Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Dante Alighieri]

The only way Trump could possibly lose a re-election is if the Democrats had a candidate or a message worth giving a shit about; and they don't. They've had years to try and figure this out and haven't and have instead fragmented their base even further while the Republicans have solidified theirs for the most part.

They've only doubled down and gone harder.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

I mean if the Dems ran some sort of super-celebrity then they might be able to take it. If they actually convinced Oprah to run, I could see her narrowly squeaking in due to the "bored housewife" vote (plus all the rest like the black vote and, y'know, the cheating). But despite all her coyness on the subject, I really don't see Oprah actually pulling off a run. She's got plenty of skeletons in her own closet that she's used her media empire to massively downplay.

Plus hell, what's that line Lex Luthor delivered on the subject once? "Do you realize how much power I'd have to give up as President"?

 

[Tanner Glass]

I mean if the Dems ran some sort of super-celebrity then they might be able to take it. If they actually convinced Oprah to run, I could see her narrowly squeaking in due to the "bored housewife" vote (plus all the rest like the black vote and, y'know, the cheating). But despite all her coyness on the subject, I really don't see Oprah actually pulling off a run. She's got plenty of skeletons in her own closet that she's used her media empire to massively downplay.

Plus hell, what's that line Lex Luthor delivered on the subject once? "Do you realize how much power I'd have to give up as President"?

They can't really even do that because of the amount of outcry they had about it during Trump's campaign. They'd have to have huge balls (they don't) to say that he's unqualified because he's never held office and then un-ironically run someone who has never held office against him. Even if you did, you'd have to be able to make a clear and compelling message as to why their candidate would be an improvement over Trump and people typically prefer the "devil that they know" compared to the one that they don't.

Additionally, if there were to do that the would have need to set that up a while back. One of the smartest things Trump did was be vocal about politics his whole life; you can find footage of him basically saying the same shit 20 years ago, about America lacking a strong leader (although he didn't personally say he wanted to be President then, he'd prefer someone else have done it). Any Democrat celebrity candidate that shows up now will feel very out of left field and would find it hard to gain ground as a real contender in the two years-ish until the next presidential election and it's hard to even think of one that wouldn't have skeletons in their closet.

The Democrats in my opinion are in an insanely bad place right now and need to go back to the farm and try and find some quality prospects for 2024 and beyond. The only young prospects it looks like they've found (Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Ellison) are unbelievably bad to a point where they're actively detrimental to the party. They also have not even started to resolve the shenanigans with the party level elections across all levels, in particular how hard they destroyed their own chance at any grassroots campaigns with how they dismantled the Sanders campaign with huge levels of scorn. I don't think that Bernie would have beaten Trump like some people seem to, but I certainly do think having a legion of young and motivated campaigners and voters would have been a boon for Democrats moving forward.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

They can't really even do that because of the amount of outcry they had about it during Trump's campaign. They'd have to have huge balls (they don't) to say that he's unqualified because he's never held office and then un-ironically run someone who has never held office against him.

Have you been watching the same democratic party I have? Doing the exact same thing that they said was horrible and bad when you did it is one of their M.O.s. Because...

Even if you did, you'd have to be able to make a clear and compelling message as to why their candidate would be an improvement over Trump and people typically prefer the "devil that they know" compared to the one that they don't.

It's OK when we do it!

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

you'd have to be able to make a clear and compelling message as to why their candidate would be an improvement over Trump

ORANGE MAN BAD

That's really all they need to say. All common sense has been thrown out. There are no standards that will apply to the person they run against Trump.

 

[Vlad the Inhaler]

I pretty much agree with both of you. I don't think Westmoreland was wrong considering his position. He was wrong in his political understanding, but that wasn't his expertise or his job. He was leading the military solution. From that perspective, I think he was pretty on the ball with what constraints he had. He was right, too, after Tet. Tet critically weakened the NV and VC. I think the ARVN were still a couple of years away from being at all useful, but they were getting there. If Westmoreland had gotten his erm.... surge... I think a Korean-like solution would have been inevitable within months. With the Soviets, the Chinese, and guys like Giap, I think going for anything more than a Korea style solution would have also been a disaster.

At the end of the day, Tet was a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war for the NV and VC. They were so badly over-extended by it. The US simply failed to capitalize on it, which was militarily a mistake. A political one? I'm not sure either way.

Actually, it's a dirty little secret that Nixon did, in fact, strongly consider the "surge" option. That collapsed however, when his Sec. Def. Clark Clifford *finally* got some straight answers out of MACV. (Abrams and Weyand were now in charge, and they knew their shit.) Bottom line, when Clifford asked, "What do you need so that North Vietnam will be unable to get the men they need into the South?" They couldn't give him a realistic answer. 200,000 more men, 500,000 more men? They couldn't honestly say. So that option was out, and "talking peace, making war" was in. What was *really* needed was to invade Laos and cut the Trail. But we had signed a treaty in '61 with the Soviets and the North that prohibited any foreign troops in Laos. That was JFK. But Ken Burns won't admit it, because he belongs to that autistic generation that still fellates Kennedy and blames LBJ for all they can't admit was St. John's doing.

The fucking misery of it all was that by 1974, after Tet and Phoenix, the VC were no threat. And the ARVN could have stopped the North in 1975, but with NO military aid AT ALL from us, all their vehicles and aircraft were useless (no spare parts, no support) and the ARVN couldn't stop the fucking girl scouts with *TWO* fucking artillery rounds per day per tube.

And knowing ALL THIS, we still keep trying to set up South Vietnams in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking people, man. Democracy isn't fucking universally admired.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

They can't really even do that because of the amount of outcry they had about it during Trump's campaign. They'd have to have huge balls (they don't) to say that he's unqualified because he's never held office and then un-ironically run someone who has never held office against him. Even if you did, you'd have to be able to make a clear and compelling message as to why their candidate would be an improvement over Trump and people typically prefer the "devil that they know" compared to the one that they don't.

Additionally, if there were to do that the would have need to set that up a while back. One of the smartest things Trump did was be vocal about politics his whole life; you can find footage of him basically saying the same shit 20 years ago, about America lacking a strong leader (although he didn't personally say he wanted to be President then, he'd prefer someone else have done it). Any Democrat celebrity candidate that shows up now will feel very out of left field and would find it hard to gain ground as a real contender in the two years-ish until the next presidential election and it's hard to even think of one that wouldn't have skeletons in their closet.

The Democrats in my opinion are in an insanely bad place right now and need to go back to the farm and try and find some quality prospects for 2024 and beyond. The only young prospects it looks like they've found (Beto, Ocasio-Cortez, Ellison) are unbelievably bad to a point where they're actively detrimental to the party. They also have not even started to resolve the shenanigans with the party level elections across all levels, in particular how hard they destroyed their own chance at any grassroots campaigns with how they dismantled the Sanders campaign with huge levels of scorn. I don't think that Bernie would have beaten Trump like some people seem to, but I certainly do think having a legion of young and motivated campaigners and voters would have been a boon for Democrats moving forward.

My guess is that Kamila Harris will have a good chance of taking the DNC.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

My guess is that Kamila Harris will have a good chance of taking the DNC.

The only person going to be taking over the DNC is someone that can fund it. They're broke, they'll bow down and worship at the feet of anyone bringing in the dosh.

So yeah Hillary is never going away.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

The only person going to be taking over the DNC is someone that can fund it. They're broke, they'll bow down and worship at the feet of anyone bringing in the dosh.

So yeah Hillary is never going away.

My guess is, early on, there will be: Hillary, Biden, Bernie for sure. I could see even Booker puling a couple of percent in a couple of states before backing out. I think Warren ruined her chances. Beto? Not sure. I think he would be a train wreck in presidential debates. He'd humiliate himself more than any of the other republican candidates did against Trump. Hillary held her own. Beto couldn't. Biden and Bernie could as well. And I suspect HArris could as well. But I think Harris, although I detest her, has a certain voraciousness and could give it a go. Considering the democrats have simply doubled down and doubled down since Trump was elected with their fundamental ideology, I think she will make sense to a lot of them. The thinking will go: "After all, she is experienced. She is black. She is a woman! What could possibly go wrong, we will stop an exodus of black democrats, and slant centrist women to our side." My guess is there's a good chance of that. It will fail... again... but I see that as a feasible line of thought.

Far too early to even really play fantasy political football at this point, I suppose. I hope to shit Hillary runs. The salt will be awesome.

 

[The Great Citracett]

This is everywhere now:

Surely this is it! Chris Matthews' fantasies are now super important news! Totally not clickbait!

 

[BR55]

My guess is that Kamila Harris will have a good chance of taking the DNC.

My moneys still on Hillary for the obvious reasons but Harris would be my second choice.
Speaking of Harris can any California Kiwis fill us in on her? Because I've heard that even for a California Democrat Harris is uniquely terrible/unbearable.

 

[TowinKarz]

The only person going to be taking over the DNC is someone that can fund it. They're broke, they'll bow down and worship at the feet of anyone bringing in the dosh.

So yeah Hillary is never going away.

Considering how few people show up to her rallies, I don't know about that. She blew all her political capital, tangible and not, on the election. And it's becoming apparent from the empty gyms she rants inside that she can't even dream of hoping to recoup those losses.

 

[Karl der Grosse]

I wonder if we're going to see a hard-left third-party run. I can see it happening. I don't know who it'll be, though.

 

[TowinKarz]

If anything, the DNC will be the one backing the "hard-left" candidate, while a "normal" moderate Democratic challenger may just be able to swing enough frustrated D voters that they become the viable "third" candidate, a la' Perot scooping up a lot of Republican blue-collar workers who felt the Republicans were losing touch with them. And they'll be vilified by the "mainstream" dems as being the loony far-out there candidate because they... GASP! don't want to punch Nazis, or think Silicon Valley needs to stop trying to censor everyone... it would be delicious if not only such a candidate ran, but if they could relegate the established D candidate to a distant third, like TR did to Taft.

Something that drastic is what it's going to take to rescue the DNC from it's ongoing ORANGMANBAD!!!!! MOAR CENSORSHIP! MOAR REEEEESISTING! slump. They still haven't grasped that they're chasing the fringes of a vast untapped electorate by trying to appease the outrage mafia.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Have you been watching the same democratic party I have? Doing the exact same thing that they said was horrible and bad when you did it is one of their M.O.s. Because...


It's OK when we do it!

Yeah. Like when there was no requirement to be a veteran when Bill Clinton was running, yet suddenly it was a big deal when John Kerry was running?

Or how someone with essentially no political experience was a great candidate when Obama was nominated, but Hillary was hyped up as being the most experienced candidate ever? (Spoiler: she wasn't. Not by a longshot.)

Or maybe how John McCain went from being an American hero in 2006, to LITERALLY HITLER in 2008, and was back to being GI Motherfucking Joe in 2009?

The American electorate has absolutely no memory, and the media feels absolutely no obligation to remind the public of what either party was saying LAST WEEK. This gives the Democrats amazing flexibility in what their message has to be. They literally base every talking point on being contrary to what the Republicans are doing. The Republicans do the exact same shit, but their older base forces their pendulum to swing at a slightly slower rate.

 

[Jigglyjogglers]

Considering how few people show up to her rallies, I don't know about that. She blew all her political capital, tangible and not, on the election. And it's becoming apparent from the empty gyms she rants inside that she can't even dream of hoping to recoup those losses.

Really for the DNC it's not about "who is electable" because they don't have anyone that fits that description. It's about "Who will actually give us money so that we can campaign and bring in more donations to shave off money for our personal use". If Hillary can bring in the big terrorist foreign donations through her "charity" foundation again, she can fund the DNC and effectively buy the nomination. Again.

Which is hilarious, because a major TDS talking point is still somehow "He didn't really want to be President, it was just a vanity run", when it's Hillary's vanity that makes her refuse to accept she lost.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Really for the DNC it's not about "who is electable" because they don't have anyone that fits that description. It's about "Who will actually give us money so that we can campaign and bring in more donations to shave off money for our personal use". If Hillary can bring in the big terrorist foreign donations through her "charity" foundation again, she can fund the DNC and effectively buy the nomination. Again.

Which is hilarious, because a major TDS talking point is still somehow "He didn't really want to be President, it was just a vanity run", when it's Hillary's vanity that makes her refuse to accept she lost.

Q: What do you call someone who didn't want to run, but got elected anyway?

A: The President.

 

[damian]

This is everywhere now:
View attachment 618951
Surely this is it! Chris Matthews' fantasies are now super important news! Totally not clickbait!

You really have to admire how these people don’t give up even after countless failures. Wish they put that energy on something more than impotent screeching tho.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

You really have to admire how these people don’t give up even after countless failures. Wish they put that energy on something more than impotent screeching tho.

They're after power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jones-russia.html

"Here's how we interfered in an election, just like those pesky Russians."

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

I see Trump is refusing to sign the continuing resolution to fund the government (the CR), citing 'border security issues').

Brace for ree'ing about government shutdowns and the End of the World As We Know It in 3, 2...