Donald Trump

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

Why in the world do you think he reelection is likely? And dude, come on, Trump's brain is consistently just unraveling. He's not going to be more coherent the older he gets, lol.

I don't think the democrats have any good challengers. 

cincybearcat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The Juggler said:

34% of all registered votes support him, per that poll. 

So how can we assume that the rest of the public isn’t the same ratio?

Is geography a factor?

I've always been kinda dismissive of polls like this. 34% of ALL registered voters support him? I wasn't polled. In fact, I've been a registered voter for 17 years and I haven't once been polled in any way. 

I half kidding there. There's obviously some sort of mathematics/science behind polls that makes it credible because they often times predict the correct outcomes. But I didn't buy the polls during the 2016 election because I felt there were a lot of closeted Trump supporters (I actually knew a couple personally) that didn't want to admit they supported him because they'd be made fun of for it. I think there are more of those Trump voters than there are MAGA-hat-wearing Trump fans. I  wonder if his horrible presidency will flip those "closeted" voters....because his fans aren't going anywhere. But they're just a vocal minority. 

The
National
Polls
Were
Largely
Correct
In
2016

They mostly had him losing the popular vote by about 3%, which is roughly what he lost the popular vote by. 

Sorry. But I feel like I've had to say this to folks a million times over the last few years. 

But
The
National
Polls
Don't 
Matter

Unless of course you give a crap about the popular vote.  As for some polls that actually matter, Trump trailed in polls in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan on the eve of the election, and won all three states.

Why would you think they do not matter? What's a better way to gauge the mood of the country? Have a weekly national election? I'd argue they matter now more than ever. Republicans didn't start to part ways with Nixon until his numbers dropped into the low 30's. And approval numbers usually dictate winners and losers in government shutdowns---since more of the country blames Trump, Pelosi has the leverage to  postpone the state of the union. 

Regarding 2016:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968.

Spot on regarding the 2016 polls. Nationally they were spot on, but some states (including many that play fast and loose with voting rights) were not.

In FL for example, is anyone going to point out in all the rural red districts, turnout was through the roof in 2018? While in the large city and suburban blue districts, turnout was only so so?

 And the Rs lately are consistently finding a way to win elections FL statewide by 0.2%. Like they know the exact number of votes needed to win. Just like 2016 PA MI WI.

Funny how that works. 

You think it's weird that they know what they need to do to win?  That's weird.

If Hillary had thought about it and campaigned properly we wouldn't be in the mess we are in right now.  Lots of people on those campaigns are paid to figure out how to eek out the right number of votes from each of the districts let alone the state.

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

Why in the world do you think he reelection is likely? And dude, come on, Trump's brain is consistently just unraveling. He's not going to be more coherent the older he gets, lol.

I don't think the democrats have any good challengers. 

Still too early.

True but the ones that have announced their candidacy (Harris, O'Rourke, Gillibrand) don't have a chance. There's always the pipe-dream of Joe Biden, but who knows what he'll do (such a shame he didn't/couldn't run in 2016). Otherwise, I don't know what other governors or senators may run. I also don't know, in this era of Trump, if the smart move is putting your name out there as soon as you can, or to wait. 

I also wonder if some rouge Republicans would dare try to challenge Trump for the GOP nomination. What a shitshow that'd be. 

mcgruff10 said:

The Juggler said:

tbergs said:

The Juggler said:

cincybearcat said:

tbergs said:

my2hands said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

More accurately the blind R's detached from Nixon when the audio tape leaked. 

Less than the population of a college football stadium made the difference. Dems need to work harder this time around - simple as that.

Or stop being influenced by Putin on the ritz and think critically.

Whatever - no excuses. Dems should be able to make up that 90k of voters regardless. 

Whatever? An American election was swayed by Russian influence, most likely in knowing coordination with Team Trump Treason. And the question remains, why? What does putin on the ritz have over Team Trump Treason?

I believe people are in denial about the power of social media and too embarrassed to admit that they fell for it, whether it was they thought they could vote from their phone or that Hillary gave birth to alien babies. Voters need to smarten the fuck up.

Or Dems didn't convince blacks and union households to vote for their shitty candidate 

Whatever makes you feel better

Most qualified presidential candidate ever

That was a good joke. 

ever.

Lol. Henry clay, john McCain, George h bush

Maybe your dislike of Hillary is clouding your thinking here, but how was she not the most qualified to be president ever? The people you listed don't even come close when it comes to political career resume leading up to being president.

Edit - I guess GHWB is pretty close.

Pretty close? Lol

The only problem wrong with that comparison is that he was actually elected and wasn't that good of a candidate, but who the hell wanted Dukakis? There's a reason GHWB was 1 term and done. Hillary probably would have been the same, just like Trump should be, but we tend to hand out 2 terms like candy these days.

GHWB was 1 and done because while he was terrific at foreign policy, he ignored domestic too long.  Even though his policies domestically ended.  He wasn't a good politician.

Why do you think he was 1 and done?

Although him going against the republican grain and increasing taxes spurred an economic boom after he left office....

Yes, agreed. He burned his voting base, which it seems may have been the right thing to do for the country. Something that Trump has made clear he is not going to do. GHWB was involved in a lot of shit in his day as well and I think a lot of it was catching up to him and he changed his positions to become VP to begin with. I don't want to derail this too much, but I would not say he was terrific on foreign policy simply for how he handled Saddam Hussein and the whole Iraq situation. Terrible. Overall, he did some great things, but also had his skeletons and deservedly was voted out after 1 term.

I don't know. He organized the greatest coalition in the history of the world and won that war with as little casualties as possible... 

Nor did he escalate the war. Got the job done and got out. 

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

There's no reason to think he'll get better.  He's over 70...he is what he is.  When he leaves office, assuming he lives that long, he'll be, what, like 78?...I highly doubt he'll be good at it at that time.

He can only get worse from here, and any clearheaded person knows it.

My goodness I can't believe you guys are taking that "improving his public speaking skills" line seriously. It was just a throwaway line at the end of a sentence suggesting he'll be reelected. Jeez rather than saying Clinton, Obama, and Trump had good public-speaking skills, I should have just said they know how to get people to show up for rallies. 

I'm not sure how we're supposed to know what a "throwaway comment" might be.

In any case, suggesting he'll be reelected is a pretty big comment in and of itself, for public speaking or anything else. I think this theory needs to be thoroughly discussed, because the implications of such a statement are MASSIVE.

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

There's no reason to think he'll get better.  He's over 70...he is what he is.  When he leaves office, assuming he lives that long, he'll be, what, like 78?...I highly doubt he'll be good at it at that time.

He can only get worse from here, and any clearheaded person knows it.

My goodness I can't believe you guys are taking that "improving his public speaking skills" line seriously. It was just a throwaway line at the end of a sentence suggesting he'll be reelected. Jeez rather than saying Clinton, Obama, and Trump had good public-speaking skills, I should have just said they know how to get people to show up for rallies. 

I'm not sure how we're supposed to know what a "throwaway comment" might be.

In any case, suggesting he'll be reelected is a pretty big comment in and of itself, for public speaking or anything else. I think this theory needs to be thoroughly discussed, because the implications of such a statement are MASSIVE.

Well because of course his public-speaking isn't going to improve. He's just a performer and he performs his "greatest hits" at his rallies.

But as for suggesting he'll be re-elected, yes, that I do actually believe. I say that because traditionally, every challenger to the presidency usually campaigns on the basis of "Here's everything the current President has done wrong." A sound-enough strategy. But as we saw in 2016, the rules don't apply to Trump. They just don't. Like him not revealing his tax information. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had refused that in 2012? His candidacy would be over right there. Not Trump for some reason. So I fear more of the same in the 2020. Some Democrat playing proper politics like Hillary and bringing up all the problems with his presidency, and he'll reply with something like "Yeah well you're a big, fat loser," and people will laugh and his poll numbers will go up. A strange time we're living in. 

Are you discounting the Russia investigation? Do you really think a year or six months of Team Trump Treason being associated with putin on the ritz and doing his bidding, disparagement of NATO and the UN and our European allies, the government shutdown, etc. will be ignored by voters, particularly in debates? A "green New Deal" can resonate as will healthcare reform, folks are realizing the negative effects of overturning Obamacare and not offering an alternative, and education, income disparity and other meat and potato dem issues. His base is not enough this time around as dems are energized and indies aren't going to be fooled again. Biden will eat Team trump Treason's lunch during a debate and on the campaign trail. And if I'm running any congressional campaigns, I'm associating every repub candidate to Team Trump Treason, joining them at the hip.

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/business/wilbur-ross-loans-food-assistance-government-shutdown/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fbbusiness&utm_content=2019-01-24T17:03:04

Furloughed Worker: I would like to take out a loan to cover my living expenses
Bank: Ok...what is your income?
FW: Right now?  Zero....I am furloughed and have no idea when I will get a paycheck
Bank: Fuck you

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

OnWis97 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It doesn't even matter who's "qualified" for the job. Look at Clinton in '92, Obama in '08, and Trump in '16. They were all less "qualified" than their opponents. But they were all good public-speakers and they type of people that voters can become a "fan" of. 

I would never consider Team Trump Treason a "good" public speaker. He'd lose a 5th grade debate.

That depends. Is he going against the most qualified debater in the history of the 5th grade?

Joking aside, the guy convinced half the country that he should be the President despite being arguably the worst guy ever for the job. That's being a good public speaker. You or I may laugh at lines like "We have delivered on more promises than we've even promised!" but others are buying lines like that. 

So he's a good public-speaker in the same way Hitler was is what I'm trying to say here. 

Hitler was coherent, so was a MUCH better public speaker than Trump. Trump just babbles nonsensically most of the time - the transcripts of his speeches are barely understandable, because he rarely actually gets a full sentence out of his mouth. I think calling him a good public speaker on any level is ludicrous. The only reason some people respond to him speaking is because he uses hate and anger and smugness and lies and always establishes the "us vs them", and the people who respond positively are hateful and angry and smug and don't care about facts and love to have enemies. His presentation (and lack of coherency) has nothing to do with anything.

Well he has (likely) six more years as President to work on improving his public speaking skills. 

There's no reason to think he'll get better.  He's over 70...he is what he is.  When he leaves office, assuming he lives that long, he'll be, what, like 78?...I highly doubt he'll be good at it at that time.

He can only get worse from here, and any clearheaded person knows it.

My goodness I can't believe you guys are taking that "improving his public speaking skills" line seriously. It was just a throwaway line at the end of a sentence suggesting he'll be reelected. Jeez rather than saying Clinton, Obama, and Trump had good public-speaking skills, I should have just said they know how to get people to show up for rallies. 

I'm not sure how we're supposed to know what a "throwaway comment" might be.

In any case, suggesting he'll be reelected is a pretty big comment in and of itself, for public speaking or anything else. I think this theory needs to be thoroughly discussed, because the implications of such a statement are MASSIVE.

Well because of course his public-speaking isn't going to improve. He's just a performer and he performs his "greatest hits" at his rallies.

But as for suggesting he'll be re-elected, yes, that I do actually believe. I say that because traditionally, every challenger to the presidency usually campaigns on the basis of "Here's everything the current President has done wrong." A sound-enough strategy. But as we saw in 2016, the rules don't apply to Trump. They just don't. Like him not revealing his tax information. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had refused that in 2012? His candidacy would be over right there. Not Trump for some reason. So I fear more of the same in the 2020. Some Democrat playing proper politics like Hillary and bringing up all the problems with his presidency, and he'll reply with something like "Yeah well you're a big, fat loser," and people will laugh and his poll numbers will go up. A strange time we're living in. 

Are you discounting the Russia investigation? Do you really think a year or six months of Team Trump Treason being associated with putin on the ritz and doing his bidding, disparagement of NATO and the UN and our European allies, the government shutdown, etc. will be ignored by voters, particularly in debates? A "green New Deal" can resonate as will healthcare reform, folks are realizing the negative effects of overturning Obamacare and not offering an alternative, and education, income disparity and other meat and potato dem issues. His base is not enough this time around as dems are energized and indies aren't going to be fooled again. Biden will eat Team trump Treason's lunch during a debate and on the campaign trail. And if I'm running any congressional campaigns, I'm associating every repub candidate to Team Trump Treason, joining them at the hip.

These are all good points. I wish I visited this board more during the 2016 election though because I'd wager a guess that you (and everyone else) had dozens of points why he wouldn't have won then. And I bet they were all valid points, as these are. Believe me, if it was anybody else, I'd say the Russia investigation would be enough to beat him. But shit with this guy just doesn't happen the way it should. 

I don't think disparagement of Nato and allies will register much with voters (it should, but I don't think it will). But I do think the government shutdown will resonate with voters big time. I also think farmers in middle-America (who Trump won big with in 2016) will turn on him too because he hasn't done a thing for them that he's promised. So if the Dems actually get people out to vote, they should win. All logic points to them winning. But logic doesn't hold the water it once did now in the Trump-era.