Trump talk only- no Eagles talk allowed (Steelers talk is OK though)

[supermike80 1,913]

I'm seeing scuttlebutt that Biden won't endorse Kamala if he steps back.  I see that as a near impossibility.  If he does that, he kills any far left and woke votes.  They go bye bye.   Would be  the end of the dems chances to win.

My opinion of course.

They are stuck with her now.  She's not Presidential at all and is flawed in a lot of ways.  But remember, the President for the democrats is not the one running things.   We've seen that with Biden now.  So the figurehead is just that.  

[weepaws 3,194]

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

I'm seeing scuttlebutt that Biden won't endorse Kamala if he steps back.  I see that as a near impossibility.  If he does that, he kills any far left and woke votes.  They go bye bye.   Would be  the end of the dems chances to win.

My opinion of course.

They are stuck with her now.  She's not Presidential at all and is flawed in a lot of ways.  But remember, the President for the democrats is not the one running things.   We've seen that with Biden now.  So the figurehead is just that.  

When has the US had a president without flaws?  Immunity 

[Maximum Overkill 1,996]

 

 

 

 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

3 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

 

 

 

 

Sadly, Hillary is no longer viable. But imagine how great if she was. What a wonderful President she would have been. 

[Baker Boy 1,699]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/rachel-maddow-jen-psaki-and-other-msnbc-hosts-use-led-screen-to-make-it-look-like-they-re-at-rnc-in-milwaukee/ar-BB1qe2Eh?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki and other MSNBC hosts use LED screen to make it look like they’re at RNC in Milwaukee

[Strike 5,553]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sadly, Hillary is no longer viable. But imagine how great if she was. What a wonderful President she would have been. 

No, she wouldn't.  And I'll give you one example of why.  During her campaign, her husband kept telling her and her team that they were focking it up and offering suggestions on how to win.  His wife and her team IGNORED ALL OF HIS ADVICE.   Why would you ignore Bill focking Clinton?  I'm not a fan of the man but FFS he knew how to win a presidential election.  But she thought she knew better.  So No, she wouldn't have been a great President.  Not even a good one. 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, she wouldn't.  And I'll give you one example of why.  During her campaign, her husband kept telling her and her team that they were focking it up and offering suggestions on how to win.  His wife and her team IGNORED ALL OF HIS ADVICE.   Why would you ignore Bill focking Clinton?  I'm not a fan of the man but FFS he knew how to win a presidential election.  But she thought she knew better.  So No, she wouldn't have been a great President.  Not even a good one. 

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

Agree.  We really do not know.

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

Just now, RLLD said:

Agree.  We really do not know.

Sure we do her corporate masters would do well while the rest of us would have suffered from it. We’d still be involved in endless wars and the country would be just as divided. Her approval rating would have been terrible all the while the corporate media and pundits would be telling us how great she is. It would have been no different than it is now with the same leftists repeating their talking points 24/7.

[supermike80 1,913]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Agree.  We really do not know.

Agreed.   A poor campaign strategy doesn't mean she would be a terrible President.  Those two don't align that easily.

I do think almost no one thought Trump would win.  I mean after all, those trusty polls told us so.  And she didn't take him seriously.   Obviously that was a mistake.

[Gepetto 1,368]

20 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sadly, Hillary is no longer viable. But imagine how great if she was. What a wonderful President she would have been. 

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

Sure we do her corporate masters would do well while the rest of us would have suffered from it. We’d still be involved in endless wars and the country would be just as divided. Her approval rating would have been terrible all the while the corporate media and pundits would be telling us how great she is. It would have been no different than it is now with the same leftists repeating their talking points 24/7.

She seems incompetent, did not do anything to refute that notion as VP.  But she very well could be a decent President.....let's not behave like liberals and simply assert that the opposing candidate is unfit.....

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

Sure we do her corporate masters would do well while the rest of us would have suffered from it. We’d still be involved in endless wars and the country would be just as divided. Her approval rating would have been terrible all the while the corporate media and pundits would be telling us how great she is. It would have been no different than it is now with the same leftists repeating their talking points 24/7.

Always cracks me up when Trump fans complain about Democrats and their “corporate masters.” Not that I truly mind; the one saving grace for this country should Trump win is that a lot of the populism is just for show and that he’ll never go through with most of the crap he’s promising. But it’s really amusing to see guys like you suck it up every time. 

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

She seems incompetent, did not do anything to refute that notion as VP.  But she very well could be a decent President.....let's not behave like liberals and simply assert that the opposing candidate is unfit.....

We’re talking about Hillary here

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

We’re talking about Hillary here

Doesn’t apply to Kamala either. 

[edjr 6,592]

Looking more and more like the shooting was staged. 

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

10 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

He talked about sharks. He rambled about Hannibal Lector. He’s going to deport millions of people. He loves Viktor Orban. He’s going to slap a 100% tariff on foreign cars. He likes Kim Jong Un. 
 

And those were the coherent parts. 

It just was Shark Week---c'mon, don't you think he has to address that?

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

Just caught up on this thread - and keep seeing 'Biden won't endorse Kamala'.  So I decided to track it down.

Quote

 

President Joe Biden has agreed to bow out of the 2024 race, journalist and Newsmax commentator Mark Halperin reported on Thursday, citing sources. This comes as key Democratic sources told Axios that the 81-year-old could withdraw from the presidential election as early as this weekend.

Newsmax's Halperin further cited his source to add that Biden will not endorse Kamala Harris. She would face an open convention for the Democratic Party's official nomination next month.

Neither Joe Biden nor his campaign have reacted to the report yet.

 

I think you might want to get a second source

[Strike 5,553]

18 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

You missed my point.  That's not surprising.  You usually do.  I AM surprised that some of the others did as well though.  The point isn't that she had a terrible campaign strategy.  Anyone can make that mistake.  It's an art, not a science.  The point is that she was dismissive of one of the most savvy political minds of our lifetimes.  It'd be like you started a venture capital firm, and Warren Buffett volunteered to be on the BOD.  Then, you decided to invest your entire nut in to an unproven widget company.   Warren Buffett said don't do it and gave you 10 reasons not to.  But you ignored him and did it anyways and lost all your VC.  That would be a good indication that you are a horrible businessman.  Not because you invested and lost but because you ignored the advice of one of the best resources you could ever have at your disposal.

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

It means she doesn't listen to people that know more her though.

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

11 minutes ago, edjr said:

Looking more and more like the shooting was staged. 

You're ate up, stop watching the Rogan podcast doofus

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

You missed my point.  That's not surprising.  You usually do.  I AM surprised that some of the others did as well though.  The point isn't that she had a terrible campaign strategy.  Anyone can make that mistake.  It's an art, not a science.  The point is that she was dismissive of one of the most savvy political minds of our lifetimes.  It'd be like you started a venture capital firm, and Warren Buffett volunteered to be on the BOD.  Then, you decided to invest your entire nut in to an unproven widget company.   Warren Buffett said don't do it and gave you 10 reasons not to.  But you ignored him and did it anyways and lost all your VC.  That would be a good indication that you are a horrible businessman.  Not because you invested and lost but because you ignored the advice of one of the best resources you could ever have at your disposal.

I didn’t miss your point. I thought it was, typically of you, lazy and not too thoughtful. 
In both 2008 and 2016, Bill Clinton chose the folks in charge of his wife’s campaign staff- not her. Then he bided his time and tried to stay out of it, then he tried to interfere with disastrous results- like the time in 2008 when he tried to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson- which most black voters at the time correctly perceived as racism. Bill was a great campaigner back in the day  but unable to cope with changing times and the populism of Obama, Bernie Sanders, and most of all Donald Trump. His advice was often poor. That doesn’t excuse Hillary. She had the hubris to think she didn’t need to campaign in Wisconsin and tried to win in Georgia when she had no chance to do so. She was dumb about it. 
But again this has nothing to do with what kind of President she would have been. Much more than her husband, Hillary was a political centrist. She is no liberal and would have fostered a pro-business, pro-trade approach. She would have been as effective as Biden in foreign affairs but much more effective domestically. And of course the Trump Covid disaster would never have occurred. She would have been a tremendous President and ending her 2nd term now, leading this country to a prosperous future. Too bad. 

[Strike 5,553]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I didn’t miss your point. I thought it was, typically of you, lazy and not too thoughtful. 
In both 2008 and 2016, Bill Clinton chose the folks in charge of his wife’s campaign staff- not her. Then he bided his time and tried to stay out of it, then he tried to interfere with disastrous results- like the time in 2008 when he tried to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson- which most black voters at the time correctly perceived as racism. Bill was a great campaigner back in the day  but unable to cope with changing times and the populism of Obama, Bernie Sanders, and most of all Donald Trump. His advice was often po

Sure buddy.  Cause what she did worked so well. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

35 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

If past behavior predicts future behavior we know she would not have been transparent.  She would have hidden records under the bed in the Lincoln beddroom or had  a hard drive bleaching station installed where the White House bowling alley currently sits.

We know she found half of the country to be dispicable deplorables she wanted to "re-educate".

We know she believes our children belong to the State (the village) and not to us.

I heard an interview from her when there was to be a tax rebate.  She was a Senator at the time.  She did not want to give that rebate.  She postulated that we citizens would spend it wrong and it was up to the government to spend it for us.  Now as to many citizens she was likely correct.  We saw that students whose loans were forgiven did not want to invest that windfall but were instead interested in Carribean vacations, but its none of her damn business.

Still, we could guess that she would have been "in no ways tired".

Ambition does not equal perspective or wisdom.  She was ambitious.  

[squistion 2,203]

6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

If past behavior predicts future behavior we know she would not have been transparent.  She would have hidden records under the bed in the Lincoln beddroom or had  a hard drive bleaching station installed where the White House bowling alley currently sits.

We know she found half of the country to be dispicable deplorables she wanted to "re-educate".

We know she believes our children belong to the State (the village) and not to us.

I heard an interview from her when there was to be a tax rebate.  She was a Senator at the time.  She did not want to give that rebate.  She postulated that we citizens would spend it wrong and it was up to the government to spend it for us.  Now as to many citizens she was likely correct.  We saw that students whose loans were forgiven did not want to invest that windfall but were instead interested in Carribean vacations, but its none of her damn business.

Still, we could guess that she would have been "in no ways tired".

Ambition does not equal perspective or wisdom.  She was ambitious.  

No, she doesn't. That is a mischaracterization of what It Takes A Village was saying. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Just now, squistion said:

No, she doesn't. That is a mischaracterization of what It Takes A Village was saying. 

I know what the story was supposed to illustrate, but when taken in conjunction with democrat policies vis a vis children we know what it meant.  i interpret the lovely story in light of the context of actions.

[squistion 2,203]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

I know what the story was supposed to illustrate, but when taken in conjunction with democrat policies vis a vis children we know what it meant.  i interpret the lovely story in light of the context of actions.

No, that isn't what it meant and not even close. Your interpretation is wrong.

[edjr 6,592]

35 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

You're ate up, stop watching the Rogan podcast doofus

rogan? . ya sure, i have time to listen to podcasts 

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

7 minutes ago, edjr said:

rogan? . ya sure, i have time to listen to podcasts 

I listen to Bill Simmons rewatchables when I mow the lawn, those are pretty good.

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

15 minutes ago, edjr said:

rogan? . ya sure, i have time to listen to podcasts 

Stop it, you love Joe Rogan

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

I’d vote for Biden over Trump. Not a hard choice.

If Trump wins and is full vegetable mode (he’s rapidly approaching) in a couple years in I look forward to all the truth seekers out there

IF that happens... do you really think the GOP will cover for Trump like the DNC did for Biden?  Liberals all over the place, the media, in DC, and even on this board have said that the Republican establishment doesn't like Trump.  Were they lying about that before/about it now?

Note: No, he's not rapidly approaching that, that's your wishful thinking.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

Looking more and more like the shooting was staged. 

Oh?

[BrahmaBulls 765]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

All that proves is that she was not a good politician. She was horrible at it. It says nothing about how she would have done as President. 

Then why did you declare she would have been great?  You have no idea.

 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

9 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Then why did you declare she would have been great?  You have no idea.

 

I offered my reasons. Feel free to scroll up. 

[supermike80 1,913]

20 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

IF that happens... do you really think the GOP will cover for Trump like the DNC did for Biden?  Liberals all over the place, the media, in DC, and even on this board have said that the Republican establishment doesn't like Trump.  Were they lying about that before/about it now?

Note: No, he's not rapidly approaching that, that's your wishful thinking.

Yes..The GOP will 100% try to cover for Trump if that happens.  Believing otherwise is just stupid.

Now the media is a whole different story.

Sometimes the blind party loyalty is just absurd.  Regardless of the party involved, they want to gain power and keep power.  And thy will do what they can to make that happen.  Even if it means dancing on some lines when it comes to legality.  Neither party is immune to it and if you believe only one party would do it, you don't know sheet about politics.

The difference here was the media...They subscribed to it.  That absolutely would not happen if Trump were the President

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

35 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

IF that happens... do you really think the GOP will cover for Trump like the DNC did for Biden?  Liberals all over the place, the media, in DC, and even on this board have said that the Republican establishment doesn't like Trump.  Were they lying about that before/about it now?

Note: No, he's not rapidly approaching that, that's your wishful thinking.

These fools wanted to invoke the 25th Amendment when Trump drank a glass of water with 2 hands.  

[Baker Boy 1,699]

The swamp is swallowing one of its oldest members.

The swamp is being forced to expose themselves because they are in fear of losing their power.

 

[thegeneral 3,214]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

IF that happens... do you really think the GOP will cover for Trump like the DNC did for Biden?  Liberals all over the place, the media, in DC, and even on this board have said that the Republican establishment doesn't like Trump.  Were they lying about that before/about it now?

Note: No, he's not rapidly approaching that, that's your wishful thinking.

Of course they will, are you kidding here?

The dude had an army of goobers attacking the Capitol building beating on cops and they all just fall in line because he controls a huge block of voters they need. 

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

The old codger issued a statement today that he’s not going anywhere. 
 

https://www.breitbart.com/news/defiant-biden-vows-to-win-despite-growing-revolt/

 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

1 minute ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

The old codger issued a statement today that he’s not going anywhere. 
 

https://www.breitbart.com/news/defiant-biden-vows-to-win-despite-growing-revolt/

 

 

 

Could be upping his negotiation strength.  But the squad has stepped up and urged him to stay in, and he has been listening to them for years now.