Welcome to Thunderdome

Vince wrote:
Something is really off about all this.

Found a new thread title.

Now back to ignoring politics

Leisher wrote: I believe it's real as I'm certain the NYT knows exactly who wrote this or they never would have published it.

It also seems to ring very true about Trump's behavior.

I agree. The only fishy to me is what was their goal?

Troy wrote:

Vince wrote:
Something is really off about all this.

Found a new thread title.

Now back to ignoring politics

You’re too privileged.

Leisher wrote: I believe it's real as I'm certain the NYT knows exactly who wrote this or they never would have published it.

It also seems to ring very true about Trump's behavior.

I agree with all of this. It just seems like a dumb thing to do if the person's motivation is what he stated. If you are manipulating the President then why not only tell him, but tell him in such a public way which will only serve to thwart future efforts at manipulating him? If the motives are as stated, how does this serve the goals of all the people in the administration that anonymous says they're working with?

I'm almost tempted to say it's actually a pro-Russia person that wrote it, because they just fired a salvo at all the sanctions that have been imposed against Russia (they have been soft on Russia in words, but firm with policy) by stating they manipulated and ignored Trump on the actual policy dealing with Russia.

Vince wrote: If the motives are as stated, how does this serve the goals of all the people in the administration that anonymous says they're working with?

Elections.

If voters know that Republicans are working with, but against Trump it helps them save face.

I think they're playing the long game.

Chinese exports slowing to a crawl and their economy is trending downward.

Trump's tariffs could end up winning every trade war he's creating, but will it matter? No way he ever gets re-elected, right?

Leisher wrote: No way he ever gets re-elected, right?

A lot of people thought that the first time around. Who the hell knows.

Um.... not true. 10 years, Donnie... 10.

but his paranoia/stupidity/mouth/tweets and our biased reporting are totally distracting people from knowing it.

I'm going more former than latter.

TheCatt wrote: I'm going more former than latter.

I do agree, but the question must be asked: "If he wasn't him, what do you think his approval ratings would be at?"

If he wasn't Republican, although there are many who don't believe he is, I'd bet he would get a 5 point jump in the polls.

If he wasn't on Twitter, wasn't constantly changing his statements, bashing people, getting nothing but negative press, having negative books written about him, etc. how much do they jump? 20 points?

What if he legalized marijuana, which is rumored? 3 points?

Take away Russia and the porn star and is that another 5 points?

Leisher wrote: If he wasn't on Twitter, wasn't constantly changing his statements, bashing people, getting nothing but negative press, having negative books written about him, etc. how much do they jump? 20 points?

So... if he were... Jeb Bush? I dunno, I'd imagine at least 10 points higher. There's still a Republican ceiling.

TheCatt wrote: So... if he were... Jeb Bush?

Aw, you just hurt Jeb Bush's feelings.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote: So... if he were... Jeb Bush?

Aw, you just hurt Jeb Bush's feelings.

Hey, I would have voted for Jeb Bush.

Weird place for an exclamation mark...

Leisher wrote: Weird place for an exclamation mark...

Yes. Very.

I'd say -5% for being Republican. -15% for being Trump. +10% for the media cranking their outrage up to 11 for every misstep, no matter what the severity.

I think about the end of Clinton's second term. For some reason this has always stuck with me and I'm not sure why. Bill Clinton was still popular when he left office. I don't remember if this was a poll among Democratsor all voters. They asked about either his job approval or a general approval of Bill Clinton. It came out a little over 50%. Thinking 50-55%. In there. When asked if they would vote for him again if he weren't restricted from a third term by the Constitution, the number that answered in the affirmative dropped waaaay down. People were just tired of all the scandals and controversy. I wonder how much of that will come into play in 2020?

The Democratic strategy is like a.child crying for candy until mom gets tired of it , and gives in? They're going for the "just shut the fuck up, already" voters?

GORDON wrote: The Democratic strategy is like a.child crying for candy until mom gets tired of it , and gives in? They're going for the "just shut the fuck up, already" voters?

I think the Democrats' strategy is brilliant, and the fact that it doesn't work better is proof that Americans aren't all dipshits yet. (Not saying voting for a Dem makes one a dipshit, but voting ALL Dem, or Republican, does...)

They turned all the social issues into "the" main issues. The Republicans will always fail there by definition because they're conservative. Thus, they can paint them as out of touch, sexist, racist, etc. and the Republicans actually play into it. Meanwhile, the majority of the MSM (proven by their own polls to heavily slant left) and Hollywood can do all the PR work shaming anyone who dares support Republicans.

The real downfall of their strategy is it's working too well and they're losing control of their party to the FAR left and the crazies.

GORDON wrote: The Democratic strategy is like a.child crying for candy until mom gets tired of it , and gives in? They're going for the "just shut the fuck up, already" voters?

I think the strategy is to get the voters tired of the bickering. Fighting back is good, but the man needs to learn to pick his battles. He swings back at every little perceived attack. Not everything is worth a response. And get off Twitter. About half his bad press results from just saying stupid stuff on Twitter. That results in the perceived attack and it all just goes on again from there.