Jump to content
Stable Genius

Quotable Quotes about Trump

By Stable Genius, in Politics

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Suckrates Grand Master

Suckrates

Posted
  • Members
Posted
27 minutes ago, Stable Genius said:

Well we can take this off the list of things Trump says "Only I can get done".

Landmark prisoner exchange. Well done Joe!

Not according to JD Vance, who is giving TRUMP the credit for it.   And Trump patted him on the head and gave him a dog treat.  

RockyRoadTravel Rising Star

RockyRoadTravel

Posted
Posted

One thing about the defeated former President, he's very transparent. Every accusation is an admission of guilt. 

With his weird press conference yesterday at Mar-o-lago the line that really stood out for me was what he said about Clinton. I think it was his first admission that he thinks he's going to lose the election. 

He said (lied), in referring to Clinton, that he was "protective of her" and tried to calm down his crowds chants of "lock her up."  He then went on, very creepily, with "there were things he could have done to her." 

I think Trump is laying the ground work for the nonsense fairytale of "I protected Clinton, I was being Presidential, therefore President Harris should protect me."

 

RockyRoadTravel Rising Star

RockyRoadTravel

Posted
Posted
On 8/9/2024 at 9:33 AM, RockyRoadTravel said:

One thing about the defeated former President, he's very transparent. Every accusation is an admission of guilt. 

With his weird press conference yesterday at Mar-o-lago the line that really stood out for me was what he said about Clinton. I think it was his first admission that he thinks he's going to lose the election. 

He said (lied), in referring to Clinton, that he was "protective of her" and tried to calm down his crowds chants of "lock her up."  He then went on, very creepily, with "there were things he could have done to her." 

I think Trump is laying the ground work for the nonsense fairytale of "I protected Clinton, I was being Presidential, therefore President Harris should protect me."

 

Further on this previous post of mine.  Trump is almost to the point where he is not going to be campaigning on issues anymore. (He's always attempted to wiggle free of being held to specific promises.) At the point that he decides, and believes, that he's behind in the polls I think he will stop fighting the election campaign, and focus on fighting the election itself.

He gave himself away at his unhinged press conference last week, "taking care of Clinton" and the creepy "the things we could have done to her." (You may have missed that with the focus on Walz using the preposition "in" instead of "of" about weapons of war.)  If you can't play the game and win, the sore loser complains about the field conditions, and rules and the referees and ... whatever other excuse that creates an alternate narrative to the truth - you got beat. 

What does the Harris campaign do about that?  It can't be a focus of the campaign because then they are playing on Trump's unhinged field. At the same time they can't ignore the defeated former President's attacks on the democratic process setting up who knows what next December/January.

Does Harris continue to focus on values and policies, or try and weave the Trump threat to democracy into their freedom message?  I do like the focus on freedom rather than democracy - it's seems more tangible and less theoretical to me, as well as the historical resonance. 

In summary, soon the defeated former President will soon be campaigning against the election, rather than campaigning in the election. 

  • Members
stevenkesslar Veteran

stevenkesslar

Posted
  • Members
Posted
26 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Does Harris continue to focus on values and policies, or try and weave the Trump threat to democracy into their freedom message?  I do like the focus on freedom rather than democracy - it's seems more tangible and less theoretical to me, as well as the historical resonance. 

It's both/and rather than either/or. But I definitely think the former.  I like Walz's thing, which is certainly not failing.  This guy is a bully with a loud mouth who says weird shit.  Shrink him.  He's a loser and a pest and we all need to just shrink his lying felon ass.   Little lying losing mini-Donald can bitch and moan all he wants.

Harris is having a nice honeymoon, and the "vibes" and "values" thing is working.  But if it seems like she is trying to avoid issues, at some point that will backfire.  I assume they will focus on an issues agenda - this is what Democrats will fight for -  at the DNC.

It's hard to imagine that since Trump actually has good issues - resentment about inflation, immigration - he wouldn't be all over it.  But, for the reasons you say, it actually isn't hard to imagine.  I'll keep quoting Republican politico Alex Castellanos, who keeps saying Trump is the only Republican POTUS candidate he knows who can lose an election against himself.

I went on at length with a lot of data in another thread on this final point.  This campaign will likely be a test of a populist economic agenda that Clintonian pollster Stan Greenberg and liberal Data For Progress keep saying is wildly popular, on paper at lest:   raise taxes on the rich, lower prescription drug costs, bolster Social Security, restore the 2021 child tax credit.   My guess based on the data, or at least my hope, is that if Harris and Walz are talking about that, and Trump and Vance are talking about stolen elections and childless cat ladies, Trump is history.

  • Members
Suckrates Grand Master

Suckrates

Posted
  • Members
Posted

 

Hey guys, look, she will either Win, or she will lose.... All this projecting, poll watching , guessing, hand wringing will not achieve either.   Its the voters, and will they turn out.   If they do Harris wins... We already know what to expect when Trump loses.   He is laying seed already, and has been since his 2020 loss.... He is currently claiming Harris is cheating, by announcing false crowd sizes,  and that she became the candidate by cheating and forcing Biden out.....Trumps henchmen are embedded in EVERY state agency and courts, waiting for their marching orders.  I know some of you like puzzles, and figuring them out,  but for me it takes too much effort,  but for me,  we kinda have seen the end to this story before, when he won 2016 and when he lost 2020.  So there should be no surprises this time around.    All we can do is wait and hope Dems aint just talking the talk, but will actually VOTE.  They NEED to vote.  If they do that, we should be good !  

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952l91d66f6x9j5qhp2md

  • Members
stevenkesslar Veteran

stevenkesslar

Posted
  • Members
Posted
2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

What does the Harris campaign do about that?  It can't be a focus of the campaign because then they are playing on Trump's unhinged field. At the same time they can't ignore the defeated former President's attacks on the democratic process setting up who knows what next December/January.

So I already gave my answer above, but I will surrogate for smart guys giving separate answers.

My Sister In Cock Suckrates is right.  Either Harris will win or lose.  And all the fretting over polls doesn't mean squat.  I will again add Lichtman's point:  this is a referendum on governance, not campaigning or slogans.   Most of what gets discussed day to day is bullshit by politicos and pollsters who think they are smart and get paid a lot of money to bullshit us.  As if it really matters.  I think that is in large part true.

That said, here's an answer to your question from two former Republican Guvs, a Republican political consultant, and Trump's own former Press Secretary, all of whom say really smart things.

Halperin's 2way format is always interesting.  Because it's the kind of informed bipartisan discussion people are hungering for again.  Which in itself hurts Trump, I think.  Because he caused the divisiveness people are sick of.

But there's a really fascinating discussion around 26:00 in that video, keyed off by Castellanos, that I think speaks to your question.  Castellanos focuses on how Trump's superpower is theater.  He's a showman to his fans, and a snake oil salesman to the rest of us.  And there is this sense that perhaps history has left him behind.  It is NOT his show anymore.  He lost the show in 2020, and he ain't getting it back.  A new show is beginning.  Those are my words, not Castellanos.  But it is consistent with his point, which everybody nods their head and agrees to. 

So if you buy that theory, let Trump flail.  Most of that half hour discussion is about how Trump is flailing, because he has no clue what to do.  Let the little losing mini-Donald wail like a baby about fake crowds or stolen elections or whatever his mini-Donald baby ego wants to wail about.  Most people could give a shit. Meanwhile, Kamala should talk about the future, and what she will do.

To this point about how politicos and pollsters are always interested in making themselves sound more important than they are, I think you can take what Castellanos says - which makes it sound like it is all about how you campaign - and easily fit it into a broader theory of history, like Lichtman does.  And also add a dash of movement politics. 

Lichtman's main point about 2016 was that it was THUMBS DOWN on Democrats.  Because too many things were against them.  You could argue Trump won in 2016 because it was theater.  I would argue it was theater laser focused on the Rust Belt. And a real problem that Democrats did not solve:  the working class was losing, and all this NAFTA and globalization stuff Trump pinned on Clinton was largely why.  Whether Trump just got lucky or it was a form of political genius on his part, who knows?  But that is why he won.  We know there were a lot of working class people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 and have been with him ever since. 

I always have viewed 2016 as a kind of peasant's revolt against a system they don't trust, and they feel screwed them.  And it was a powerful movement.   As Castellanos says, it was powerful enough to take down not one but TWO political establishments:  first Republicans (Jeb!) and then Democrats (Hillary!).  And Trump did play to that masterfully, as theater.  He is a show man.

So the question now is whether Castellanos is right and history has just passed Trump by. My guess is he is right.  Harris and Walz are trying to be the stars of The Future Show.  They need to talk about the issues and values and leaders a majority of people want.  They are well on their way to doing that.  Lichtman later this month will likely  argue that his Keys, and history, are on their side anyway.  Why not make the most of it, and try to get some kind of mandate?

If you view 2016 as a peasant's revolt, it kind of worked.  Globalization is out.  Reshoring is in.  But I would add this:  who got the infrastructure bill passed?  Who got the CHIPs bill passed?  Why are all these factories being built in Arizona and Georgia?  It took a while.  But Democrats did come up with a response to the revolt, more than Trump did.  Lichtman would argue Democrats will get four more years because at the end of the day they earned it - at least by enough to win.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...