy slogans like Defund the Police won't win you many supporters."  He's 100% correct, they shoot themselves in the foot when they go for the snappy slogan that fires up the extremists, thereby hurting a cause that is actually legitimate, fixing the many problems in the way our country polices its people (from calling cops to deal with mental health issues, to helping someone who locked themselves out of their house to dealing with violent criminals or domestic disputes to racial profiling, etc.).  But no, the left, people like Omar and AOC, and some senator from ATL I can't remember started to eat their own... Our country's politicians are so stupid most of the time <---- I had sometimes, but changed it to most of the time.

Edited by slackline
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Prozac said:

Trump’s potential 2024 run will keep a lot of conservatives in his court. It also has the potential to split the party (a few Republicans are finally getting sick of his shit) and give four more years to Dems. 

That’s assuming we see the Dems acting responsibly with power... and that’s a hell of an assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Homestar said:

Trump will make more money as a former President than he did as president. Once he realizes this you’ll see him walk away. 

That logic falls flat when you consider that Trump gave up an insane amount of money to be President. The dude loves the fame, no doubt about it, but he didn’t become POTUS to get rich, no one does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream big said:

That logic falls flat when you consider that Trump gave up an insane amount of money to be President. The dude loves the fame, no doubt about it, but he didn’t become POTUS to get rich, no one does. 

The Obamas/Clintons would beg to differ.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dream big said:

That logic falls flat when you consider that Trump gave up an insane amount of money to be President. The dude loves the fame, no doubt about it, but he didn’t become POTUS to get rich, no one does. 

No, he ran for President for the power (like everyone does) and he’ll use his status as ex-president to get rich (like they all do). Once he realizes how rich he can make himself as ex-President all the 2024 nonsense will stop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Never-Trumpers aren't going to just walk over from R to D wholesale if a potentially all Democrat-led government does things like add states, increase SCOTUS justices, Green New Deal, etc. They'll just stay R and try to defeat Trump in a primary. If Democrats govern in a moderate (in my opinion responsible) fashion, then sure, that type of a change could be possible.

I just don't see it happening with the people Biden is picking, and the power struggle going on between the left and Democrats.

What is your vision of moderate democrat positions that would make Republicans happy?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

Quote

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL

Link to lawsuit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sim said:

This has as much chance as every other "legitimate" lawsuit that's been filed so far, and is about as absurdly obvious as a desperate attempt to stop the inevitable...

 

I'm sure SCOTUS is dying to let Texas stomp all over other state's rights.  It would be a great precedent.  I wonder how Texas would respond if someone tried to force them to do something the Lonestar State didn't want to.

Edited by slackline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slackline said:

This has as much chance as every other "legitimate" lawsuit that's been filed so far, and is about as absurdly obvious as a desperate attempt to stop the inevitable...

 

I'm sure SCOTUS is dying to let Texas stomp all over other state's rights.  It would be a great precedent.  I wonder how Texas would respond if someone tried to force them to do something the Lonestar State didn't want to.

Considering Texas modified voting rules and procedures in exactly the same way...it's not surprised indicted felon Ken Paxton is doing this.  Probably to get a pardon from Daddy Trump from the FBI investigating deep into his taking bribes and abusing office.

So was it: unconstitutionality, or hacking, or fraudulent ballots, or flipped votes.  I guess they're hoping something sticks to the wall to disenfranchise millions.

Meanwhile Lying Ted Cruz, with the ugly wife and assassination Dad, is offering to argue it.

Edited by 17D_guy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, this was just updated, emphasis from your site @Seadogs -

"Just hours after the deadline for the petition's deadline, The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Trump ally Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, to nullify Joe Biden’s election victory in Pennsylvania.

Kelly argued that virtually all of the state’s mail-in ballots were unlawful.

The rebuff came without explanation and with no noted dissents."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, drewpey said:

What is your vision of moderate democrat positions that would make Republicans happy?  

Quit the woke BS, focus on populist positions. Look at infrastructure, building on a return to American-focused labor policy, etc. Raise taxes/eliminate the number of deductions.

There’s a reason why so many blue-collar Democrat union workers voted for Trump. You don’t get those folks back with a shift to the hard left.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

"Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report"

 

Quote

What the Chairmen discovered during the course of this investigation is that the Obama administration knew that Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine. Moreover, this investigation has illustrated the extent to which officials within the Obama administration ignored the glaring warning signs when the vice president’s son joined the board of a company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch. And, as will be discussed in later sections, Hunter Biden was not the only Biden who cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency. This report not only details examples of extensive and complex financial transactions involving the Bidens, it also describes the quandary other U.S. governmental officials faced as they attempted to guide and support Ukraine’s anticorruption efforts. The Committees will continue to evaluate the information and evidence as it becomes available.

 

Quote

The records acquired by the Committees also show that Hunter Biden and his family were involved in a vast financial network that connected them to foreign nationals and foreign governments across the globe. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, in particular, formed significant and consistent financial relationships with the corrupt oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky during their time working for Burisma, and their firms made millions of dollars from that association while Joe Biden was vice president and the public face of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. Rosemont Seneca Thornton, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden, received $3.5 million in a wire transfer from Elena Baturina, who allegedly received illegal construction contracts from her husband, the then-mayor of Moscow. Moreover, Archer’s apparent receipt of money for a car from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan while Vice President Biden was in Kyiv is especially concerning in light of the timing. And finally, Biden and Archer’s work with Chinese nationals connected to the Communist regime illustrate the deep financial connections that accelerated while Joe Biden was vice president and continued after he left office.

 

I'm sure there is nothing to see here for Biden voters. Remember, only CNN can read reports from the Senate Committees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Every time Sim posts here, I think of this:

 

Thanks.  I've got folks who've had to unfollow their parents/husbands on social media for stuff like that.  Funny seeing it satirized.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's funny, but ole Hunter is a slimy douchebag who even makes Trump look responsible, even tempered, and credible.

Yep, I know he's not the president (and therefore he doesn't have the same standard to uphold as the trumpster) but still his actions are significant in that they apparently pulled creepy Joe into conflict-of-interest situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, slackline said:

SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against Trump’s PA challenges on the election. Those libtard democrats must have gotten to the conservatives on the court to not have acknowledged all of the fraud that went on...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now you're just being disingenuous. They voted that one down cause it is being combined with the TX case. 

 

Take your head out of your ass man.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Seadogs said:

Now you're just being disingenuous. They voted that one down cause it is being combined with the TX case. 

 

Take your head out of your ass man.

The guy clinging to desperate lawsuits with dubious, at best, evidence and hearsay/eyewitness testimony from very credible people, posting conspiracy after conspiracy from super credible sites is calling me disingenuous?  6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS. They recognize the absurdity of these lawsuits.  9-0 against the GOP effort.  Sorry.  What is disingenuous about what I said?  I know you won't answer it, but I thought I'd ask anyway.  Correct me then, if I'm the one being crazy, how many challenges has Trump's camp won so far?  1?

Doesn't the WSJ have a bias to the right? https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-challenges-to-election-face-end-of-the-legal-road-11607518944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, slackline said:

The guy clinging to desperate lawsuits with dubious, at best, evidence and hearsay/eyewitness testimony from very credible people, posting conspiracy after conspiracy from super credible sites is calling me disingenuous?  6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS. They recognize the absurdity of these lawsuits.  9-0 against the GOP effort.  Sorry.  What is disingenuous about what I said?  I know you won't answer it, but I thought I'd ask anyway.  Correct me then, if I'm the one being crazy, how many challenges has Trump's camp won so far?  1?

Doesn't the WSJ have a bias to the right? https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-challenges-to-election-face-end-of-the-legal-road-11607518944

My guy actually said the WSJ has a right bias.

 

Here, read this. 23639 COVER John Eastman - Trump Motion to Intervene.pdf (supremecourt.gov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...