Damn Commies

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:15 am

I hear that a lot, that the polls were wrong, when in fact is not true, or at least not entirely true.


Yup, and I even bought into it initially (not that I'm immune, but just saying).

The polling was actually pretty spot-on- it just missed (iirc) in a few key states, and/or was within the MOE and states broke to Trump instead of HRC.

Of course, winning a couple of states by 30 points figures heavily into 'correcting' the polls, too, but that's neither here nor there.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Largent80 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:36 am

burrrton wrote:
Hey, if it talks like a duck...


Proof that sphichters can type.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:01 am

Proof that sphichters can type.


Proof that guys that talk like bigots can't proofread...

[edit- and if you just want to be a dick, keep it in PMs like you started to do]
Last edited by burrrton on Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:43 am

burrrton wrote:The polling was actually pretty spot-on- it just missed (iirc) in a few key states, and/or was within the MOE and states broke to Trump instead of HRC.

Of course, winning a couple of states by 30 points figures heavily into 'correcting' the polls, too, but that's neither here nor there.


My understanding is that the polls in WI were using data that was at least a week out of date.

Clinton's margin of victory in California, 4.2M votes, was quite a bit more than her nation wide popular vote margin of 2.9M, so yea, that's one helluva correction. With the nation wide polls being as close as they were, there was no justification for anyone feeling overconfident.

What I don't get is how given the polling data, how a publication like the New York Times can come out on election day and say that Clinton had an 85% chance of winning, or worse, that Trump had just an 11% chance of winning PA or a 6% chance of winning MI. If I were the editor of that rag, I'd fire for incompetence anyone associated with those predictions.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecast.html
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:46 am

Yeah, I think those one-sided predictions are what led many to think the polling was so far off the mark. It wasn't necessarily, but the predictions drawn from them were.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:30 pm

RiverDog wrote:I've wondered the same thing. I'm a self described fiscal conservative and social moderate, never voted for a Dem for national office in my life (voted for several at the Gubernatorial level) and I never even considered voting for Trump. My guess is that a lot of people just can't stand the Clintons and voted for Trump because they didn't want to see 4-8 years of that old hag. The fact that Trump's approval rating has been in the tank ever since he took office reinforces my opinion.


This is pure speculation. Many people that vote Democrat love the Clintons. They still think of the Clintons in a very positive manner and remember Bill very well. The Clinton name may be reviled by conservatives, but it's a good name for a Democratic candidate. I think you vastly overestimate the dislike if Hilary. And once again, explain how Trump won the Republican nomination against many well-funded and politically savvy politicians? It wasn't like he was well-supported by the Republican Party or even well-liked. I don't even think his own party cared if he won. Yet you keep touting the dislike of Hilary a the primary driver, when you could easily say a similar or greater number of people disliked Trump for his stances, attitudes, and the like.

You, me, and Hawktalk are all usually Republican voters that didn't vote for Trump. What proof do you have that people hated Hilary more than Trump? I can find none. I would say there is a stronger argument to be made that Hilary was more liked by her party and its supporters than Trump by his. Where are you getting this idea that Hilary was more reviled than Trump? Just because she lost? Is that your sole reliance? You certainly can't prove it any other way. Trump was disliked by many in his party. He was attacked constantly by the media. He was on public record saying things that offended even you about immigrants and he insulted publically politicians and their wives. Why would hate for Hilary somehow Trump hate for Trump? Not sure this was his advantage.

I hear that a lot, that the polls were wrong, when in fact is not true, or at least not entirely true. As a matter of fact, the national polls nailed it as they predicted that Clinton would win by 2%, which is exactly the way the election broke. But as we all know, the election isn't decided by the popular vote. State wide polling is much more difficult to forecast than polling nation wide, but even so, the critical swing states, only WI showed a mild surprise. The week before the election in PA, Clinton was up by 1.9% and Trump won by 1.2%. In Michigan, Clinton was up 3.4 percent and ended up losing by .23%. Those are both well within the margin of error. In WI Clinton was up 6.5% and Trump ended up winning by .7%, but one has to keep in mind that those were week old numbers and HRC never set foot in WI during her entire campaign, allowing Trump to run barefoot through the entire state.


Fact is the polling and predictions based on the polling is a large reason why Trump is able to undermine the media. They were against him. It was obvious. They tried to use polling data to predict his loss. They were wrong. He has been hammering on them ever since.

Well, I'm not going to be money on it, either. I didn't think Trump had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election and since I'd mailed off my ballot weeks before the election, had sort of fell asleep and I quit following it until election night. But I do think that he'll be easy to beat in 2020, and I base that on the fact that Trump has had such meager support during his first year in office, usually a honeymoon for most newly elected POTUS's. That's why I think that HRC had a very large negative effect on the Dems. If Trump won by means of his own popularity, he wouldn't be getting historically bad job performance numbers.


If you think he'll be easy to beat, then bet money. I don't know. I wouldn't bet on it. I think you've been off-base with poor analysis for a while. Your whole Hilary hate made Trump win makes about as much sense to me as the world is flat theory. Trump was universally reviled. There was no more hated man running for president in history than Trump. The man was crass. He argued with his own party. He derided people relentlessly. The media splashed his crazy talk everywhere. The Republican Party was divided on him. Big Republican names like Bush, Romney, and Ryan didn't care for him. And somehow you think the hate for Hilary was greater than the Hate for Trump and that won him the election.

It's like saying a 600 lb. fat man beat a 400 lb. fat man because the 400 lb. man was fat. The Hate for Trump was far greater than the Hate for Hilary...by a huge measure.

I don't "hate" Trump, either. I have a much narrower definition of that term than many. But I have very little respect for the man. IMO he's a spoiled rich kid that's used to getting nearly everything he's ever wanted by simply flashing his money or his name. It's not that I dislike anyone that's grown up privileged. But when you combine privilege with arrogance as is the case with Trump, I seem to have less respect for them than I do a person that's simply arrogant.


Trump doesn't seem to care who respects him or not. Don't think he ever has. He just goes and gets it. He earned his name and money. Trump name was good in New York, Trump made it good in the world.

I don't think that Trump "got lucky" and won the Presidency anymore than I think that the Seahawks "got lucky" and won a Lombardi. But Trump did have some stars line up for him, in particular, his opponent's incompetent way in which she ran her campaign.


Now we're falling back on Hilary's incompetence. When once again Trump was a political neophyte at running campaigns. His campaign manager was who? Kelly Anne Conway? I don't know if he had many big names running his campaign.

What you and a lot of others don't want to admit is Trump just won. He took it. Majority of the media against him. His party divided on him. Hollyweird against him. Democrats against him. Attack after attack after attack on his character. Tapes released at key times about grabbing women. The guy just went and got it against one of the most powerful political machines the Democrats have. Clinton was no political neophyte or complete incompetent like you like to surmise. Clinton was one of the most powerful first ladies of all time. She was a Senator in New York. She was Secretary of State. She had the backing big money and powerful Democrats. The main thing she had going against her was her gender as we had never had a female president. That may have lost her the election as our nation can still be quite sexist. If you wanted to make that argument, I might buy it more. But as far as hate goes, Trump had more hate. As far as political experience and competence, Hilary had more by a large measure.

Somehow Trump won. We'll see if a man can beat him next election. That might be enough to push the vote against if the man is any good at all.

You do underestimate religion, gender, and race's effect on elections. Maybe it's the Obama Effect on you, I don't know. We'll see if that heralds a new age of politics or if the usual factors will still be considered. I imagine we'll find out the next few elections. I do believe a quality Hispanic candidate has a good chance of winning in this new America if either party can find one.
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:38 pm

Oh, I understand that my comments are purely speculative and opinionated. But hopefully I've used some facts to support them and that I'm not just pulling things out of my arse. I'm using a reasoned argument.

Obviously there's a lot of people that still love both of the Clintons. Heck, Hillary could probably win the nomination again if she chooses to run. But there were a lot of Dems that sat this one out. The circumstances of her nomination left a very bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters.

I am not discounting Trump's win. He ran a very savvy campaign, particularly his "America First" theme that IMO made the difference in PA and MI. Hillary outspent him by nearly 2 to 1, she had huge advantages in that she had more experience in running nation wide campaigns, had a more substantial network of campaigners, ran as a D...there's lots more registered D's than R's. Yet Trump still beat her.

But the fact is that he was running against the POTUS candidate with the highest negative numbers (next to himself) since Truman and the one opponent in the entire lot that could motivate his base to turn out. More than likely, he won't have that advantage in 2020. Moreover, he will be running as an incumbent, meaning he's not going to be able to attack the status quo like he did so effectively in 2016...He won't be able to run around saying "Drain the swamp!". He's going to be on the defensive, and will have to run on his record, which to this point has just one victory. It's going to take a completely different tact in 2020 than he used in 2016.

As far as the polls go, as burrton and I discussed, it was more the interpretation of the data they produced that was to blame for the overconfidence than it was the polls themselves. The problem was that you had established and well respected publications like the New York Times that were running around saying that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning. For the life of me, I don't know how anyone could look at those numbers and come to that conclusion.

Am I discounting the effect that religion and gender has on a POTUS race? Hell, I don't know. Maybe I'm just projecting my own sentiments over that of the entire nation. But I can't help what my gut tells me. If we can elect a black and come within 50,000 votes in a couple of states of electing a woman, I would think that we could elect a Jew. Now a Muslim candidate? Probably not. I don't think that we've come that far.

This has been a good discussion. I find myself looking forward to you and the other poster's responses.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:59 pm

RiverDog wrote:Oh, I understand that my comments are purely speculative and opinionated. But hopefully I've used some facts to support them and that I'm not just pulling things out of my arse. I'm using a reasoned argument.

Obviously there's a lot of people that still love both of the Clintons. Heck, Hillary could probably win the nomination again if she chooses to run. But there were a lot of Dems that sat this one out. The circumstances of her nomination left a very bitter taste in the mouths of a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters.

I am not discounting Trump's win. He ran a very savvy campaign, particularly his "America First" theme that IMO made the difference in PA and MI. Hillary outspent him by nearly 2 to 1, she had huge advantages in that she had more experience in running nation wide campaigns, had a more substantial network of campaigners, ran as a D...there's lots more registered D's than R's. Yet Trump still beat her.

But the fact is that he was running against the POTUS candidate with the highest negative numbers (next to himself) since Truman and the one opponent in the entire lot that could motivate his base to turn out. More than likely, he won't have that advantage in 2020. Moreover, he will be running as an incumbent, meaning he's not going to be able to attack the status quo like he did so effectively in 2016...He won't be able to run around saying "Drain the swamp!". He's going to be on the defensive, and will have to run on his record, which to this point has just one victory. It's going to take a completely different tact in 2020 than he used in 2016.

As far as the polls go, as burrton and I discussed, it was more the interpretation of the data they produced that was to blame for the overconfidence than it was the polls themselves. The problem was that you had established and well respected publications like the New York Times that were running around saying that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning. For the life of me, I don't know how anyone could look at those numbers and come to that conclusion.

Am I discounting the effect that religion and gender has on a POTUS race? Hell, I don't know. Maybe I'm just projecting my own sentiments over that of the entire nation. But I can't help what my gut tells me. If we can elect a black and come within 50,000 votes in a couple of states of electing a woman, I would think that we could elect a Jew. Now a Muslim candidate? Probably not. I don't think that we've come that far.

This has been a good discussion. I find myself looking forward to you and the other poster's responses.


It's been fun. Truly, why Trump I don't know. I really don't. Romney losing was pretty easy to call. He had some major chinks in his armor. His Mormonism, corporate associations, going against a popular incumbent president well-supported by the media. He literally had nothing going to make him standout. His loss was an easy call.

This was the strangest election I've witnessed in my lifetime. I'm still scratching my head as to how he won. Mostly I connect Trump with Perot if Perot hadn't dropped out of the election alienating his support and making him look weak. Trump seems to have picked the right time with the right message and the right opponent with the right ability to sell himself to America, a conflation of factors seems to have led to a Trump victory.

Trump even had age going against him. He's the oldest first term president ever at 71. He may die in office, though he seems energetic for a 71 year old.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:53 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's been fun. Truly, why Trump I don't know. I really don't. Romney losing was pretty easy to call. He had some major chinks in his armor. His Mormonism, corporate associations, going against a popular incumbent president well-supported by the media. He literally had nothing going to make him standout. His loss was an easy call.

This was the strangest election I've witnessed in my lifetime. I'm still scratching my head as to how he won. Mostly I connect Trump with Perot if Perot hadn't dropped out of the election alienating his support and making him look weak. Trump seems to have picked the right time with the right message and the right opponent with the right ability to sell himself to America, a conflation of factors seems to have led to a Trump victory.

Trump even had age going against him. He's the oldest first term president ever at 71. He may die in office, though he seems energetic for a 71 year old.


Yea, I had it all figured wrong, too. I had confidently told my immigrant friends not to worry about Trump, that extreme candidates could win their party's nomination (Goldwater and McGovern are prime examples) but that they had difficulty winning a general election. Plus as I said, I received my ballot perhaps a month before the election, marked the box for Johnson, mailed it in, then feeling that my consciencous was clear, forgot about the election until election day.

Perhaps Trump's election will send a signal to people sitting on the sidelines. People like Colin Kaepernick that wears T-shirts showing his support for Castro then admits that he did not vote in this past election make me want to puke. He doesn't have any idea how many blacks died just so that people like him could exercise their right to vote. I truly wonder how many of the Trump critics and protesters actually voted in the last election. They were a day late and a dollar short: They should have been protesting weeks before the election when their voices might have been heard and where they might have actually had an affect on the outcome, not in the weeks following when they were essentially trying to close the barn door after the horses got out.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Hawktawk » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:47 pm

The pre election polls didn’t account for the degree of Russian interference in key battleground states with targeted social
Media, hacking of voter information etc. mueller is looking at Jared Kushners digital media outreach to see if there was coordination with Russia to target specific districts since Russian bots did exactly that .

it would not surprise me if they actually changed votes but we would never hear about it from our government .
Russia is not our buddy. Our hopelessly blackmailed POTUS is the only one who won’t admit it.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:00 am

Hawktawk wrote:The pre election polls didn’t account for the degree of Russian interference in key battleground states with targeted social
Media, hacking of voter information etc. mueller is looking at Jared Kushners digital media outreach to see if there was coordination with Russia to target specific districts since Russian bots did exactly that .

it would not surprise me if they actually changed votes but we would never hear about it from our government .
Russia is not our buddy. Our hopelessly blackmailed POTUS is the only one who won’t admit it.


Hehe. I see that you're still looking for the silver bullet that takes down Trump. Good Hunting, My Friend!

Most of what I've heard regarding the election itself and the Russians part in it was that the Russians were trying to create chaos during the voting process by messing with registered voter lists. But we'll see once Mueller gets done with his investigation.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:12 am

burrrton wrote:Yeah, the atmosphere in which we're living influences our behaviors, but it doesn't change who we are.

A deft politician in one era would be a deft politician in any era, and in Trump's case, I think he'd be a clumsy novice no matter what.

This right here^^^^^
My best friend in the world is a wealthy businessman who contributed to trumps campaign . He said “I don’t want a politician”. I pointed out that politician comes with a job description. He said “good point” but supports him anyway. We don’t talk about it anymore, the first thing we have ever disagreed about in 42 years.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:36 pm

New book titled “fire and fury “ quotes former chief policy advisor Bannon as saying he thought the June 2016 meeting with Russians was treasonous . Welcome aboard steve. I’ve been saying it since I heard of the meeting .
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:42 pm

You're latching your wagon to *Steve Bannon*, tawk?

Wasn't he persona non grata about 3 milliseconds ago?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:49 pm

burrrton wrote:You're latching your wagon to *Steve Bannon*, tawk?


Wasn't he persona non grata about 3 milliseconds ago?


No
Burrt I’ve been warming up to
Bannon for months. He’s a pig of a human but he’s smart and he’s a big reason trump was able to implement a lot of his agenda. I don’t know how much of this book is true but if an any of it is it is alarming
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:41 pm

Hawktawk wrote:New book titled “fire and fury “ quotes former chief policy advisor Bannon as saying he thought the June 2016 meeting with Russians was treasonous . Welcome aboard steve. I’ve been saying it since I heard of the meeting .


I thought that we had all agreed that a treason charge was off the table for the simple and undeniable fact that we are not at war, or at least not at war with the Russians. Is that not the case? Do we need to go back and cover the same ground again?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:42 pm

I thought that we had all agreed that a treason charge was off the table for the simple and undeniable fact that we are not at war, or at least not at war with the Russians. Is that not the case? Do we need to go back and cover the same ground again?


That's what's so bizarre about this: I don't know if I've heard every charge leveled, but of all I've heard, none even rise to the level of criminality with regard to Trump.

What is it that everyone thinks is the impeachable offense lying at the end of this 'collusion' rainbow?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Hawktawk » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:22 am

Bannon said what I’ve said since I heard of the meeting. It is not ok to accept assistance from a foreign government to win an American presidential election.

As Bannon correctly states the correct response to a Russian overture was to pick up the phone and call the FBI. Instead Trump Jr said “ if it’s what you say it is I love it, especially later in the summer”.

It was treason and it’s hiding in plain sight. It’s not that there’s no evidence of conspiracy or treason. There’s too much.

Impeach or 25 th amendment please.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:34 am

burrrton wrote:That's what's so bizarre about this: I don't know if I've heard every charge leveled, but of all I've heard, none even rise to the level of criminality with regard to Trump.

What is it that everyone thinks is the impeachable offense lying at the end of this 'collusion' rainbow?


It's the continual mention of the term "treason" that rankles me. Even the Rosenbergs weren't charged with treason. It's the only crime that is defined in the Constitution and is very rarely applied. The last person convicted of treason was in the aftermath of WW2, Toyko Rose being one of them.

And like you, I have not even heard of an impeachable offense yet. They all require a connection of dots that they haven't come close to making.

But we'll see once Mueller wraps up his investigation, which was supposed to be pretty soon. There had been rumors that he was going to finish up by the end of 2017, but that has obviously come and gone.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby burrrton » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:49 am

It's the continual mention of the term "treason" that rankles me.


Yup- it shows they either don't know what "treason" is or they're imagining facts not in evidence.

But we'll see once Mueller wraps up his investigation, which was supposed to be pretty soon.


Yup yup.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 3076
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:47 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Bannon said what I’ve said since I heard of the meeting. It is not ok to accept assistance from a foreign government to win an American presidential election.

As Bannon correctly states the correct response to a Russian overture was to pick up the phone and call the FBI. Instead Trump Jr said “ if it’s what you say it is I love it, especially later in the summer”.

It was treason and it’s hiding in plain sight. It’s not that there’s no evidence of conspiracy or treason. There’s too much.


No, it was not treason. Bannon's stupid if he thinks this doesn't happen nearly every election. The Clintons were notorious for donations and support from foreign governments through their lobbyists. I'd bet money most candidates received monetary support and intelligence from foreign governments looking to gain favor with a candidate. What I don't understand is why you don't know this already. What was listed by Bannon may be what he considers treasonous, but not what the law considers treasonous. Sorry, Hawk Tawk. If that is all that happened, it will only be treason in the minds of Americans like yourself and those that think like you. It will not be treason in the eyes of the law or most politicians who already accept donations and assistance from foreign governments, including Hilary and her goons.

Impeach or 25 th amendment please.


Time will tell.

What I found interesting was that Trump did not want to win. That would not surprise me if it was true. I half-heartedly believe the South Park theory. Trump was sent in to rip apart that Republican Party to ensure Hilary's victory, but through some strange set of circumstances he won. He literally tried everything to get himself kicked from the election and somehow kept winning. Now he doesn't know how he made it into office. He doesn't know what to do. But at least the Republicans around him found him a quality cabinet, while slowly removing clowns like Kushner and Bannon who don't belong in The White House. Trump was on good terms with the Clinton's for years. Even if he didn't win the Republican nomination, he would still have splintered the party running. But somehow he won. I bet the Clintons were quite surprised their trojan horse didn't work, so were the Trumps. Probably not true, but it makes more sense than this stupid Russian stuff that has a bare thread of evidence.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:07 am

I get the sense that Bannon has gone off the deep end. He called Trump's wife "dumb as a rock". I'm not sure what he hopes to achieve by insulting the first lady like that. There's always been an unwritten rule in politics that you leave an opponent's family alone. It's pretty clear that he'll say or do anything, true, false, or in between, to get back at Trump.

I just don't find Bannon credible, certainly not the same degree of credibility John Dean had when he turned on his former boss.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:06 pm

Bannon is a shock jock. He makes his money fueling controversy and funneling news to a segment of the right. He has ambitions of being a kingmaker. Par for the course as far as politicians go. Bannon's ego is as big as Trump's. Those two were made for each other. It's amusing to watch them spar in public like a couple of idiots.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:40 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:Bannon is a shock jock. He makes his money fueling controversy and funneling news to a segment of the right. He has ambitions of being a kingmaker. Par for the course as far as politicians go. Bannon's ego is as big as Trump's. Those two were made for each other. It's amusing to watch them spar in public like a couple of idiots.


Yea, well Cbob put it best when he characterized the entire Trump presidency as a continious SNL skit. I would have never believed that a bunch of old men could behave like participants on the Jerry Springer Show unless I saw it with my own eyes.

Bannon is just now putting out a kiss-and-tell book about the Trump White House, and that alone should disqualify him from being considered an objective source of information.

And before anyone starts yearning for a Hillary Clinton presidency, it would be worthwhile for them to dig into the scandalous Clinton Foundation. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had she gotten elected she'd be having to defend herself in the same manner that Trump is having to. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, they no doubt would have launched an investigation into that sleaze bucket.

2016 will go down in history as the two worst choices for POTUS given to us by the two major parties.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Damn Commies

Postby idhawkman » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:59 pm

River,

What you need to know is along the lines of what you alluded to in your last post. Bannon is releasing a kiss and tell book... Actually, this book that is out now was suppose to be about Bannon. Think of what you've heard in that light and it makes a little sense. He wants to build himself up as being responsible for the Trump win and that everyone around him was dumb except him. (if you put him at the center of everything then his "excerpts" fall in line with that.)

I think he has had a wake-up call that he served at the pleasure of the president and that pleasure is no longer extended to him - making him a know nothing.

I do find it a bit coincidental that the leaks from the white house have stopped since he was fired (er, let go, allowed to leave...)
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Damn Commies

Postby RiverDog » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:30 pm

idhawkman wrote:River,

What you need to know is along the lines of what you alluded to in your last post. Bannon is releasing a kiss and tell book... Actually, this book that is out now was suppose to be about Bannon. Think of what you've heard in that light and it makes a little sense. He wants to build himself up as being responsible for the Trump win and that everyone around him was dumb except him. (if you put him at the center of everything then his "excerpts" fall in line with that.)

I think he has had a wake-up call that he served at the pleasure of the president and that pleasure is no longer extended to him - making him a know nothing.

I do find it a bit coincidental that the leaks from the white house have stopped since he was fired (er, let go, allowed to leave...)


I agree about Bannon's motivations. I never trust anyone that has just released a book as everything they say will be designed to enhance sales. The more outlandish and out of touch he can paint Trump, the more books he'll sell.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7737
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest