US Politics, October 2018: next week will be even longer

also

It’s been done. pic.twitter.com/t7lsRK0y0o

— Manolo Sanchez (@NixonValet) October 15, 2018

a winning candidate would call Trump a motherfucker or something. DNA test seems like a dumb move rn but I also feel like Yerac is otm that now she won't ever have to address it ever again.

She never had to address it in the first place, is the thing. Once a bully knows he can get a reaction out of you, he's going to do whatever he can to solicit further reactions.

Does this pretty much imply that she's going to run? I'm wondering if she would have bothered otherwise.

Trump will just keep throwing out complete bullshit that no one should dignify a response (because that's what he does), but as soon as you dignify it with a response, you legitimize it as a thing that in some way matters or that deserves a response or that rational human beings should ever have to take a side on. Here's your stock response to any Trump utterance:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4958034c587ac1a2ead0bbddd481b011/tenor.gif

she said she will take 'a hard look at running for president' which means she is 100% running

xpost Yeah, just like Obama settled it with the birth certificate. Avenatti might be a jackass, but he's right that no one can fight this particular bully with a flow chart or power point. They have to punch back and play dirty, just like Trump's favorite film, Bloodsport. Want to know how you react when someone throws sand in your eyes? Like this:
https://media.giphy.com/media/5xtDarrD3UV3Qk6N00E/giphy-downsized-large.gif

I've had sane people without dementia questioning the native american ancestry thing. The Obama birtherism was insane.

OL otm this whole thing is stupid

Warren will not be a good candidate vs. Trump

she won't be a good candidate because the US is full of racist, misogynist trolls.

Missing the point. Warren’s DNA test has nothing to do with counterattacking. It’s just the first dose of a vaccine against the Trump assault. The timing is good: it’s not officially part of a campaign, and provides a touchstone for her later responses on the heritage issue.

Also, who cares if she’s a good candidate against Trump? She’s a good candidate on the issues, on her record, and on the strength of her non-political work.

Who do the assembled wise men of the thread think would be a good candidate to run against the historically unpopular, won-in-a-fluke-and-is-about-to-lose-half-his-Congressional-support-system President Donald Trump?

bunch of x-posts in there obv

I think the goal is pretty much to get her into the spotlight and establish her as a frontrunner, which it basically has succeeded at doing

Yeah, Warren is totally capable, but I am starting to feel like we are just so completely regressive that people will find fault with any female candidate for the stupidest of reasons. Like not displaying good executive skills to her past underlings.

Gillibrand is great, but I don't know if it's her time.

Does she need to be menopausal?

Otm. Anyway, I once sold Elizabeth Warren business cards and I made a typo and she had me reorder them and was suitably but not excessively put out. I’ll personally vouch for her executive skills.

I think Harris or Gillibrand would both do better as women vs Trump, they dont have the schoolmarm vibe Warren does. She’s great in the Senate imo, but I dont see her turning out all the demos the Dems are gonna need to win.

Also, who cares if she’s a good candidate against Trump?

― rb (soda)

me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Harris and Gillibrand are definitely hotter but not too hot to be offputting.

You think gillibrand is more charismaric than warren? That’s absurd. Harris I can kind of see, but I still think warren is the better candidate

getting really bad 2004 vibes lately. like Trump, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate, and then Bush won for real. can't overestimate the advantage Trump has being an incumbent

Like not displaying good executive skills to her past underlings.

― Yerac, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:33 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you obviously don't think "harris was a bad boss" is disqualifying but don't be disingenuous about the critiques of her time in that position.

I don’t think “underling” is a good word for employee or worker

I’m not concerned with the viability of a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020. Either you’re with Trump or you’re against Trump. And Warren is a good, smart person with strong values and a clear vision who has capably represented me, both geographically and politically, for a while now. Consider it naive, but I think that makes her a phenomenal candidate.

Yeah, Harris and Gillibrand are definitely hotter but not too hot to be offputting.

can we not

I made the assumption that the person thought she was a bad boss because of whatever. Most dudes who have to work for a women are more than likely to think they are a bad boss for the most innocuous of reasons. So I was making fun of the stupidity of it all.

a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020

franky I think you're very wrong, and running against Trump means these are the *only* things that matter (in terms of the election. Not so much in terms of governing, policy, etc.)

xpost, the hot comment was sarcasm because of the schoolmarm comment.

Did we know it was a dude?

trump will have the incumbency advantage until the inevitable stock market crash and fucking morons like mnuchin, ross and kudlow running the recovery efforts

yeah, it was a guy from the follow up.

getting really bad 2004 vibes lately. like Trump, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate, and then Bush won for real. can't overestimate the advantage Trump has being an incumbent

well, also, 9/11

, Bush barely won* by a fluke, and he ran against a stodgy, awkward guy that was good on paper but a lousy candidate,

Warren is a better candidate now than Kerry ever was, and I suppose I'm in the minority who thought Kerry was terrific as a senator.

well, also, 9/11

― iatee, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:44 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and an ongoing war that people were actually thinking about

the hot comment was sarcasm because of the schoolmarm comment.

this was not a reference to her appearance, but to her recent strategy of responding to an utterly ridiculous, irrelevant, and deliberately provocative assertion with a well-reasoned and scientifically valid riposte. This is the kind of reaction that literally screams *NNNNNNEEEEERRRRRD* in our current media landscape, and it is not a winning strategy.

I’m not concerned with the viability of a candidate’s optics, persona, or press package because none of that matters in 2020.

pragmatically it absolutely does, it's like 90% of this thing

Either you’re with Trump or you’re against Trump. And Warren is a good, smart person with strong values and a clear vision who has capably represented me, both geographically and politically, for a while now. Consider it naive, but I think that makes her a phenomenal candidate.

― rb (soda), Monday, October 15, 2018 1:42 PM (thirty-four seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Personally, sure. but evaluating candidates w/o any regard to how they'd perform against Trump is just asking to be devastated all over again. 2004 sucked so much

well, also, 9/11

― iatee, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:44 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and an ongoing war that people were actually thinking about

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, October 15, 2018 5:48 PM (thirty-nine seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pretty sure trump is going to start some shit with iran in a couple months for this exact reason

well, also, 9/11

― iatee

by 2004 p much all of the good will gained after 9/11 had evaporated bc of Iraq

Warren is a better candidate now than Kerry ever was, and I suppose I'm in the minority who thought Kerry was terrific as a senator.

― You like queer? I like queer. Still like queer. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

I agree and I liked Kerry but he was a lousy campaigner (which is what I meant in the first place, should've clarified)

Nah

Re: Iran

i don't think Warren has played the shit Trump has flung her way particularly well and i do agree w/Shakey on his last point. I think Obama is a pretty good example of a guy who dealt w/far worse and still simply casually brushed it off publicly, which i think frustrated the right; he wasn't a perfect strategist by any means as president but during his two presidential runs he never really played the game they tried to engage him in, he played his own game. You can't really beat Trump at his game, no more than you can win an argument w/a troll on the internet. Your answers to their bad faith questions will always be wrong.

Trump will not get a 9/11 bump by starting a war for no reason. 9/11, like Trump's own victory, was a reality warping event that basically erased the calendar and changed the orientation of everything. to get the kind of bump that Bush had in 2001 something of equal and devastating magnitude would have to occur. we are too used to perpetual war for something like invading Iran to have that kind of impact.

No one knows what will play well with the electorate, although recent evidence shows that economic justice is a popular message and Warren is the candidate with the best record to push that.

Xp shakey/nostradamus

well Obama released his birth certificate while he was killing Bin Laden, so I assume Warren's gonna drop a body on the doorstep tomorrow

i'm not saying i don't think Warren could win, since i can see Trump becoming so tiresome to many more people after a couple more years of his empty shtick and his personal attacks losing impact, and the Dems will be smarter this time around about certain states.

trump wouldn't "start" a war, it would be forced upon us by an evil country that just happens to filled with people that aren't white OR christian. bush/cheney didn't invade Iraq, they were forced to confront the destabilizer of the middle east who had WMDs (and connections to 9/11, i bet, maybe?! that's what i heard!). gulf of tonkin, etc

I just don't trust dudes like Bolton and Pompeo running foreign policy.. also Trump is cynical as hell and twice as stupid =|