Peter Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said: Don't they have any transgendered candidates? --Brant I did not notice. So if one or more is not what they seem, they are doing a good job of it, and that's the ticket, as exemplified in the movie "The Crying Game." And by adding an "ed" to transgender Brant, are you implying that they have been fixed or spayed? How dare you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The 2020 Colorado Democratic primary will take place on Tuesday, March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on Super Tuesday in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The Colorado primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 80 delegates, of which 67 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary . . . . The 2020 United States presidential election, scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020. end quote The Presidential election is around 16 months away. When should you contribute? Feel free to do the right thing now, but I usually donate near the one year mark, before the election. Who should get your money? Philosophize it. A fan of Rand, libertarian, free marketer, Patriot, or hater of totalitarian government MUST support and vote for President Trump. And don’t let me hear any of that “I don’t like him so I am staying home.” Hey. It’s in the Constitution! joke. Donate. Vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2019 Author Share Posted July 17, 2019 21 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: Michael's reassurances notwithstanding... Ellen, Did you see what President Trump just did to Nancy Pelosi? I feel sorry for her. (Nah... I don't really. ) Think of this. Trump detected a schism happening in the Democratic Party, a schism so acute that the four Congresswomen who checked all the progressive boxes of what progressive utopian women should be, were accusing Pelosi and Biden themselves of racism. So with a simple tweet, he unified the Dems against him to not only call him a racist, but pass a resolution in the House to condemn him as a racist. Except there were some outcomes not exactly expected or intended by the Dems. 1. Yesterday, the House looked more like an episode of Romper Room than a chamber of Congress. Pelosi definitely did not look like a strong leader. Instead, she looked inept, emotionally discombobulated and not concerned with law or decorum. 2. By knowing exactly when and where to make a small incision with the persuasion knife, President Trump got her to cause the entire Democratic wing of the House of Representatives look exactly like she was, inept, emotionally discombobulated and not concerned with law or decorum. Like the cliché goes, they became the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They got the job done, but in a Three Stooges kind of way while the whole world was watching. btw - As gravy, didn't the House recently and formally condemn anti-Semitism in a resolution based on bigoted comments by Dem. Rep. Ilhan Omar? They didn't mention her by name, but they did the resolution with her in mind. And what happened? A big fat nada, that's what. She kept up her anti-Semitism as if nothing happened. That shows what this resolution thing means in legal terms. Besides, does anybody even remember it? 3. The House Dems are now on record, with the unintended public image of trying to enact "President Trump is a racist" into law. And, by extension, many Trump supporters will see this as trying to enact "President Trump's supporters are racists" into law. Imagine what Pelosi will have to do to get the taint of this off her seriousness quotient. 4. Pelosi knows that swing voters can't stand "The Squad" (the four young Congresswomen who hate America) based on recent polling, but she was thrown into a situation where she had to embrace and defend them, thus defend the very qualities that make swing voters detest them. 5. Pelosi now has to figure out what to do about the thirst for impeachment among many of the House Democrats, knowing full well that impeachment, if presented and passed, will almost guarantee a Trump reelection by a landslide and probably guarantee transfer of the House majority to the Republicans--with a wide majority at that. 6. Pelosi has to know that President Trump practically canceled asylum requests from people from Central America and wanted to rant and rail against it as a new crusade, but instead, she has to try to save her own reputation about "muh racists." Notice that one tweet by Trump would have been enough for a shitstorm, but Trump kept hammering the point--in several tweets over several days--that these young Democrats--who should leave America if they hate it so much--now own the Democratic Party. And the press kept up (and still keeps up) the outrage shitstorm that Trump is a racist. Nobody is talking about the policy restrictions in asylum petitions as the policy is being put into place. 7. Calling someone a racist has been the most effective Dem weapon in the Dem arsenal over the last few decades, but President Trump detected the moment to strike. He steamrolled the press into hollering about "muh racism" so much that he practically took the weapon right out of Pelosi's hand at the very moment she mobilized the House Dems to vote on a "muh racism" reprimand. She looked like a comedy show doing it and even got reprimanded herself. (Imagine Trump watching this and laughing his ass off. ) The fact is, racism accusation fatigue has set in with the mainstream public, even those who are not political. People are sick of it. But Trump has engineered another four days or more (probably more) of nonstop "muh racism" outrage in the press. (The poor things can't help themselves. ) This is turning off the public big-time. 8. Like some commentators have asked, where are the polls on Trump's tweets? Or on the House reprimand? Normally there would be polls all over the place with scores of talking head panels on news shows tut-tut-tutting about "muh racism" and now Trump has gone too far, just look at the polling, yada yada yada. But there's a big fat silence from the fake news media about polling this. That's because, at least in a Rasmussen poll, Trump's approval has grown since his tweets, not diminished. And this makes Pelosi's grandstand in the House look like something an amateur would do. And Pelosi is anything but an amateur. But she sure looked like a high-school student in that case. I could go on because, believe it or not, the ripples from this thing haven't stopped, but it's even clear to lefties that President Trump punked Pelosi and her influence with the public big-time. (There are now some mainstream leftie articles out there saying things to this effect.) So imagine what President Trump will do to a Harris and Pocahontas ticket when the spotlight of the entire world is on them and the outraged reactions to what he will do and say about them, including their own emotional discombobulations--and the mainstream fake news media yacking about it nonstop--over months and months of the election. The principle is, when people on the same side express outrage and get results, then the results dry up, they get super-frustrated and start getting outraged at each other. Outrage that causes results is a craving hard for an addict to ignore once the beast is let out into the open. So the Dems, frustrated at not being able to move any meaningful ratings needle on Trump, will eat each other alive. Then we will get to watch as the Democratic Party melts down into goo. Unless something drastic changes, like Trump getting ill, this election promises to be one of the greats fun-wise for people who savor the taste of broiled schadenfreude. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 17, 2019 Author Share Posted July 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Pelosi now has to figure out what to do about the thirst for impeachment among many of the House Democrats... Pelosi has not been having a good week, but she finally caught a breather also gets to tell Al Green to shut the hell up for awhile. Let the President himself give the news. That's right. The vote was 332 to 95 with one abstaining (I think abstaining is correct--I tried to look it up to be precise, but I can't seem to find the information quickly--search engines and the news media for simple information like this suck these days). btw - All Republicans voted against the bill and 137 Democrats joined them. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Ellen, Did you see what President Trump just did to Nancy Pelosi? That he does these things doesn't make people who hate him like him any better. How many are there who hate him, and how effectively can they be mobilized? Maybe not effectively. Maybe the anti-Trumpers are in such disarray, they can't manage any effective opposition. But there are powerful interests who don't want Trump re-elected and will be working to mobilize a counteroffensive. Please understand, I really mean that I hope you're right in your sanguine prognosticating. But I won't crow victory until/unless it happens. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 18, 2019 Author Share Posted July 18, 2019 12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said: But I won't crow victory until/unless it happens. Ellen, That is wise. Maybe I'm going a bit overboard, but I'll feel more anxious when I see signs of something to feel anxious about. Oddly enough, I felt anxious about AOC for a while because she had, or was being coached by someone with, President Trump's savvy about keeping the spotlight on him. (Granted, she can't run due to age, but she could be a powerful constant sidekick to the person who does run.) But she fizzled when her sheer incompetence at basic administrative and political facts became part of her image. (Look at her current polling numbers.) As the adage goes, sell with emotion and justify with reason. Well... AOC sells well with emotion, but she turns too many off when she gets to the reason part to be a threat to Trump. Also, I favor saying she is coached more than talented (although, as time goes on and as she learns, I do see signs of some talent emerging). But someone who is constantly and heavily coached in what to say and how to present herself does not stand a chance against someone who is fast on their feet when improvisation is needed. Look at what Trump did to Megyn Kelly, for example. Right at the outset ("Only Rosie O'Donnell...") shows what being fast on his feet with improvisation means. Then he went in for the bloodbath ("blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever...") . Everything that unfolded in public after that showed how ineffective Megyn Kelly was as Trump's support grew. When she cut her hair short as a ploy to look stronger, he had her on the ropes and she never recovered. As to people who hate Trump? I'm not worried about what they think since nothing will convince them. But swing voters, which is where the election will be decided if it is close (and you know what I think of that prospect ), will need a lot more than "Orange Man Bad" and socialism with self-righteous class victims to stop looking at the way the economy is booming and decide to roll the dice on someone else, not to mention so many other issues where Trump's results are shining. Here is an indication that would make me worry. Did you catch any part of Trump's rally last night? I know that the conventional wisdom from political insiders says that crowd size does not matter in elections, but I believe that constant crowd size does. If Trump's crowd sizes ever start falling off, then I will get worried. So long as they are the sizes they keep being, and the Dems aren't able to come close except for a sporadic thing here and there, I don't think Trump will have any trouble. The only reason he lost the House in the midterms is that a slew of Republican House members retired and many Trump voters stayed home. I don't believe they will stay home this go around for the simple fact that Trump is on the ballot. But after he lathers them up in the heat of the election, I'm not worried about Trump haters inspiring enthusiasm anywhere close for turnout. I agree with you that powerful interests are against Trump, but I don't fear them in terms of the electorate. But there is an area where I do worry about them. I worry they will find a way to hack and falsify the voting results or assassinate Trump or something like that. These folks are very good at cheating. But with the scandals that will involve many of them that will soon erupt now that the silly "muh Russians" thing has been killed, I think the nastiness of their cheating heart bite will take a serious hit. So... I feel good about Trump's prospects for reelection, at least so far. I'm not crowing victory in general because someone could still come out of nowhere the way Obama did, but if the ticket is Harris and Pocahontas, I just don't see much of a threat. If the Dems want a woman with a chance to beat Trump, they need to come up with a liberal version of Margaret Thatcher or something like that, in other words, someone who inspires the poetic side of the human heart in addition to showing strong leadership. Can Harris turn into a liberal version of that? I doubt it. She's boring and arrogant. And I just don't see those qualities in the other women who are in the Dem public eye right now. Dem men ditto, except maybe Biden due to his eight years as VP, but he's compromised by needing to carry Obama's legacy--both on legit issues and those that are soon exploding--and he's older than Trump and showing it. I don't want to make light of your fears, but the way I feel right now, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 18, 2019 Author Share Posted July 18, 2019 Ellen, btw - Axelrod, the guy who elected Obama, is much more worried about Trump being reelected than you are about him not. He sees what I see, except with a Dem accent. He didn't talk about it all, just a small slice, but this guy is wicked, effective and extremely cunning. (The link leads to a video.) Axelrod: Trump "Forcing" Democrats To Embrace AOC's Squad, Accept They Run The Party Trump is forcing Dems to think this way or that? Trump has the power to force Dems into opinions? Right after a "muh racism" Dem stampede? That's quite an admission for a Dem Svengali-of-the-Public to make in public. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 18, 2019 Author Share Posted July 18, 2019 Let me give a conceptual referent to what I am talking about. Here's what happened to a heckler at last night's Trump rally. (And notice that there were no masked goons with baseball bats like the Dems use. Instead there was a big honking "Keep America Great" sign. ) I don't see anything comparable coming from the Dems at this point and I can't imagine anything comparable with the current slate of candidates. Maybe things will change enthusiasm-wise, but I don't see how just yet. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: btw - Axelrod, the guy who elected Obama, is much more worried about Trump being reelected than you are about him not. I think that leftist worries about Trump's being re-elected have a far more plausible basis than my worries about his not being re-elected - sort of on a scale of Jupiter compared to Mercury in size. There is, however, the factor that leftist worries will inspire even more devious ingenuity than during the Hillary Clinton campaign, where they felt confident of victory up till the day of defeat. Now they know they have a tough battle. Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Even less Dem cheating will be allowed than was allowed in 2016. Trump will receive about 70% of the votes, just like he did in 2016. I know we are told other numbers, but about 70% of the legitimate votes (which is just a fraction of votes cast) were for Trump, in 2016. There will never be another Dem President. In fact the Democrat party will utterly evaporate after 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 I think the following has been covered but it would be nice to reconsider thinks (joke,) for 2020. Doris Day sang about the 2016 polls: Que Sera, Sera, What will be, will be, will be, The future's not ours, to see, Que Sera, Sera Of course we speculate what the future will be in the next second, hour, year, decade or millennium but only know the truth with perhaps . . . 50 percent accuracy and NO certainty? Does anyone on OL bet? Do you read and accept polling data? How wrong did they get it before the 2016 Presidential election? Until 2016 I used to rely on Larry Sabato at U.V.A. but he was dead wrong. Real Clear Politics is just an averaging of polls and what? They predicted an Old Hickory win? The worst predictors? From the web in 2016 and 2017. A survey from the Princeton Election Consortium has found that Hillary Clinton has a 99 per cent chance of winning the election over Donald Trump. The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. LA Times: Clinton 352, Trump 186. However, The contrary Californian USC/LA Times tracking poll, notable for interviewing the same 3,200 respondents over a period of several months, gave Trump a 3.2-percentage point lead the day before the election. Since it premiered in early July, the poll results were about six percentage points more favorable to the real estate mogul than the national average. "To be honest, I was surprised," University of Southern California economist Arie Kapteyn, who developed the poll, told the Los Angeles Times. "I thought Clinton would win. But that shouldn’t change the numbers." From another source or should I say sorcery site on the web, In the cornucopia of pro-Clinton polling that preceded the 2016 presidential election, two polls stood out as outliers: the USC/LA Times tracking poll and the Investor's Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll. "As far as I was concerned, I was anticipating a Trump win," said Raghavan Mayur, President of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducts the IBD/TIPP poll. The final poll, released on Election Day, showed Trump with a two-percentage point lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) Trying to explain the Trump wins in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan through national sample polls is conceptually close to vacant. 3 hours ago, Peter said: The final poll, released on Election Day, showed Trump with a two-percentage point lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Pay attention to the full campaigns in those three must-win states, and remember All Polls Are Wrong. Except perhaps the outliers in 2018 that predicted a forty-seat loss for the GOP in the House. Edited July 20, 2019 by william.scherk Quotables ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 20, 2019 Author Share Posted July 20, 2019 Here's a grassroots campaign the Dems are organizing to take out Trump. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 20, 2019 Author Share Posted July 20, 2019 Titania McGrath is a parody account (and sometimes he/she's funny as hell), but there's nothing funny about the tweet below. I couldn't get past 20 seconds of this video with Marianne Williamson, but her star is rising among the Dems. She probably won't get to the nomination, but I bet she becomes a power broker behind the scenes. Rand called this crap she just did "sanction of the victim." In this case, the person assuming unearned guilt and apologizing for wrongdoing he and she did not commit is the real victim. Marianne-baby is serving up their souls for racist barbecue and making them say they are glad to be cooked... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 20, 2019 Author Share Posted July 20, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 8:14 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: I forgot to announce his departure. Late, but not forgotten... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 It's still too early to make a prediction, but after seeing a bit of the Second Dem primary debate (first group) and a few clips, I think Marianne Williamson stands a solid chance of upending the whole shebang just like President Trump did for the Republicans. So far, Williamson has not targeted individuals the way Trump did in the primaries, but it's as clear as can be that she understands marketing and branding much more than anyone on that stage. In terms of time allowed to speak, she was next to last, see here (you have to scroll down, but the graphic is below). Quote Here's how the rest of it breaks down: Yet, going by the press coverage, she had the most quotable and quoted lines from the debate. She prepared. And her message that the spiritual sickness in American can be attributed to unhealed racism is very clever as a premise for her storytelling in terms of the unhealed souls of the Democrats. And it allows her to sidestep talking about the silly Green New Deal. Williamson has gone from being considered as a joke to at least people listening to her very quickly. I think she has a solid shot at being nominated. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 Looks like I'm not the only one noticing Marianne Williamson. Also, here's a Breitbart article: Marianne Williamson Wins Drudge Poll After Breakout Debate Performance Oddly enough, I can't find the poll on Drudge and the article does not provide a link. So I don't know what's going on with that. She certainly impressed Cenk Uygur. He was one of the brains behind getting AOC and the Squad elected. There's more, but that's enough. If Williamson ends up running against Trump in 2020, it will be the most entertaining election in American history. She'll still lose, but man will it be fun. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 Now I know Marianne Williamson has a good shot at the nomination. A CNN panel--right after the debate--laughed at the very thought. Elitists never learn. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard won the online polls (Drudge and Breitbart) for the second group. Actually, she did put it well put to Kamala Harris. Gabbard vs. Harris: You Kept Prisoners Locked Up For Labor, Blocked Evidence That Would Free Man On Death Row Harris was OK, kinda mediocre. Arrogant in her backstage deals. Nothing much with the others. But the front runner? Joe was slow, but he's still a go. Slow. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 2, 2019 Author Share Posted August 2, 2019 From the Dem Primary debate last night: Gillibrand: First thing I'll do if elected is 'Clorox the Oval Office' Then this happened: LOL... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 For those who like "muh polls!", here they are showing a glass jaw. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 This is the man who is slated--so far--to run against President Trump. "We choose truth over facts!" LOL... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 And here is one of Biden's truths over facts. This man is a true believer in his burning vision of his own truthism. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted August 9, 2019 Share Posted August 9, 2019 In a choice between truth and facts, Creepy Joe chooses the young ones. With some exceptions ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now