BigRedBuster Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 The crazies are on the loose in Twitter. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: What does this even mean? Deport all non-white Virginians? Build a wall around the commonwealth? Talk more about the elites and Hillary Clinton sticking it to people? I'm curious what magical formula Ingraham thinks could've made Gillespie more like Trump & won. She's bonkers. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, dudeguyy said: What does this even mean? Hey....it's Laura Ingram so who the heck knows for sure what the nut job is saying. It's funny though that this candidate did quite a bit of talking about how great Trump is and....now they are claiming he wasn't Trumpy enough. It's just their way of distancing themselves from someone who lost an election while trying to love on Trump to win. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) Wow @ Falwell. Some of Virginia's bluest areas happen to be in the northern part of the state (Arlington is right across from DC), so maybe we can come up with an argument that these metro areas are "really DC" -- a lot of people commute to DC from Arlington, after all -- and by wrapping their population into DC, Virginia stays red on aggregate. It's gerrymandering, in effect. Add these metro area populations to DC which votes blue anyway. And further, in DC they don't get real Senators. This is certainly one way to keep Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, by selectively disenfranchising more and more people. Re: Ingraham, it's the effort to make Republican candidates even more (not less) Trump-like. Edited November 8, 2017 by zoogs 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) I'm OK with the GOP running Trumpier candidates. It'd be bad for those areas if they won, but they won't. I don't know how much y'all keep up on this electoral stuff, but people who run as Trumpist candidates don't do real well. Explicit Trump support Paul Nehlen challenged Paul Ryan in a primary last year and got 15% of the vote. Corey Stewart ran as a Trumpist primary candidate for VA Gov & lost a very close battle to Gillespie, but most thought he was an even worse bet for the actual election. And here's this mayor from Ohio - unseated last night: Trumpism doesn't sell real well outside of Trump. Who ran against a uniquely disliked candidate. If they do lurch closer to Trump, I think they'll get smacked back to the boondocks & we'll hopefully have a large influx of more reasonable Democratic/Independent/moderate candidates take over in various offices around the nation. I'm not saying that's necessarily great for everyone, but if the GOP is going to put up a bunch of Trumps, it's best for the nation. Edited November 8, 2017 by dudeguyy 2 Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Or, they'll succeed in reshaping the world such that such candidates become the preferred ones. It's quite possible, but a long term project. Tap into fears, insecurities. Discourage education and critical thinking. Promote disdain of the "coastal elites" and anyone with intellect. Maybe start a war... Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, zoogs said: Or, they'll succeed in reshaping the world such that such candidates become the preferred ones. It's quite possible, but a long term project. Tap into fears, insecurities. Discourage education and critical thinking. Promote disdain of the "coastal elites" and anyone with intellect. Maybe start a war... This really isn't all that different than other far-right parties around the world. Some believe these are steadily gaining ground with Trump being the tip of the iceberg, but I'm not so sure. Le Pen, Wilders, all the examples I listed above that associated with Trump... none of them have really succeeded yet. There are obviously dictators in various authoritarian, autocratic governments scattered around the world... but they've always been there, and likely always will be to some extent. The three exceptions to the trend are obviously Trump, Duterte in the Philippines, & the advancement of Austria's far right party (FPO) recently in their Parliament. The FPO very nearly seated a president in 2016 & overpowered the Austrian Social Dems in last month to form a governing coalition with Austria's People's party, who are Christian democratic conservatives. The FPO is a party literally founded by Nazis & still hew very close to their ideologies in some ways. Very Trumpian: far-right populists, anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-Islam. They've even tried to build further ties with Le Pen's National Front. But with a few exceptions, they haven't been largely successful. Yet. It is on those of us that would oppose such a shift to prove to others why they are unworthy of more electoral success. It is good to see the Trumpian candidates here being rejected so far. 1 Link to comment
commando Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) agent orange has gone to vietnam. those darn heel spurs must have finally healed up Edited November 10, 2017 by commando Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 He found an international plan for internet service! Link to comment
commando Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 should it concern me that he doesn't know the difference between there and they're? 1 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 38 minutes ago, commando said: should it concern me that he doesn't know the difference between there and they're? Nah, I'd be more concerned that he doesn't know the difference between a KGB agent and an FBI/CIA agent. 2 Link to comment
funhusker Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 (edited) I saw that Kim Jong-un Tweet on Facebook and actually gave Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt that it was fabricated. Two minutes later I see it in in a CBS News article.... Edited November 12, 2017 by funhusker Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 10 hours ago, funhusker said: I saw that Kim Jong-un Tweet on Facebook and actually gave Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt that it was fabricated. Two minutes later I see it in in a CBS News article.... That's sweet - that you thought he was above such a comment. He really shouldn't be allowed to take these trips. It only serves to push him more quickly to the edge of reason. He can stay on track for about 48 hours regardless, and that timeline goes out the window if he doesn't sleep in his own bed at night. Link to comment
ZRod Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Didn't Obama make some in roads with Medvedev then Putin came back after term limits and would have none of it? Even Bush didn't have a peachy relationship with Putin. The dude is a snake, lay next to him and you end up in his coils. Link to comment
Recommended Posts