Hopelessly Naive Dems
Trump said that the election in November will be the most “fraudulent election in history.” He has also recently said that he will not accept results of the election if he finds them to be fraudulent. So, there is that.
Trump has been steadily stirring up his peeps, and readying the gloriously patriotic 35% to take part in operation Banana Republic should Biden’s cheating prevail. Very transparent.
And yet we have some hopelessly naive Dems, like DelawareDem for example, who think “norms” and/or the constitution, and/or laws or some dumb old-timey bullshit will restrain Trump even thought he has treated norms, laws and the constitution with nothing but contempt.
When operation Banana Republic kicks off, I wonder how long it will take for Coons to run to a microphone and support Trump in the interest of “national unity.”
#leadership.
And while a get that Trump’s nonsense is an expression of weakness, in the absence of any countervailing expression of real strength from Democrats, we will be right back in impeachment hell.
Show me something.
Meanwhile, you arrogant yet ignorant leftists ascribe total God like powers to and then cower in fear of Trump. You scream “Trump is going to postpone the election, what are we going to do???” The answer to that of course is to laugh at and mock Trump as the weak ass pathetic piece of shit President that he is. He is not strong. He is not winning the election. He knows it. That is why he is saying this shit. And he is absolutely no power whatsoever to postpone the election. He needs Congress to pass a law to change the dates. That won’t happen.
But sure, go ahead and treat Trump like some undefeatable force. That will surely suppress the vote among other bedwetters like yourself, ensuring Trump wins. Which is probably what you want in the end anyway.
Sad.
“He needs Congress to pass a law to change the dates. That won’t happen.”
Naive.
Beyond “laughing and mocking,” I don’t hear any strategy in any of that. And yet I do hear echos of 2016. “liberals didn’t clap hard enough” that chestnut is evergreen.
Thus saieth the sage who attacked us for being ‘intellectually dishonest’ in raising alarms about Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
Tell me, DD, I haven’t checked in awhile, how is her administration doing?
The election won’t be postponed, but results from one or more states will almost certainly be challenged, either at the popular vote or the EC level. There are more scenarios for Team Red to ratf**k the outcome than I can track.
“So many years I’ve been watching elections, and they say the projected winner, or the winner of the election. I don’t want to see that take place in a week after November 3rd, or a month. Or frankly, with litigation and everything else that can happen years, years … or you never even know who won the election.“. – DJT
A couple things; it doesn’t matter if Trump asks the question about delaying the election, he has no power to act on it. It also doesn’t matter if he accepts the election results or not, because again he can’t do anything about that either. Who cares if Trump doesn’t accept the results, his last opponent and many others never accepted the election results either.
I think Trump is just putting all this stuff out there for posterity. The circumstances of these extraordinary times will be examined and judged in the future and I just think that Trump wants his influence in that process even though he will be long gone when it happens.
What’s interesting to me is how the American process has evolved as it applies to what used to be called journalism. Journalism as it applies to politics no longer exists.
It used to be that the media held its integrity up until the last days of the election before they frantically lost their objectivity. Then in successive years they started losing it weeks before, then months before, then a full year before, and now the pattern has evolved to where they are in complete “October surprise” mode all of the time.
Your perspective is limited if you think that’s how elections were always treated by the media. You are talking about mostly cable TV, which was never limited by the Fairness Doctrine.
Basically, you’re describing how elections look to people who watch a lot of cable TV news. That’s a laughably small portion of the electorate.
I don’t know what country you grew up in, but the difference is cable TV, and the debasement of American journalism by Australians, you Dummy.
This is not a mystery, you Dimwit.
It was easy for Walter Cronkite to hover above the fray.
I actually first noticed it in the extreme in my own party listening to guys on the radio like Bill Colley at WGMD, who actually, in my opinion, were vying for positions in their selected candidate’s staff. You could see their objectivity completely switch off, and I see that behavior constantly in almost all political journalism now.
That’s because, unless you’re at a major paper like the NYT or WaPo, you get better pay and more job security working in politics.
Radio talkers are almost always former DJs who have no more qualifications to opine about politics than the people working the line at McDonald’s.
And it’s not just happening in journalism, it spans all mediums of information. You even have to look at polling with a grain of salt now because it’s more about influencing than record.
No, actually, it’s only Republicans who have — for years now — treated polls as a way to influence people rather than as a way of finding out what they actually think.
Reputable polling operations care about their accuracy. Republican polling operations care about influencing the cumulative polling numbers.
Your limited information leads you to incorrect conclusions. Repeatedly.