Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This may seem to be a silly thread at first. Surely, the indicators point to a Trump victory being unlikely: Low approvals, bleak midterm outlook and an ongoing investigation into Russian collusion which could bring this administration down around our ears, among other things.

However, I think this kind of thinking risks wading into the sort of complacency that helped get Trump elected in the first place. And after thinking of the factors in his favor, I am tempted to say that Trump is more likely than not to win the next election, or at least more likely than most would grant him, barring a disruptive time-bomb that throws him off course. Here are but some of the factors:

Legislative Successes: Whether you like it or not, the tax reform bill is a legislative success. Since its passing, the approval of the bill has risen to over 50%, and some of the more hysterical Democratic predictions are now looking a tad silly in retrospect. It is true, of course, the tax bill will be damaging to many Americans in the long term, due to the chained CPI method of adjusting tax brackets and 1 trillion of additional debt. But these ill effects will likely not manifest until after the 2020 election, and Trump can cling to it as an example of a legislative success, particularly as it contained within some other Republican priorities (eliminating the deeply unpopular individual mandate). There are also his successes on the Supreme Court and action on immigration, which serve to please the conservative and nationalist wings respectively.

Strong Economy: Simply put, the economy is doing very well at the moment, and that is always good news for the incumbent. There are some cracks starting to show, but unless the dam bursts before 2020, then Trump can use the economy to his advantage. Even now, a poll shows the plurality of voters crediting Trump to the good economy over Obama. And although a quick look at the GDP/unemployment figures clearly reveal that almost all the recovery occurred pre-Trump, this isn't something that the country at large seems to think now, particularly the less educated. As we approach 2020, the number of voters crediting Trump will likely continue to increase, and it will be a major cudgel against Democratic candidates, who Trump could paint as threatening to throw the economy off course with higher taxes and regulation.

First Term President: This factor may not seem like a massive one at first, but it is significant. Since the New Deal, only three presidents have been thrown out after a single term: Bush Senior, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. All three of whom were either overseeing scandals, foreign policy crises, precarious economic situations or combinations of the three. Two of the three were also up against very charismatic individuals, Clinton against Bush and Reagan against Carter. So if history is any indicator, then Trump is to serve 8 years, assuming the bubble doesn't burst before 2020 and Trump at least makes it out of the Russia investigation intact. To hammer this point home, I would simply point to recent times. The Democrats under Obama got horribly crushed in the 2010 midterms and faced a highly energetic GOP base, yet still won emphatically in 2012. To topple a first term president is a difficult undertaking, and Trump will likely be in a stronger position than any of the three presidents mentioned.

Weak and Divided Opposition: A President cannot be toppled without a strong opposition. And right now, the Democrats are looking like a pretty weak opposition. Poor messaging and unpopular figureheads like Pelosi convey the message that the Democrats have not truly learnt from 2016. I mean, how many specifics of the 'Better Deal' package that the Democrats put forward last year can you remember? I'm guessing, not many. Let's face it, the Democrats are shit at messaging, and they haven't yet produced a Clinton/Reagan-tier political operator that is likely needed to topple a first term president. Not to mention that the 2020 Democratic field is likely to be very wide and bitterly contested. Lots of talent there, to be sure, but lots of potential for infighting. Not a good place to be in against a President who will likely have brought the Republican Party to heel by the time Democrats have done nominating. On the other hand, there is certainly energy on the Democratic side, but that will need to be properly harnessed by a strong candidate in order to ride it to the rout that most Democrats want to see.

Cowed Conservatives: When running in 2016, Trump commandeered a divided party in which a large portion of conservatives viewed him with suspicion. If you've seen even a few clips from the recent CPAC or recent news in general, it is clear that the conservative movement has now happily assimilated Trump's politics into its own, with previously staunch Trump-sceptics like Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney joyously licking Trump's boots. Many talk of a Kasich run, and there is certainly the potential for that, but it will likely only draw support from the moderate and liberal wings of Republican party, and isn't a certainty to begin with. And with one of the most prominent groups of intra-party agitators now on a leash, Trump can spend the years 2019/2020 building up party infrastructure and raking in endorsements from figures that withheld them before.

Strong VP: Polling shows that VP Mike Pence accrues considerably higher approval ratings than Trump. As a former radio host, Pence is an effective communicator that acts as the human face of the Trump administration. This is a smaller factor compared to the others. But if the Democrats put forward another Tim Kaine, then Pence could once again pull the Trump campaign back from the brink in the case of a first debate shellacking.

Weakened Media: The free press is a popular target for aspiring democratators, and Trump has done an extraordinary job of defanging critical press and dodging scandals. Whereas just back in 2016 the media could inflict notable damage on Trump, the efficacy of the media seems to be weakening by every passing day. By 2020, it is not unreasonable to say that Trump could be impervious to almost any possible media-storm, except the holy grail of Russia-Trump collusion.


There are plenty more factors that could be added here: the persistent loyalty of the white male demographic to GOP/Trump, rigid partisanship greatly solidifying Trump's support, big money and Wall Street now being in Trump's corner, the possibility of a popularity-boosting foreign intervention and voter suppression. But essentially, I think you can bring up more reasons for Trump winning than losing at this point. Of course, the Russia investigation is a big question mark. But as long as Trump doesn't go out in total flames, it will be perfectly possible for him to salvage his 2020 bid and go onto to victory. I have absolutely zero wish for this to happen, just to be clear, and I definitely don't rule out an emphatic Democratic victory if they get their shit together or if Trump is consumed by sufficient scandal. But I'm not totally confident it will be the cakewalk that many (including myself) hope for it to be.

They dont have anything other then "We dont like the way he talks" which isnt going to win them an election.

Hes governing from the center as most people thought. He hasn't started WW3 like everyone keeps insisting he will based on nothing but hot air.

Originally posted by lazybones
Weak and Divided Opposition: A President cannot be toppled without a strong opposition. And right now, the Democrats are looking like a pretty weak opposition. Poor messaging and unpopular figureheads like Pelosi convey the message that the Democrats have not truly learnt from 2016. I mean, how many specifics of the 'Better Deal' package that the Democrats put forward last year can you remember? I'm guessing, not many. Let's face it, the Democrats are shit at messaging, and they haven't yet produced a Clinton/Reagan-tier political operator that is likely needed to topple a first term president. Not to mention that the 2020 Democratic field is likely to be very wide and bitterly contested. Lots of talent there, to be sure, but lots of potential for infighting. Not a good place to be in against a President who will likely have brought the Republican Party to heel by the time Democrats have done nominating. On the other hand, there is certainly energy on the Democratic side, but that will need to be properly harnessed by a strong candidate in order to ride it to the rout that most Democrats want to see.

Weakened Media: The free press is a popular target for aspiring democratators, and Trump has done an extraordinary job of defanging critical press and dodging scandals. Whereas just back in 2016 the media could inflict notable damage on Trump, the efficacy of the media seems to be weakening by every passing day. By 2020, it is not unreasonable to say that Trump could be impervious to almost any possible media-storm, except the holy grail of Russia-Trump collusion.
These two seem like the biggest factors to me tbh

How about Democrats find a new message? Trump/Russia is getting old and isnt helping anyone.

Originally posted by Blindside12
How about Democrats find a new message? Trump/Russia is getting old and isnt helping anyone. Trump/Russia is not a Democratic message, the head investigator is a Republican 😐. I know you wanna bury it so bad so you can live in blissful ignorance of your guy being the bad guy.

I think something like a Gillibrand/Brown ticket could be pretty strong, tbh. Gillibrand could win women voters whilst Sherrod Brown would give Democrats a Mid-West boost and help bring Ohio back into play. However, Gillibrand could be dogged with accusations of political shapeshifting because she once had an 'A' grade from the NRA but made a U-turn after becoming Senator. So there's definitely some baggage there.

Biden and Sanders are more obvious choices, but there are avenues of attack against both of them (Biden, through harking back to the negative aspects of the Obama years, and Sanders via the 'socialist/communist' scaremongering). And they're both polling at the front, so they'll likely be tearing into each other during the primary and bringing their numbers down. A divided Democratic convention could be devastating, and have the party limping into the fight against Trump.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Trump/Russia is not a Democratic message, the head investigator is a Republican 😐. I know you wanna bury it so bad so you can live in blissful ignorance of your guy being the bad guy.

Do tell me when there is evidence of a crime and someone has been convicted of it. You think Bob Mueller is going to let his friend James Comey look bad?

Did you know its a conflict of interest to have the lead prosecutor having a personal friendship with the lead witness. This is Law 101? I don't care what political party someone says they are, makes no difference to me.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Do tell me when there is evidence of a crime and someone has been convicted of it. You think Bob Mueller is going to let his friend James Comey look bad?

Did you know its a conflict of interest to have the lead prosecutor having a personal friendship with the lead witness. This is Law 101? I don't care what political party someone says they are, makes no difference to me. Comey is also a Republican...

And that means they are on Trumps side, its like you are dumb something. Or clearly cant read what I just said.

"This is Law 101. I don't care what political party someone says they are, makes no difference to me."

Originally posted by Blindside12
And that means they are on Trumps side, its like you are dumb something. Or clearly cant read what I just said.

"This is Law 101? I don't care what political party someone says they are, makes no difference to me." You called Trump/Russia a Democrat message...

Originally posted by Firefly218
You called Trump/Russia a Democrat message...

You lied like you do about everything else wanna be edge lord.

Comey is an independent.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're voting for Trump in 2020* regardless of the Dem nom, be real for once in your life.

*Obviously this is on the grounds that he's still around, which is still likely, but you never know what Commander Mueller will find.

More trolling to be cute.

Originally posted by Blindside12
You lied like you do about everything else wanna be edge lord.

Comey is an independent.

That's not being honest. Comey is a life-long Republican who only labelled himself "independent" after Trump fired him to interfere with the then investigation.

So I guess Trump is still a democrat now, since he is only recently a republican

The steps you people will go.

Originally posted by lazybones
I think something like a Gillibrand/Brown ticket could be pretty strong, tbh. Gillibrand could win women voters whilst Sherrod Brown would give Democrats a Mid-West boost and help bring Ohio back into play. However, Gillibrand could be dogged with accusations of political shapeshifting because she once had an 'A' grade from the NRA but made a U-turn after becoming Senator. So there's definitely some baggage there.

Biden and Sanders are more obvious choices, but there are avenues of attack against both of them (Biden, through harking back to the negative aspects of the Obama years, and Sanders via the 'socialist/communist' scaremongering). And they're both polling at the front, so they'll likely be tearing into each other during the primary and bringing their numbers down. A divided Democratic convention could be devastating, and have the party limping into the fight against Trump.
I don't think Sanders would have very good odds this time around. He alienated a lot of his own base, he's had potential scandals of his own since the election, and constantly playing the race card as a weapon against white people just isn't going to go over as well anymore.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So I guess Trump is still a democrat now, since he is only recently a republican

The steps you people will go.
The hell? The point was that at the time Comey was investigating the Russia interference, he was a Republican and had been for at least decades up until then, if not his whole life.

Wrong, it says left the republican party in 2016. Comey also told Trump 3 times, he was never under investigation, please leave that shit out though.

Then tell me if it worked so well, since hillary get more votes and only lost in the states she never went to

Good lord, you're impossible to reason with, comrade.

But if you want to push the narrative that Mueller's investigation is "from and by Democrats", go ahead, Mueller's going to find what he's going to find regardless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord, you're impossible to reason with, comrade.

Says the guy who voted for Obama twice while laughing at Romey for thinking Russia was a thread, giving them 20% of our Uranium and telling Vlad he would back off Missile Defense

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord, you're impossible to reason with, comrade.

But if you want to push the narrative that Mueller's investigation is "from and by Democrats", go ahead.

Who lead the charge for appointing a special council, who pushed the twitter hashtags daily, who hasnt shut up about it since the election was over?

Who paid for the Russian Dossier?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Oh God... trying to influence us isn't attacking our democracy because the choice is still ours to make. That's not to say that they didn't try to influence or election, but that's different than actually attacking the democracy itself. There was basically zero chance of our democracy becoming a different form of government due to their actions.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Says the guy who voted for Obama twice while laughing at Romey for thinking Russia was a thread, giving them 20% of our Uranium and telling Vlad he would back off Missile Defense

If it makes you feel better, in 2012 I had wished in hindsight that Ron Paul would have won in 2008, just to see if it would have actually made a difference in picking the not-your-typical-politician as RP was touted to be.

That doesnt disprove what I said. You still voted for Obama after all this Russian concessions. You didnt care then, but now you do? Odd timing when you happen to not like the election results.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Oh God... trying to influence us isn't attacking our democracy because the choice is still ours to make. That's not to say that they didn't try to influence or election, but that's different than actually attacking the democracy itself. There was basically zero chance of our democracy becoming a different form of government due to their actions.

Err, a foreign entity trying to influence who the American people pick to best benefit them would be an 'attack on our democracy', regardless if it worked or not.

It's like saying you can launch missiles at a country, but if you don't kill anyone or destroy a building, the attack doesn't count; when we both know it does.

Originally posted by Blindside12
That doesnt disprove what I said. You still voted for Obama after all this Russian concessions. You didnt care then, but now you do? Odd timing when you happen to not like the election results.

Huh, are you now implying that Obama worked with Russia to get elected and that Russia attempted to sway favor towards him? Cos if not, you're conflating things that should not be conflated.

Originally posted by Robtard
Err,a foreign entity trying to influence who the American people pick to best benefit them would be an 'attack on our democracy', regardless if it worked or not.

It's like saying you can launch missiles at a country, but if you don't kill anyone or destroy a building, the attack doesn't count; when we both now it does.

So now you think Russians changed peoples minds, Dear Lord, this is just outrageous. Not only is their no proof, but its outlandish thinking.

You are essentially saying, "People didnt know better not to vote for Trump because Clinton is better for reasons."

^?

Originally posted by Blindside12
So now you think Russians changed peoples minds, Dear Lord, this is just outrageous. Not only is their no proof, but its outlandish thinking.

You are essentially saying, "People didnt know better not to vote for Trump because Clinton is better for reasons."

Maybe you should read what I said and not what you think I said? Would make this whole thing smoother.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh, are you now implying that Obama worked with Russia to get elected and that Russia attempted to sway favor towards him? Cos if not, you're conflating things that should not be conflated.

Obama worked with Bibi's opponent and spent tax payer money to do it, did you care then?

Also where is your Proof Trump worked with Putin?

Originally posted by Blindside12
Obama worked with Bibi's opponent and spent tax payer money to do it, did you care then?

Also where is your Proof Trump worked with Putin?

Okay, you're just going to throw out red herrings after red herrings because you can't handle the fact that Mueller's investigation isn't a "democrat message" /issue

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe you should read what I said and not what you think I said? Would make this whole thing smoother.

Sure will do, why dont you do the same more often.

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, you're just going to throw out red herrings after red herrings because you can't handle the fact that Mueller's investigation isn't a "democrat message" /issue

Its not a red herring.

La times: The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html

Originally posted by Blindside12
Its not a red herring.

La times: The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
If you're going to do the "well we do it, so Russia's okay in doing it to us" Trumper marching order thing, cool. I don't agree though.

Granted, I don't think we should be doing it either, regardless of who's in office. But that doesn't excuse Russia doing it in 2016, likely doing it in 2018 and us sitting back and doing nothing because oddly Trump refuses to act.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to do the "well we do it, so Russia's okay in doing it to us" Trumper marching order thing, cool. I don't agree though.

Granted, I don't think we should be doing it either, regardless of who's in office. But that doesn't excuse Russia doing it in 2016, likely doing it in 2018 and us sitting back and doing nothing because oddly Trump refuses to act.

You dont agree now, but you didnt care before Trump was in office, so if you didnt care then why do you care now? And why didnt you condemn Obama for doing it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Err, a foreign entity trying to influence who the American people pick to best benefit them would be an 'attack on our democracy', regardless if it worked or not.

It's like saying you can launch missiles at a country, but if you don't kill anyone or destroy a building, the attack doesn't count; when we both know it does.
No it's not. An "attack on the democracy" threatens the democracy itself. In 3 years the plan is still to have a democratic election. Stop exaggerating what happened for shock value, it undermines your overall position. It's every bit as silly as saying that Trump is the next Hitler...

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah so they successfully influenced us... that's not attacking the democracy. The only proposed changes to our democratic policy have come from anti Trump people who want to get rid of the electoral college.

Another sick burn.

Imagine a bunch of hungry dogs in a pit somewhere. Someone comes along and throws a pork chop into the pit and causes a massive fight between the dogs that ends in several of those dogs deaths. Now you can say a lot of things about the who threw in the pork chop and be accurate, but what you can't say is that the guy attacked those dogs...

Originally posted by darthgoober
No it's not. An "attack on the democracy" threatens the democracy itself. In 3 years the plan is still to have a democratic election. Stop exaggerating what happened for shock value, it undermines your overall position. It's every bit as silly as saying that Trump is the next Hitler...

Dissagreed again. An "attack" doesn't have to destroy our entire democratic process to be effective and to be an attack. You seem to be adding much more to "attack" than is needed.

edit: Let's let Mrs. Merriam Webster tell us: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

Definition of attack
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully

attack an enemy fortification

2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words

a politician verbally attacked by critics

3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously

plants attacked by aphids

4 : to set to work on

attack a problem

5 chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture

Yup, seems fitting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dissagreed again. An "attack" doesn't have to destroy our entire democratic process to be effective and to be an attack. You seem to be adding much more to "attack" than is needed.

edit: Let's let Mrs. Merriam Webster tell us: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

Definition of attack
transitive verb
1 : to set upon or work against forcefully

attack an enemy fortification

2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words

a politician verbally attacked by critics

3 : to begin to affect or to act on injuriously

plants attacked by aphids

4 : to set to work on

attack a problem

5 chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture

Yup, seems fitting.
I'm not denying the multiple possible meanings of the word attack, I'm addressing the most obvious implication. Also the targeting. Again...

Originally posted by darthgoober
Imagine a bunch of hungry dogs in a pit somewhere. Someone comes along and throws a pork chop into the pit and causes a massive fight between the dogs that ends in several of those dogs deaths. Now you can say a lot of things about the who threw in the pork chop and be accurate, but what you can't say is that the guy attacked those dogs...

People on this very forum attack our democracy daily, Rob is one of those people who thinks the Electoral College needs to tossed out.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'm not denying the multiple possible meanings of the word attack, I'm addressing the most obvious implication. Also the targeting. Again...

Imho, my analogy was ridiculously more accurate than yours and I don't think FF saying "attack on our democracy" is inaccurate considering. We've yet to fully see how successful said attack was, maybe we will never know either way. But we'll just have to agree to dissagree as I don't think either of us is being swayed.

Also, as far as the "Trump is the next Hitler", I said the opposite actually, Hitler was immensely more intelligent and charismatic than Trump. Trump could never accomplish what he did nor could he command the mass loyalty required to do so. People saying that now is really no different than the 8 years in how the people who became Trumpers used to refer to Obama as "Hitler".

Obama actually didnt like Israel and did everything he could to undermine them, Hitleresc.

Originally posted by Blindside12
People on this very forum attack our democracy daily, Rob is one of those people who thinks the Electoral College needs to tossed out.

Weird. But let me clarify.

I do think elections/voting should go down to one citizen = one vote and the candidate who has the most votes wins. But I'd want the EC to go away because the masses voted on it going away, I wouldn't want it to be stripped away against the majority of the people's wishes. That's about as pro democracy as you can get, comrade.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Obama actually didnt like Israel and did everything he could to undermine them, Hitleresc.

^ See?

@D-goob

Wow, so when you do something like that, its ok, when I do it, its "See look I told you so.'

You are such a petty person. How old are you again?

The f**k are you talking about? I literally typed out a short paragraph to D-goob telling him I don't make the Trump=Hitler remarks and why I don't.

You seem to just be in a confrontational mood again, picking fights where none exist.

It was a joke Rob, GFUS

Funny how you can make all the shit lord comments you want about Trump, his daughter, his hands, his hair, genitals.

Anyone says anything about Obama and you go "SEE I TOLD YOU SO."

Yeah you conveniently judged the part of the "Trump=Hitler" comment referring to their moral comparability by saying "No Hitler's smarter"

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah you conveniently judged the part of the "Trump=Hitler" comment referring to their moral comparability by saying "No Hitler's smarter"

He had no problem putting Hitler above Trump.

Originally posted by Robtard


Also, as far as the "Trump is the next Hitler", I said the opposite actually, Hitler was immensely more intelligent and charismatic than Trump. Trump could never accomplish what he did nor could he command the mass loyalty required to do so. People saying that now is really no different than the 8 years in how the people who became Trumpers used to refer to Obama as "Hitler".

Is this Hitler worship?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah you conveniently judged the part of the "Trump=Hitler" comment referring to their moral comparability by saying "No Hitler's smarter"


FFS, you're going to cry too? If it makes you feel better, I also don't think Trump's into mass genociding Jews. The list goes on.

The one Hitler-like thing (though really, this is a general dictator-norm) is his love of trying to silence the media, via threats of lawsuits and whatnot.

When the media is contemplating your suicide on live air, I could care less about their fee fees.

The fact that people think Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo are "un biased journalists" is beyond me.

Originally posted by Blindside12
He had no problem putting Hitler above Trump.

Intelligence and charisma wise as I specified. Absolutely. Acknowledging a person's strengths isn't worshiping them.

It's obvious you're now going to do the "you love Hitler!" troll; it'll be funny.

Originally posted by Blindside12
When the media is contemplating your suicide on live air, I could care less about their fee fees.

IOW: "Don't say means things about my Trump!"

*ignores that Trump's been shit-talking non stop since the elections*

So wait the media hasnt been shit talking since before the elections? He gets two scoops of ice cream the children!!

Originally posted by Robtard
The one Hitler-thing (though really, this is a general dictator-norm) is his love of trying to silence the media, via threats of lawsuits and whatnot.
Huge difference between lawsuits within the current legislative framework and actually wielding presidential authority.

Originally posted by Robtard
Intelligence and charisma wise as I specified. Absolutely. Acknowledging a person's strengths isn't worshiping them.

It's obvious you're now going to do the "you love Hitler!" troll; it'll be funny.

You mean like you calling me comrade all the time, no I wouldnt do that to you, cause Im not an *******.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, you're going to cry too? If it makes you feel better, I also don't think Trump's into mass genociding Jews. The list goes on.

The one Hitler-like thing (though really, this is a general dictator-norm) is his love of trying to silence the media, via threats of lawsuits and whatnot.
It's really not. Have you not seen the video of the girl flipping out, stealing a MAGA hat off a guys head, and then ranting about how it represents genocide?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Huge difference between lawsuits within the current legislative framework and actually wielding presidential authority.

The point was trying to silence the media. Dictators love doing that and sure, they usually take more direct/violent methods. But similarities at the root are there in that regard specifically.

Originally posted by darthgoober
It's really not. Have you not seen the video of the girl flipping out, stealing a MAGA hat off a guys head, and then ranting about how it represents genocide?

No and I really don't care what some fringe retard does.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point was trying to silence the media. Dictators love doing that and sure, they usually take more direct/violent methods. But similarities at the root are there in that regard specifically.

Name 1 policy Trump has done to "silence the media."

Originally posted by Robtard
No and I really don't care what some fringe retard does.

Fringe retard? Dude that was an everyday Californian.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Name 1 policy Trump has done to "silence the media."

Let's see, off the top of my head:


-Called the media the 'enemy of the people'

-Rants non-stop about any news that isn't favorable to him is "fake news"

-Threatened to try and pull the licensing of at least NBC and CNN

-Looked into making it easier to find media outlets libel

I'm sure there's more.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Fringe retard? Dude that was an everyday Californian.

Your insult has been noted, it was kinda funny

Thats not what I asked, please try again.

"Name 1 policy Trump has done to "silence the media."

Originally posted by Robtard
No and I really don't care what some fringe retard does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3zpTKg3IIw

Do you really think she's "fringe" though? I doubt the guy with the camera managed to catch the ONE person who felt that way when she stole his hat. She didn't just come up with that shit on her own, there are plenty of others who feel that way. And just for the sake of argument lets say that the belief is fringe... so what? It just goes to show why people shouldn't exaggerate and twist their descriptions for shock value. We have stupid, emotional, illogical people in this country who are too easily influenced for one reason or another. Remember the videos of all the little latino kids crying when Trump got elected? They were crying because their parents talked like it was going to be the f*cking end of the world for them if he won. They weren't actually crying because Trump won, they were crying because their parents did a shitty job.

And I'm not saying that "the right" is innocent in that regards either, they do it plenty. And the fact that it happens so frequently by both sides is the very reason that everyone who actually has a brain should be mindful of what they say an point out that it's happening.

His remark of a lone Fringe Retard fails bady because of incidents like Berkley.

Oh an this, this is where progressivism has gone

oOnTPyWuNIo

Dear God

IGdUJjxW1r0

Originally posted by darthgoober
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3zpTKg3IIw

Do you really think she's "fringe" though? I doubt the guy with the camera managed to catch the ONE person who felt that way when she stole his hat. She didn't just come up with that shit on her own. And just for the sake of argument lets say that the belief is fringe... so what? It just goes to show why people shouldn't exaggerate and twist their descriptions for shock value. We have stupid, emotional, illogical people in this country who are too easily influenced for one reason or another. Remember the videos of all the little latino kids crying when Trump got elected? They were crying because their parents talked like it was going to be the f*cking end of the world for them if he won. They weren't actually crying because Trump won, they were crying because their parents did a shitty job.

I didn't mean she's the only one, but yeah, they're fringe when you factor in the what 70ish % of the country that didn't vote for Trump. Most non Trumpers aren't out yelling "genocide" and such in regards to Trump

Sadly enough, the anti-Trump movement isn't as together in same-thought, like an ant colony, as Trumpers are with their unbending devotion to the orangutan lord.

edit: I see you edited and added a bit more at the end, fully agree

Originally posted by Blindside12
His remark of a lone Fringe Retard fails bady because of incidents like Berkley.

Oh an this, this is where progressivism has gone

oOnTPyWuNIo

Rob she isnt some "fringe retard."

This is democratic party.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't mean she's the only one, but yeah, they're fringe when you factor in the what 70ish % of the country that didn't vote for Trump. Most non Trumpers aren't out yelling "genocide" and such in regards to Trump

Sadly enough, the anti-Trump movement isn't as together in same-thought, like an ant colony, as Trumpers are with their unbending devotion to the orangutan lord.

edit: I see you edited and added a bit more at the end, fully agree

Wholy Crap, this is just disingenuous. If you want to say 70% of the country didnt vote for Trump, Guess what the % is that didnt vote for hillary, considering she got what 2.8 million more votes?

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

Time

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't mean she's the only one, but yeah, they're fringe when you factor in the what 70ish % of the country that didn't vote for Trump. Most non Trumpers aren't out yelling "genocide" and such in regards to Trump

Sadly enough, the anti-Trump movement isn't as together in same-thought, like an ant colony, as Trumpers are with their unbending devotion to the orangutan lord.

edit: I see you edited and added a bit more at the end, fully agree
You can't really just throw out the 70% number like that cause a lot of people didn't vote and their inclusion creates a disproportionate view of the pool you're drawing from, who knows which way they'd have leaned if someone held a gun to their head and forced them to vote. That has nothing directly to do with what we're discussing, it's just something I was pointing out. "Fringe" is relative to the number of people who actually give a shit, you can't include those who possibly don't into the "majority".

And whether they actually believe it or not, they're still encouraging that inference by invoking Hitler. They didn't just pick that name out of a hat for their comparison, they did it deliberately because they consider him to be the worst of the worst and the fact is that it's in no way fitting.

And yeah, a whole lot of Trump supporters are messed up. I believe Bill Maher said it best when he said something to the effect of "If you make white people feel like minorities, they'll act like minorities". People who felt they were being treated unfairly by liberals at large are as loyal to him as many black people were to Obama, which means he can do no wrong in their eyes. I think an greater number of people though have been bombarded by so much anti Trump rhetoric from the get go(like the Hitler comparisons) that they just don't actually pay attention to anything new because it's just another day as far as they're concerned. Basically "the left" sounds like the teacher on Charlie Brown... "whaa whaa whaa, whaa whaa whaa whaa..."

Originally posted by Blindside12
Wholy Crap, this is just disingenuous. If you want to say 70% of the country didnt vote for Trump, Guess what the % is that didnt vote for hillary, considering she got what 2.8 million more votes?

"In the final count, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote of the 2016 presidential election was nearly three million votes. According to the independent, non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton's final tally came in at 65,844,610, compared to Donald Trump's 62,979,636, with a difference of 2,864,974."

Time

Okay, who cares in regards to my point?

It was regarding your point. 70% of the country didnt vote for Trump, trying to imply he got 30% of the vote, which is complete BS.

Originally posted by darthgoober
You can't really just throw out the 70% number like that cause a lot of people didn't vote and their inclusion creates a disproportionate view of the pool you're drawing from, who knows which way they'd have leaned if someone held a gun to their head and forced them to vote. That has nothing directly to do with what we're discussing, it's just something I was pointing out. "Fringe" is relative to the number of people who actually give a shit, you can't include those who possibly don't into the "majority".

And whether they actually believe it or not, they're still encouraging that inference by invoking Hitler. They didn't just pick that name out of a hat for their comparison, they did it deliberately because they consider him to be the worst of the worst and the fact is that it's in no way fitting.

I can and I did though, because it's accurate to do so. Sure, probs a few million overall spread out. But when factoring the country as a whole, they're fringe.

Originally posted by Blindside12
It was regarding your point. 70% of the country didnt vote for Trump, trying to imply he got 30% of the vote, which is complete BS.

Wasn't, it was in regards to the country as a whole and what you're saying has nothing to do with my point again.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can and I did though, because it's accurate to do so. Sure, probs a few million overall spread. But when factoring the country as a whole, they're fringe.
Yeah but in that case you might as well include people who voted for Trump in the majority pool you're talking about.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't, it was in regards to the country as a whole and what you're saying has nothing to do with my point again.

And whats the % of people that voted against Hillary. Did you know she had the most faithless Electors in History?

I think Trump has around a 50% chance of winning. Think it's a mistake to count him out again, because we all know how that worked out last time. Think he probably is more likely to win a second term than he was to win a first term.

Of course it can all change in the next couple of years. Trump could get more popular and cruise to victory or he can completely crash and burn and lose in a landslide, really impossible to know at this point. I think most likely it'll be competitive and pretty close. A lot of it will have to do with if the people who don't like Trump actually get out and vote against him, or just say "eh, the dem isn't any better so **** them both" like a lot of people did last time.

Also a lot of it will depend on who runs against him. I think someone like Biden would probably win because he's well liked and not very offensive to people, he's not a fringe candidate and could get people from the middle. Where as someone like Lizzy Warren might have trouble getting to those people. Then of course it could be some insane wild card like The Rock or Oprah or something. 2020 is going to be absolutely nuts.

50%? Damn before it was 98% chance of losing. Biden is the absolute worst choice with his questionable behavior or touching women and little girls.

Joe Biden 2020 Is A Terrible Idea In A Post-Weinstein America
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

Originally posted by Blindside12
50%? Damn before it was 98% chance of losing. Biden is the absolute worst choice with his questionable behavior or touching women and little girls.

Joe Biden 2020 Is A Terrible Idea In A Post-Weinstein America
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

Yeah ok, let's be honest though, are the people who read huffpost going to just not vote for either of them? No, they'll vote for Biden because of how much they hate Trump. I don't think Biden has to worry about those people much.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah ok, let's be honest though, are the people who read huffpost going to just not vote for either of them? No, they'll vote for Biden because of how much they hate Trump. I don't think Biden has to worry about those people much.

Biden has to get the nom in a very crowded field of people who most likely will have multiple women who dont have the baggage he does of inappropriate girl touching. And he will be 80 years old, so all the people and media who complained about Trumps age of 70 will have to eat crow.

edit:
How does Bidens touching advance the #metoo movement either?

Fair point, I wasn't taking the primary into account. He'd probably have more trouble there than the general election.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I don't think Sanders would have very good odds this time around. He alienated a lot of his own base, he's had potential scandals of his own since the election, and constantly playing the race card as a weapon against white people just isn't going to go over as well anymore. Nah, Sanders numbers are still going strong. About a quarter to a third of Democratic primary voters already saying they will vote for him two years out, which is a pretty good bedrock of support. I also don't recall him playing the race card, and one of his strengths is that he generally sticks to bread and butter issues. However, I do think he will have a hard time against the Republican attack machine, especially as big money interests won't want him anywhere near the White House. There's also a lot of bitterness from the 2016 primary which could create another battle between him and traditional Democrats.

So the Democratic race is going to be a shit show. All its going to be is who can be more critical of Trump and then it will backfire on them being critical on each other. I dont possibly see how hard they pull it together. There are no Obamas left, regardless of his policies, he was a generational President, they wont strike gold twice in 16 years.

Originally posted by lazybones
Nah, Sanders numbers are still going strong. About a quarter to a third of Democratic primary voters already saying they will vote for him two years out, which is a pretty good bedrock of support. I also don't recall him playing the race card, and one of his strengths is that he generally sticks to bread and butter issues. However, I do think he will have a hard time against the Republican attack machine, especially as big money interests won't want him anywhere near the White House. There's also a lot of bitterness from the 2016 primary which could create another battle between him and traditional Democrats. \

No one here has brought up the Super Delegates, the cheat system for the democrats.

Or the democratic primary will end with whoever panders most to the base winning and then failing to appeal to the nonbase in the general election.

well said

Any thoughts on who will get the super delegates from the beginning.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Any thoughts on who will get the super delegates from the beginning. Biden. Definitely the preferred candidate of the Obama/Clinton wing. After that, maybe Cory Booker. Although I can't imagine that the DNC will dare allow superdelegates override the voters if they reject Biden. That might split the party even more than it was in 2016.

Originally posted by Blindside12
50%? Damn before it was 98% chance of losing. Biden is the absolute worst choice with his questionable behavior or touching women and little girls.

Joe Biden 2020 Is A Terrible Idea In A Post-Weinstein America
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

Trump has "questionable behavior of touching women and little girls" and look how well it worked for him. Seems Biden would be a good candidate to go against Trump in 2020.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump has "questionable behavior of touching women and little girls" and look how well it worked for him. Seems Biden would be a good candidate to go against Trump in 2020.

Which girls did Trump touch now? This is when you post pictures of him an his daughter.

So you would have no problem voting for girl touching Biden

Um, Trump literally had (still has?) a lawsuit against him in raping a 13yo girl at a high-roller party by the now adult woman. Then the other 17-18 accusations of sexual misconduct levied against him over the course of 20ish years. Then he bragged about being able to do it.

Do you just ignore this when trying to paint other politicians as molesters, or do you just not care?

I don't want Biden to run though, his time came and went. We need new blood.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Any thoughts on who will get the super delegates from the beginning.

Under the 2016 format, probably Biden.

But it sounds like they're cutting back the power superdelegates have, so we'll see what actually comes of that.

Dems might job super delegates all together.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-are-weighing-a-proposal-to-eliminate?utm_term=.voqOkMXaR#.dmJVM4JqY