Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election thread


pfife

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Maduro didn't have Chavez's charisma either. Once you break the system it doesn't matter.

I don’t know if that would apply to Americans, at least right out of the chute. Unlike actual tinpot dictator countries, Americans are socialized to expect to be free and be able to do anything they want. I think it would take at least a couple generations of fascist conditioning and indoctrination to finally break Americans’ spirit, and I’d bet a lot of blood would have to be spilled in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Yeah, I agree if he loses, he is done no matter how much he whines the next four years.  If he wins, he'll try to pass it on to one of his children.  I know his sons are morons.  Jr is the stupid version of his father...which is saying a lot.    

 

49 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Another part of going back to the way things were - can we please give up this "rigged" bull****?

It does come off like sour grapes due to the timing, but boiling down her tweet to its basic contents, is she wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

 

It does come off like sour grapes due to the timing, but boiling down her tweet to its basic contents, is she wrong?

She raised $28 million. It's not like she didn't have money. She raised more money than Garvey but is mad because Schiff ran attack ads against Garvey. She couldn't even beat Schiff in Orange county. She has accepted donations from wealthy Wall Street donors and PACs. Not as much as others, but she is not as pure as she claims to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

 

It does come off like sour grapes due to the timing, but boiling down her tweet to its basic contents, is she wrong?

Yes. She lost by 20 points, you cannot boil her loss down to "billionaires rigging the outcome"

And if one purports to be angry about Trump using that kind of language (as people should), you cannot turn around and then use the same language when an election doesn't go your way. Take your loss with a little bit of dignity and move on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, oblong said:

Trump’s whole schtick is salesmanship. The silly tweets. The nicknames. He knew how to reach into what a segment of aggrieved people were feeling.  He could speak the language they wanted to hear.   Nobody else can do that. The folks in rural areas with the trump hats and buttons and car flags are doing it for Donald.  Nobody else. 
 

the one person I think could pick up this idea and run with it is JD Vance. 

Yes, it’s this, but also, and it sounds a little weird coming from me in this forum, but: Trump has charisma. By which I don’t mean, everybody loves him. That’s obviously not true. But the people who do love him really, really love him for that.

So the question becomes, once the charismatic Trump moves off the scene, who picks up the baton for the movement? I agree that Trump won’t be able to simply wave his magic wand over Ivanka or Donnie or Eric (lol) and make them the equivalent of him, because they just don’t have the charisma. So none of them can be the next leader.

But we also know that Trump did not create this way of thinking among his mist fervent fans. It was already there before him, and it will be there after him. If Trump can tap into it with his charisma, then certainly someone else could come along and do so.

The next leader of the red hat movement has to be someone in alignment with the thinking, as well as have the charisma all those red hats need to get fired up and act on the leader’s behalf to Make American Great Again.

Someone like … Joe Rogan. He may or may not be fully MAGA, but he is certainly MAGA-adjacent, and unlike all the true-red MAGA lieutenants, Rogan has the charismatic reach to move people. I don’t know if he’s next up for sure, but if Trump does shuffle off in the next year or two, I think Joe Rogan could step up and take the wheel if he wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

She raised $28 million. It's not like she didn't have money. She raised more money than Garvey but is mad because Schiff ran attack ads against Garvey. She couldn't even beat Schiff in Orange county. She has accepted donations from wealthy Wall Street donors and PACs. Not as much as others, but she is not as pure as she claims to be. 

Boiling down her tweet to its basic contents, is she wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Yes. She lost by 20 points, you cannot boil her loss down to "billionaires rigging the outcome"

And if one purports to be angry about Trump using that kind of language (as people should), you cannot turn around and then use the same language when an election doesn't go your way. Take your loss with a little bit of dignity and move on.

I’m pulling back from her personal tree and focusing on the “billionaires control the election process with their money” forest. I don’t think that’s wrong. That’s what Citizens United was all about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m pulling back from her personal tree and focusing on the “billionaires control the election process with their money” forest. I don’t think that’s wrong. That’s what Citizens United was all about.

Sure, I don't like Citizens United. I think it sucks.

You know what else sucks? Her statement, which defers any blame for her loss from her own campaign strategy and, in Trump-like fashion, blames it all on a "rigged" system.

You don't have to love how campaign financing works in the United States to understand how undignified and ugly her two statements post-election were. Nor should her statement have to be qualified either.

 

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Yes, it’s this, but also, and it sounds a little weird coming from me in this forum, but: Trump has charisma. By which I don’t mean, everybody loves him. That’s obviously not true. But the people who do love him really, really love him for that.

So the question becomes, once the charismatic Trump moves off the scene, who picks up the baton for the movement? I agree that Trump won’t be able to simply wave his magic wand over Ivanka or Donnie or Eric (lol) and make them the equivalent of him, because they just don’t have the charisma. So none of them can be the next leader.

But we also know that Trump did not create this way of thinking among his mist fervent fans. It was already there before him, and it will be there after him. If Trump can tap into it with his charisma, then certainly someone else could come along and do so.

The next leader of the red hat movement has to be someone in alignment with the thinking, as well as have the charisma all those red hats need to get fired up and act on the leader’s behalf to Make American Great Again.

Someone like … Joe Rogan. He may or may not be fully MAGA, but he is certainly MAGA-adjacent, and unlike all the true-red MAGA lieutenants, Rogan has the charismatic reach to move people. I don’t know if he’s next up for sure, but if Trump does shuffle off in the next year or two, I think Joe Rogan could step up and take the wheel if he wants to.

Calling it now... Rogan vs Swift 2028.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Sure, I don't like Citizens United. I think it sucks.

You know what else sucks? Her statement, which defers any blame for her loss from her own campaign strategy and, in Trump-like fashion, blames it all on a "rigged" system.

You don't have to love how campaign financing works in the United States to understand how undignified and ugly her two statements post-election were.

 

Yes.  She's running for Senate in the largest state in the country.  Who did she think was going to be paying for things?

THis is the game she chose to play in. Don't whine because their billionaires spent more than your billionaires.

Reminds me of the Right Stuff... "Our Germans are better than their Germans"

 

 

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

Just now, oblong said:

Yes.  She's running for Senate in the largest state in the country.  Who did she think was going to be paying for things?

THis is the game she chose to play in. Don't whine because their billionaires spent more than your billionaires.

Reminds me of the Right Stuff... "Our Germans are better than their Germans"

 

 

Reminds me of Casablanca.... "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, there's gambling going on here" lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oblong said:

Yes.  She's running for Senate in the largest state in the country.  Who did she think was going to be paying for things?

THis is the game she chose to play in. Don't whine because their billionaires spent more than your billionaires.

Reminds me of the Right Stuff... "Our Germans are better than their Germans"

 

 

Also the state with the most billionaires. She couldn't even beat Schiff in Orange County. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have thought that Citizens United and whether billionaires control elections would be debatable concepts here, but, there you go. Or maybe we've just thrown up our hands, given up and let cynicism win. After all, looking cynical does make you super cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I wouldn't have thought that Citizens United and whether billionaires control elections would be debatable concepts here, but, there you go. Or maybe we've just thrown up our hands, given up and let cynicism win. After all, looking cynical does make you super cool.

Again, Citizens United sucks. You will get no argument from me on that, and I'm gonna guess most people here would agree.

But I'm talking about her two statements that she made where she shifted blame for why she lost and made the choice to use the word "rigged" in order to describe it. And the fact that also sucks.

People can be sophisticated enough to acknowledge both of these things. And can also say the latter without having to qualify it with the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mtutiger said:

Again, Citizens United sucks. You will get no argument from me on that, and I'm gonna guess most people here would agree.

But I'm talking about her two statements that she made where she shifted blame for why she lost and made the choice to use the word "rigged" in order to describe it. And the fact that also sucks.

People can be sophisticated enough to acknowledge both of these things. And can also say the latter without having to qualify it with the former.

And I'm not talking about Katie Porter at all. But that's fine. We can leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...