The Number of Democrats Showing Up at Trump Rallies Continues to Stun

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Re the Never-Trumpers:  Not more than one or two of them (Romney & perhaps another) would dare vote "yes" if impeachment reaches a Senate trial.  What with 90% approval for Trump among Republican voters, their political futures would be forfeit.

Following Mittiens on FB is hilarious. every time he posts 10's of 1000's of attacks

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

12 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Re the Never-Trumpers:  Not more than one or two of them (Romney & perhaps another) would dare vote "yes" if impeachment reaches a Senate trial.  What with 90% approval for Trump among Republican voters, their political futures would be forfeit.

Romney just got voted in, he's there for the duration of Trump's first and entirety of Trump's second term. He's got a long family history in politics, which means they know how to maintain presence regardless of their approval in elected office. He's got nothing to worry about, which is why he behaves the way he does and only slightly toned down the Trump hate during election time.

 

The people in the Senate that have to be worried about Trump are those like Lindsey Graham, who has an upcoming election, and serious primary challengers, because he's angered "conservative" and "moderate" people with his warmongering, duplicity on Trump, excessive fawning of Obama during his Presidency, etc. This is why he's done a 180 on Trump and made himself the face of Trump defense. People who employ dramatic shifts like this around election season are the ones worried about their political futures. He's got lots staked on his Senate seat (leading committees and being a big influence) to lose. 

 

Basically, I want him to lose his seat. The only thing that's consistent about him is he's a neocon through and through.

 

And any others like him.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[TBoneTX 45,570]

13 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Lindsey Graham [...] I want him to lose his seat.

Rush Limbaugh has called him "Lindsey Grahamnesty."

LG was shadowing McCain for far too long.

13 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Romney just got voted in, he's there for the duration of Trump's first and entirety of Trump's second term. He's got a long family history in politics, which means they know how to maintain presence regardless of their approval in elected office. He's got nothing to worry about, which is why he behaves the way he does and only slightly toned down the Trump hate during election time.

Was wondering who'd point this out.

Interesting link:

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/12/01/mitt-romney-the-national-dad-no-one-asked-for-n2557276

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

Rush Limbaugh has called him "Lindsey Grahamnesty."

LG was shadowing McCain for far too long.

Was wondering who'd point this out.

Interesting link:

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2019/12/01/mitt-romney-the-national-dad-no-one-asked-for-n2557276

 

His entitlement demeanor, this life-long smugness you see in his daily attitude just emanates. He can lose a national election he should've won (no thanks to me of course, would never vote for Romney) and not care one bit, whereas others would be devastated. Romney just jumps to another branch of elected government and doesn't break a sweat. I'd love to see someone do a Trading Places with him.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

On 11/29/2019 at 1:30 AM, luckytxn said:

The NeoCons and other RINO's I hate even more than the Socialists as politicos. Seeing Trump destroy them 1st before destroying the Democratic party was a joy like no other I have had in my lifetime politically. At least since Reagan and not even Reagan could pull off what Trump did. And the funny part I did not vote for or support Trump at all. I have been a hardcore Libertarian for over 20 years now and could care less about either major party as with them I don't get what I want but have come to love Trump and admire the man. If both major parties go down then all the better to me.

Same here as well. At least with the Tulsi, Yang, and Sanders crowd they are usually decent people which you can agree with them on some things. I have found that to be the case since I started watching the Hill's channel Rising show. That show hates Neocons and Establishment Democrats because they are basically the same thing. 

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

13 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Same here as well. At least with the Tulsi, Yang, and Sanders crowd they are usually decent people which you can agree with them on some things. I have found that to be the case since I started watching the Hill's channel Rising show. That show hates Neocons and Establishment Democrats because they are basically the same thing. 

 

 

Yeah, neolib/neocon are virtually the same, and today's Dems are mostly neolibs. There's actually decent diversity in the House GOP, but Senate GOP are significantly neocons, some more overt than others, but out of fear of Trump they've toned down their clownish behavior, but both of these neo-clowns still trying to retain a mainstream view that this war fetish that prevailed under Bush and Obama is reasonable. Keep an eye on which GOP Senators are still trying to resist Trump's wall/border controls, America First, and anti-war policies. The neocons who are quietest are the ones who are likely vulnerable to primary/election challengers. The loud ones are either not up for election, not vulnerable, or have other gigs lined up to where they don't care if they lose their seat.

 

Concerning Tulsi, Yang, and Sanders...

 

At this point, people still supporting Sanders after he didn't even stand up for himself and his supporters in 2016, are like those who are trying to promote fertility by punching themselves in the bollocks. Yang seems like an outsider, but I'm not too sure of him, he has a slight nutty McAfee demeanor, indeed does have the media and DNC working against him. Tulsi I think is the most interesting one. She has a following from conservatives, but people apparently haven't seen her with Antifa, and the times where she was part of the Dem establishment. I personally believe she's controlled opposition. I explained in prior posts about "controlling the variable", minimizing outliers. It's about maintaining central tendency of voter behavior. If Tulsi is out of the race, those moderates, independents, stop paying attention to her and any Dem candidates. So they're trying to keep her in as long as they can, and with the outsider message. She stands little chance of election (and certainly she's being aligned against with regard to winning), but she likely does have an agreement to pursue other gigs with the DNC blessing.

 

I watch Glenn Greenwald, and Tracey, two very intellectual leftists who've been smart enough to see the Dem party's mistakes, I wish their thought process was a little bit higher. They've got the "anti-Tulsi", "anti-Yang", etc. thing down, but it's not always that simple. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Third poll now (can't remember -- Marist?) put black/minority support for the President at 35%.

[Dashinka 24,628]

7 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Third poll now (can't remember -- Marist?) put black/minority support for the President at 35%.

I would be curious to know what the DNC's internal polls are showing.

[TBoneTX 45,570]

I might've posted (or, certainly, thought about posting) a link awhile back of an article in which it was indicated that the Democrats were terrified.