Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:55 pm Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Mattis has never registered as a member of any political party (or ever shown any interest in running for office, so far as I am aware). His apparent repudiation of Trump means that he is, by definition, not a "Republican" given that the GOP is now the party of Trumpism rather than Conservatism.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:52 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:57 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:55 pm Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Trump didn't seem to think Mattis was Republican, calling him "sort of a Democrat".

Was Trump a Republican before he decided to run for office?

The first time he ran for POTUS? No.

This time? Yes.

Wiki puts his political affiliations as: Democratic (until 1987), Republican (1987-1999), Reform (1999-2001), Democratic (2001-2009), Republican (2009-2011), Independent (2011-2012), and Republican (2012-present).

Point being that Mattis' political affiliation, whatever it might be, shouldn't prevent him from running as a Republican if he is so inclined. If they were okay with Trump, they ought to be okay with Mattis.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:01 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:18 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:52 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:57 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:55 pm Are we certain that Mattis is even a Republican?

He has kept his politics to himself (in the honored tradition of the American officer corps), but he was vocal and decisive in (e.g.) defending transgender troops and thwarting Trump's attempt at a ban. I'm not sure a typical conservative in his position would have done so.

Trump didn't seem to think Mattis was Republican, calling him "sort of a Democrat".

Was Trump a Republican before he decided to run for office?

The first time he ran for POTUS? No.

This time? Yes.

Wiki puts his political affiliations as: Democratic (until 1987), Republican (1987-1999), Reform (1999-2001), Democratic (2001-2009), Republican (2009-2011), Independent (2011-2012), and Republican (2012-present).

Point being that Mattis' political affiliation, whatever it might be, shouldn't prevent him from running as a Republican if he is so inclined. If they were okay with Trump, they ought to be okay with Mattis.

Except Trump changed not only his party affiliation but his political positions whenever it was convenient.

Presumably Mattis isn't such an oily cynic. If he's actually a centrist or a mild liberal, he won't get far in the GOP primary when asked about gay marriage or voting rights or if the GWOT is actually a religious crusade.

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 pm New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Announces 2020 Presidential Run

Great! she can hold the door open until 2024 for AOC!

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 pm New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Announces 2020 Presidential Run

That's two of my current top 3 who are "exploring".

Fireball wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:57 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 pm New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Announces 2020 Presidential Run

That's two of my current top 3 who are "exploring".

Who else is in the top 3?

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:11 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:57 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 pm New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Announces 2020 Presidential Run

That's two of my current top 3 who are "exploring".

Who else is in the top 3?

Warren and Harris. No particular order amongst them.

Fireball wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:57 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:50 pm New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Announces 2020 Presidential Run

That's two of my current top 3 who are "exploring".

I really like Gillibrand. I threw her a donation.

Sherrod gonna surprise all you mofos.

So the answer is no, because the 2020 presidential election is "already underway"

With the 2020 presidential election already underway, 57 percent of registered voters said they would definitely vote against President Donald Trump, according to the latest poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist.

Another 30 percent of voters said they would cast their ballot to support Trump, and an additional 13 percent said they had no idea who would get their vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/5 ... mp-in-2020

That's encouraging...at least until the Dems nominate someone of their own to vote against.

Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign raised $1.5 million in its first 24 hours, her campaign aides told POLITICO, a massive haul for the first-term senator from California that tied Bernie Sanders’ one-day total from his 2016 presidential campaign.

Harris, who announced her candidacy on Monday, crossed the $1 million threshold before 7:30 p.m. and raised $1.5 million from 38,000 donors, her aides said.

Harris’ 2020 average online contribution was $37.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ay-1119125

I'm still waiting on a candidate who doesn't stoop to Trump's level and who can help return statesmanship to Washington.

...which is probably a pipe dream.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:59 pm I'm still waiting on a candidate who doesn't stoop to Trump's level and who can help return statesmanship to Washington.

...which is probably a pipe dream.

I'm not sure most candidates would be able to stoop to Trump's level, even if they tried.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:59 pm I'm still waiting on a candidate who doesn't stoop to Trump's level and who can help return statesmanship to Washington.

...which is probably a pipe dream.

Well, Jacob Wohl thinks Harris is not eligible to be president, so at least birthers have a new target to attack.

Wiki

Wohl drew national attention in 2018 after news outlets reported his involvement in a failed plot to discredit Robert Mueller, the US Special Counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, by framing him for sexual misconduct. Wohl is barred for life from futures trading due to defrauding investors in 2016 by posing as a hedge fund manager and real estate investor.

Seems a fair source of information.

Why is he still free to walk around? I thought whatever he was up to last time was illegal?

The Republican National Committee’s resolutions group passed a resolution effectively canceling the GOP primary in 2020.

“RNC Resolutions Committee just voted unanimously to “undivided support” for Trump and his “effective presidency,” clearing way for passage before full GOP governing body on Friday,” tweeted Associated Press reporter Zeke Miller.

The Resolution Committee bill must pass through the full RNC to be adopted by the party. Presumably, the act would not stop any other Republicans from running, but the RNC would refuse to endorse the opponent.

link

Please please please someone primary Trump.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:55 pm Please please please someone primary Trump.

Be careful what you wish for:

A political action committee that pushes for stricter immigration controls said Thursday it is launching a campaign to draft conservative writer Ann Coulter to challenge President Trump.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:22 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:59 pm I'm still waiting on a candidate who doesn't stoop to Trump's level and who can help return statesmanship to Washington.

...which is probably a pipe dream.

Well, Jacob Wohl thinks Harris is not eligible to be president, so at least racists have a new target to attack.

FTFY!

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:54 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:55 pm Please please please someone primary Trump.

Be careful what you wish for:

A political action committee that pushes for stricter immigration controls said Thursday it is launching a campaign to draft conservative writer Ann Coulter to challenge President Trump.

Ugh. Definitely not what I meant by that!

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:06 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:54 pm

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:55 pm Please please please someone primary Trump.

Be careful what you wish for:

A political action committee that pushes for stricter immigration controls said Thursday it is launching a campaign to draft conservative writer Ann Coulter to challenge President Trump.

Ugh. Definitely not what I meant by that!

It boggles my mind (and horrifies me) that there are people out there who think Trump is too far left.

Wouldn't that be beneficial for Democrats? The voters that are already getting pushed away by Drumpf should be, by and large, moving more moderate, right? So if faced with a Democrat and an even more Right Republican I would think they would hold their collective noses and vote for the Democrat.
Deplorables need not apply to this argument.

Freyland wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:53 pm Wouldn't that be beneficial for Democrats? The voters that are already getting pushed away by Drumpf should be, by and large, moving more moderate, right? So if faced with a Democrat and an even more Right Republican I would think they would hold their collective noses and vote for the Democrat.
Deplorables need not apply to this argument.

Right up until Trump got elected in 2016. The power of teh crazy is strong.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:58 pm Right up until Trump got elected in 2016. The power of teh crazy is strong.

I think it was more a case of the apathy of the many being surprised by the will of the few. The Democrats need a candidate that sparks excitement, like Obama and Bill Clinton did, and not someone whose merely exceptionally qualified (Hillary Clinton, Al Gore). A well-coordinated (and potentially highly successful) strategy would have a popular figurehead that would actually listen to a cabinet of the dull but supremely qualified people. Kind of like Reagan.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:59 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:58 pm Right up until Trump got elected in 2016. The power of teh crazy is strong.

I think it was more a case of the apathy of the many being surprised by the will of the few. The Democrats need a candidate that sparks excitement, like Obama and Bill Clinton did, and not someone whose merely exceptionally qualified (Hillary Clinton, Al Gore). A well-coordinated (and potentially highly successful) strategy would have a popular figurehead that would actually listen to a cabinet of the dull but supremely qualified people. Kind of like Reagan.

IMHO, Gore was torpedoed by the Clinton Impeachment, while HRC had a huge negative following (ABC - anyone but Clinton - won the day, IMHO). However, the negative campaigns can do a lot. I do my best to never vote for those preaching hate/fear, but this is a case in which both sides to it (because it works), but the artform is brought truly to its peak by those without any morals.

I agree that a lot of factors went into Drumpf being elected.

He also had decades of gaslighting cult of personality to lean on. The whole world "just knew" that he was a deal making titan of industry worth billions, plus we all got to watch him fire celebrities every week. Anyone who can fire celebrities has got to be awesome. Millions of people still believe that.

Plus he's an old white dinosaur afraid of dark people who have been "took'er'jerbs", which is comforting to a lot of people apparently.

There will certainly be smarter people in the future trying to do what Drumpf has done, but I doubt they will succeed. We're not likely to see another perfect storm like this one for years or decades. I'd like to believe that Drumpf will be a reminder to voters as to what can happen if things go wrong, but I doubt it. We've seen the conservative juggernaut willing to prop up a syphilis riddled donkey excrement if he's got an R beside his name. I don't hold much hope that that will change in the future.

Partisan politics is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is "do the right thing" when compared to that?

History will remember HRC as an inevitable loser, but the facts don't support that.

It's easy to forget that HRC had very high favorability (mid-upper 60s, nearly unheard-of in a politician who had been visible and controversial for more than two decades) all through the Obama years. This is why she was the presumptive nominee in the first place.

Her numbers' fall was the result of very calculated efforts by the GOP all through 2014: Benghzai Benghazi Benghazi HerEmails.

Press coverage didn't help any of this, nor did the efforts of an outsider primary challenger who kept undermining her after his own failure was decided. And through all this, she still significantly won the popular vote.

I hear there may even have been outside interference in the election.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:30 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:59 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 3:58 pm Right up until Trump got elected in 2016. The power of teh crazy is strong.

I think it was more a case of the apathy of the many being surprised by the will of the few. The Democrats need a candidate that sparks excitement, like Obama and Bill Clinton did, and not someone whose merely exceptionally qualified (Hillary Clinton, Al Gore). A well-coordinated (and potentially highly successful) strategy would have a popular figurehead that would actually listen to a cabinet of the dull but supremely qualified people. Kind of like Reagan.

IMHO, Gore was torpedoed by the Clinton Impeachment, while HRC had a huge negative following (ABC - anyone but Clinton - won the day, IMHO). However, the negative campaigns can do a lot. I do my best to never vote for those preaching hate/fear, but this is a case in which both sides to it (because it works), but the artform is brought truly to its peak by those without any morals.

Gore at the time had absolutely zero charisma - something he only improved on after An Inconvenient Truth put him on the PR junket. I always thought this was to contrast Clinton and make him look better. Gore certainly wasn't involved with the events that led to Clinton's impeachment, but IIRC, his wife was leading a rather unpopular censorship campaign at the time. He simply was not the most marketable candidate from the get-go (and still nearly won).

Hillary was the heir apparent ever since Obama won the party nomination in 2008. Republicans had 8 years to run a smear campaign, and even though they were all baseless and discredited in the end, blowing smoke was enough to taint her candidacy.

Charisma has been pretty important ever since JFK and this will continue. If nothing else, Trump has pointed out just how shallow voters can be.

Time to pull Howard Schultz into this thread. Hopefully he never merits his own sideshow.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:09 pm Charisma has been pretty important ever since JFK and this will continue. If nothing else, Trump has pointed out just how shallow voters can be.

We aren't calling Trump charismatic, are we? As a borderline sociopath that people seem to like for some reason I kind of get how it works, but Trump?

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:53 pm Time to pull Howard Schultz into this thread. Hopefully he never merits his own sideshow.

This is part of why I'm skeptical of Shultz's capacity to hurt a Democratic nominee in the general election. Who exactly is his constituency among left-leaning voters? All the coverage I have seen of him (from leftist to centrist sources) ranges from "Shultz Might Get Trump Re-elected" to "Shultz will definitely get Trump reelected" to "Fuck off, Howard Schultz."

The same was said about Jill Stein but she still got enough votes to potentially sway the election to Trump. When the margins of victory are so close, any votes siphoned from one candidate may play a large role.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:56 am The same was said about Jill Stein but she still got enough votes to potentially sway the election to Trump. When the margins of victory are so close, any votes siphoned from one candidate may play a large role.

Jill Stein was a left-wing third party candidate, whereas Shultz would be a centrist third-party candidate.