#47 President Donald Trump

gimmesometruth27

trump now threatening 250% tariffs on certain items for canada, which he will then walk back on monday after the market tanks again....

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Not in 2020.

Not what in 2020?

HughFreakingDillon

gimmesometruth27 said:

trump now threatening 250% tariffs on certain items for canada, which he will then walk back on monday after the market tanks again....

There’s a theory he’s doing this to manipulate the markets so the rich get wildly richer. 

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Not in 2020.

Not what in 2020?

Harris wasn’t VP in 2020. She was a senator when chosen to run with Brandon and she didn’t have any primary delegates or victories as a POTUS candidate. I think that was the point DE was trying to make.

DE4173

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Senator Hillary Clinton (pre-emails and additional actions/inactions, etc that hurt her candidacy in 2016) lost the Dem primary in 2008 because of other reasons, so it's not outside the realm of possibility of her losing other elections (2016). 

I don't recall what Senator Kamala Harris's popularity was in 2020 (when she didn't have one electoral vote), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that she would lose other elections (2024).

Vice President Harris having four years of experience as VP definitely made a positive difference for her as a candidate in 2024. I don't know how she would've fared in an open primary, but if she lost, by lack of votes by Dems, would it be okay because the Dems said no thanks, but in a general election her loss is not okay?

Gern Blansten

DE4173 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Senator Hillary Clinton (pre-emails and additional actions/inactions, etc that hurt her candidacy in 2016) lost the Dem primary in 2008 because of other reasons, so it's not outside the realm of possibility of her losing other elections (2016). 

I don't recall what Senator Kamala Harris's popularity was in 2020 (when she didn't have one electoral vote), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that she would lose other elections (2024).

Vice President Harris having four years of experience as VP definitely made a positive difference for her as a candidate in 2024. I don't know how she would've fared in an open primary, but if she lost, by lack of votes by Dems, would it be okay because the Dems said no thanks, but in a general election her loss is not okay?

I don't think we can fault the dems for thinking virtually anyone could be trump. In hindsight of course we can but it was kind of unthinkable which is why Biden was so adamant about staying in.

The big mistake was Biden not stepping aside in 2023 and doing everything from scratch.

DE4173

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

Gern Blansten

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

And Putin on the ritz’s influence. We shouldn’t dismiss that or pretend it didn’t happen or that it didn’t have an impact. The repub party and their subs (NRA, Heritage Foundation, CPAC, etc,) not only accepted it but welcomed it. And here we are.

DE4173

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

I agree with all the above and voted for both in each of their general elections, but voted for Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 primary.

Your post and Halifax's are where I wonder though: In the Democratic primaries, it's totally okay that they lost in their bid, (again Clinton in 2008 only), but out of party, in the general elections it's because of the GOP, Putin, NRA, and Comey, etc?

The Juggler

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Just fucking blows my mind how it’s right out in the open in the States; people expect the supreme court FFS to be team players. NONE OF YOU SEE THE ABJECT ABSURDITY OF THIS???

Pretty much everyone does, but Hillary had emails and Harris had a weird laugh, so both sides, Hugh. 

Kamala really didn't explain her plans in enough detail. She really should have just said she would put tariffs in place on Mondays, rescind them on Tuesdays, put them back on Wednesdays, rescind them on Thursdays, and put them back on Fridays and then spend the weekend golfing twice. 

The Juggler

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Stop. Hillary had 30 years of baggage at that point. Obviously she was a million times better than Trump...and I am not of the opinion that it should have been Bernie. But they should have had a wider primary race back in 2015. It just seemed like a coronation of Hillary.

Kamala was a much better candidate than HRC in my opinion. 

hunterh75

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Stop. Hillary had 30 years of baggage at that point. Obviously she was a million times better than Trump...and I am not of the opinion that it should have been Bernie. But they should have had a wider primary race back in 2015. It just seemed like a coronation of Hillary.

Kamala was a much better candidate than HRC in my opinion. 

HRC- lost 08 primary in her own party, lost 16 general as well.  Kamala bailed in 2020 primary after less than 2% vote of her own party and calling Biden a racist in the debate and got destroyed in 24 general. Lost all 7 swing states. Her terrible campaign even flipped the Senate. Neither are good candidates therefore their election results. You fellows watch too much of The View and MSNBC which is falling apart, BTW.

It takes a set of nuts to run a country which neither have, well, Hillary is debatable, lol.  Have a good weekend my fellow 10 Clubber's. . 

nicknyr15

hunterh75 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Stop. Hillary had 30 years of baggage at that point. Obviously she was a million times better than Trump...and I am not of the opinion that it should have been Bernie. But they should have had a wider primary race back in 2015. It just seemed like a coronation of Hillary.

Kamala was a much better candidate than HRC in my opinion. 

HRC- lost 08 primary in her own party, lost 16 general as well.  Kamala bailed in 2020 primary after less than 2% vote of her own party and calling Biden a racist in the debate and got destroyed in 24 general. Lost all 7 swing states. Her terrible campaign even flipped the Senate. Neither are good candidates therefore their election results. You fellows watch too much of The View and MSNBC which is falling apart, BTW.

It takes a set of nuts to run a country which neither have, well, Hillary is debatable, lol.  Have a good weekend my fellow 10 Clubber's. . 

So weird. You made your point then you have to stoop to this low level of argument. That sentence is so unnecessary and says more about you while also proving your oppositions argument about why they both lost. 

Gern Blansten

hunterh75 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Stop. Hillary had 30 years of baggage at that point. Obviously she was a million times better than Trump...and I am not of the opinion that it should have been Bernie. But they should have had a wider primary race back in 2015. It just seemed like a coronation of Hillary.

Kamala was a much better candidate than HRC in my opinion. 

HRC- lost 08 primary in her own party, lost 16 general as well.  Kamala bailed in 2020 primary after less than 2% vote of her own party and calling Biden a racist in the debate and got destroyed in 24 general. Lost all 7 swing states. Her terrible campaign even flipped the Senate. Neither are good candidates therefore their election results. You fellows watch too much of The View and MSNBC which is falling apart, BTW.

It takes a set of nuts to run a country which neither have, well, Hillary is debatable, lol.  Have a good weekend my fellow 10 Clubber's. . 

Destroyed? Hardly. 

Gern Blansten

This admin just gets stupider every day. Will there ever be a time that repubs tire of this shit?

It's just a revenge tour. Fucking over anyone who has wronged him in the past.

Vitalogensia

Gern Blansten said:

This admin just gets stupider every day. Will there ever be a time that repubs tire of this shit?

It's just a revenge tour. Fucking over anyone who has wronged him in the past.

I think that’s a big reason why people voted for him too. The wanted revenge on some phantom Other, and knew he would deliver vengeance for them. You know, the type who felt elderly white men were the most oppressed people in America. 

mickeyrat

DE4173 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Senator Hillary Clinton (pre-emails and additional actions/inactions, etc that hurt her candidacy in 2016) lost the Dem primary in 2008 because of other reasons, so it's not outside the realm of possibility of her losing other elections (2016). 

I don't recall what Senator Kamala Harris's popularity was in 2020 (when she didn't have one electoral vote), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that she would lose other elections (2024).

Vice President Harris having four years of experience as VP definitely made a positive difference for her as a candidate in 2024. I don't know how she would've fared in an open primary, but if she lost, by lack of votes by Dems, would it be okay because the Dems said no thanks, but in a general election her loss is not okay?

hard to have any delegates when you drop out before Iowa.

The Juggler

hunterh75 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

DE4173 said:

I agree with all of that.

I was thinking about people who say that Clinton and Harris losing in general elections is because of some other reasons than them as candidates, but in their own primaries (Clinton in 2008 only), it's because of their candidacy.

In my opinion they were both good candidates. Clinton a great candidate. They were both victims of the GOP smear machine which is very effective.

Stop. Hillary had 30 years of baggage at that point. Obviously she was a million times better than Trump...and I am not of the opinion that it should have been Bernie. But they should have had a wider primary race back in 2015. It just seemed like a coronation of Hillary.

Kamala was a much better candidate than HRC in my opinion. 

HRC- lost 08 primary in her own party, lost 16 general as well.  Kamala bailed in 2020 primary after less than 2% vote of her own party and calling Biden a racist in the debate and got destroyed in 24 general. Lost all 7 swing states. Her terrible campaign even flipped the Senate. Neither are good candidates therefore their election results. You fellows watch too much of The View and MSNBC which is falling apart, BTW.

It takes a set of nuts to run a country which neither have, well, Hillary is debatable, lol.  Have a good weekend my fellow 10 Clubber's. . 

One of the closer elections in US history with the winner not able to secure a majority of the vote (for the second time), but sure, Kamala got "destroyed". Whatever helps you sleep at night maga.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-presidential-election-close-landslide/story?id=116240898

DE4173

mickeyrat said:

DE4173 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Harris was the sitting VP. Come on. You have to acknowledge that obviously changes things. Maybe they should have let Hillary run again? 😂 

Senator Hillary Clinton (pre-emails and additional actions/inactions, etc that hurt her candidacy in 2016) lost the Dem primary in 2008 because of other reasons, so it's not outside the realm of possibility of her losing other elections (2016). 

I don't recall what Senator Kamala Harris's popularity was in 2020 (when she didn't have one electoral vote), so it's not outside the realm of possibility that she would lose other elections (2024).

Vice President Harris having four years of experience as VP definitely made a positive difference for her as a candidate in 2024. I don't know how she would've fared in an open primary, but if she lost, by lack of votes by Dems, would it be okay because the Dems said no thanks, but in a general election her loss is not okay?

hard to have any delegates when you drop out before Iowa.

Very.

The support was not there for her from the Democrat party and Democrat voters in that primary and that's okay, but losing in a general election is not okay because of other factors?