Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

We can all laugh about this but it's extremely effective political rhetoric, like always.

image.gif.ba738493f22273bc01b0572a63976384.gif

Literally everything is extremely effective political rhetoric when your base is entirely composed of the dumbest people on the planet.

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

Notice that he has his "I possess this. Aren't you envious?" look. Examples below:

spacer.png

spacer.png

Instead of his fakey photo op look:

spacer.png

Age hasn't improved his possessive look at all.

image.png.4713e48d31a37435868ece004cba8750.png

Sick fuck.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Literally everything is extremely effective political rhetoric when your base is entirely composed of the dumbest people on the planet.

I mean that's all well and good, but part of the reason we're in this situation today is while Trump was running with a great call to action like MAGA to enlist a high intensity personal investment from his base, the best Hillary Clinton's team could must the off-putting loyalty test of "I'm with her." God forbid she insult our intelligence with something better.

We don't need to rehash all the shitty things about Clinton, but in order to beat Trump this time people are going to need to be honest about why his supporters are so persistent. He uses effective language to commit them. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

the best Hillary Clinton's team could must the off-putting loyalty test of "I'm with her." God forbid she insult our intelligence with something better.

There was another one that was worse. I forget exactly, but it was something like "I'm ready for Hillary now". 

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

There was another one that was worse. I forget exactly, but it was something like "I'm ready for Hillary now". 

Right up there with Cleveland tourists board's "We're not Detroit !!!"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted

The message needs to be that whole swaths of our population will have their rights taken away under a Trump regime.  You also show the things Biden has done, like the Infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act.  He has been really effective given the thin majority he had.

  • Like 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Let them know that you're fighting for them, and you'll throw some punches to do it. 

I really liked Biden using “battle for the soul of our nation” in 2020. Bc that’s what it is fighting against Trump and GQP fascism. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

I think it was "Fine, I'll vote for Hillary, but I'm not happy about it."

 

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Worked for me

same

Posted

It's a hard metric to quantify but there has always been an element of "I want to vote, I want to be a good citizen.  And there's some down-ballot stuff important to me and my community.  I don't like anybody at the top of the ballot, but I guess I'll pick Candidate A over Candidate B not because I like A but because B is so off-putting to me."  I think in 2016, Trump got a lot of people out of the woodwork who were just coming out to vote for him.  I think 2024, they're going to rely more and more on, "Yeah, he's an indicted piece of shit, but do you want 4 more years of Biden?"  That's their play, at least for a sizable chunk of the electorate.  

It's never really been a viable multi-state strategy in the modern era before.  There was a little bit of it in Romney v. Obama in 2012.  And then for certain, it was the driving issue for Ford v. Carter in 1976.  But as much as they don't want to admit it, Trump is a hobbled candidate like no other heading into 2024.  It's gonna have to be more about "No more Biden" than "Bring back the Orange God!"  

There's so much yet to unfold though in the next 15 months, nobody knows nuthin' about nuthin'

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Hillary's less-than-inspiring message that amounted to "hey, it's my turn, I was patient, so hand this to me" didn't exactly fire people up.  

Who's the Jeb of the 2020 Race? - The New York Times

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


And many years ago, when I was at a Big Law firm, and $1000 rates first started to crop up, I recall a sr partner saying “shit, I wouldn’t pay $1000 an hour for anything that didn’t involve fantastic tits.”

Did he say the same thing about 160k associate starting salaries?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Hillary's less-than-inspiring message that amounted to "hey, it's my turn, I was patient, so hand this to me" didn't exactly fire people up.  In fact, it kind of insulted some of the key groups she needed to inspire (e.g., younger voters, minorities).  Boomer entitlement isn't exactly a great sales pitch for such folks.

The instant that Obama's campaign in the 2008 Democratic primaries finished off Hillary, anyone with a pulse knew that she was A) going to be the 2016 Democratic nominee, and B ) she would be in huge trouble in a nationwide general.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Yknow, that's a very salient point generally speaking.

It's just a frigging investigation.  Just like Russia was just an investigation.  You don't really have anything to complain about until and unless you are charged.**

The old saw "if you didn't do anything wrong, what are you worried about" actually applies to investigations.

**That's not to say that the public can't complain about stupid investigations like Hunter Biden, or Benghazi. But it's nothing to get seriously twisted about until charges come down.

Posted
6 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The instant that Obama's campaign in the 2008 Democratic primaries finished off Hillary, anyone with a pulse knew that she was A) going to be the 2016 Democratic nominee, and B ) she would be in huge trouble in a nationwide general.

This might be true, but also it never even occurred to me that she couldn't beat a well-known baboon's ass until I woke up the day after the election in 2016.

Posted
56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Did he say the same thing about 160k associate starting salaries?

I dunno if he did, but I did.  I hadn't been working there long when the Brobeck-driven salary brinksmanship game started.  After the third raise in a year or something, I remember that my peers in our Dallas office in transactional practices were still cheering.  I was saying "umm...the math no longer works.  They're going to pay us more than we bring in unless we're blowing it out of the water with insane hours.  This isn't sustainable."  They told me to STFU, give us more money.  Shit hit the fan soon enough, and a good number of those guys got laid off.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno if he did, but I did.  I hadn't been working there long when the Brobeck-driven salary brinksmanship game started.  After the third raise in a year or something, I remember that my peers in our Dallas office in transactional practices were still cheering.  I was saying "umm...the math no longer works.  They're going to pay us more than we bring in unless we're blowing it out of the water with insane hours.  This isn't sustainable."  They told me to STFU, give us more money.  Shit hit the fan soon enough, and a good number of those guys got laid off.

I remember that era fondly. I got three raises before I even finished my first year out of law school, topping out at right around $100,000, not including year-end bonus. I don’t recall layoffs at that firm, but right around that time it became increasingly more difficult to make partner. 

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m not technically a lawyer but I pretend to be one 

same for me and architect for forever, but I fixed that recently. glad to get that monkey off my back.

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
Posted (edited)

Not a lawyer.  I work to prevent insurance fraud, and investigate it when the whole prevention thing doesn’t work.

Edited by conVINCEd
Posted
10 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

same for me and architect for forever, but I fixed that recently. glad to get that monkey off my back.

Fake architect then?  Like Art Vandelay?  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I remember that era fondly. I got three raises before I even finished my first year out of law school, topping out at right around $100,000, not including year-end bonus. I don’t recall layoffs at that firm, but right around that time it became increasingly more difficult to make partner. 

Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, GopherRock said:

The instant that Obama's campaign in the 2008 Democratic primaries finished off Hillary, anyone with a pulse knew that she was A) going to be the 2016 Democratic nominee, and B ) she would be in huge trouble in a nationwide general.

The trouble she was in garnered her what up until that time, the largest number of votes in a presidential election ever. Her big mistake seems to be she spent a lot of time talking policy and warning the country about the danger a Trump presidency posed. Even she underestimated the danger.

Posted

He said that this week?  I mean, it's insanity but at least it was a fresh take in the weeks after the insurrection occurred.  But to hang back for 2+ years after all that we know, exhale off your joint and then chime in with, "Whoah, Bro...what if this was a deep state interference move to under mind Trump, man?"  Say what you will about the fucking morons of 2021, at least they came out early with big swings.  Joe has had nothing but time, evidence, money, and access and all this time later...this is his massive epiphany?  It's like 1986, "Hey, I think Vader might by Luke's father man...this could change everything we know about cinema!"  

  • Haha 1
Posted

And loads of them testified under oath that they were participating in the Jan 6 fuckery at the direction of Donald Trump. Hell of a long game if it was a false flag; antifa must pay really well for these losers to hold the line on the framing of Dotard all the way through their own sentencing hearings.

Posted

Well that contradicts Trump, who said it was a government led protest. The government that was led by…. Donald Trump at the time 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 7/24/2023 at 7:54 PM, Gatorubet said:

I just emailed a MAGA acquaintance. I told him, “the reason I’m voting for Biden is that he knows how to get things done. When Trump was in charge of the DOJ, neither Hillary or all those other liberals ever got locked up or indicted. Handsome old Joe Biden has gotten Trump indicted several times - and is about to get him indicted some more. That tells me that Joe is better at presidenting. “

 

negged to achieve rep medley

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

image.png.b82b92a0e15737a98fe784370375676d.png

 

It's my understanding that Trump had already been got. Why would you run a false flag operation to undo his exit from office? I don't think Joe, smart as he looks, has really thought this all the way through.

Posted
12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

image.png.b82b92a0e15737a98fe784370375676d.png

 

It's my understanding that Trump had already been got. Why would you run a false flag operation to undo his exit from office? I don't think Joe, smart as he looks, has really thought this all the way through.

Right, the election took care of Trump.  So why would the false flaggers try to stop the certification of that election? 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, miguelito said:

Right, the election took care of Trump.  So why would the false flaggers try to stop the certification of that election? 

 

4-D chess.

Posted
5 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Who's the Jeb of the 2020 Race? - The New York Times

I’d take a second Clinton over a third Bush every single fucking day of the week. Just the fact that we had to suffer through 8 years of a second Bush, the idiot son of a mediocre president, should’ve warmed everyone to Hillary.

And here’s a handy rule of thumb — whoever Vladimir Putin doesn’t want to be president, that’s who you should vote for. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

Right, the election took care of Trump.  So why would the false flaggers try to stop the certification of that election? 

 

He's saying the people who stormed the capital were maga but he thinks it's possible the IC put false actors inside the crowd to help direct the mob into the capital. 

Still really stupid as Gaffigan points out if Trump didn't want it then he wouldn't have sat on his ass and do nothing while it's happening. 

Rogan is really into conspiracy bullshit so whatever happens he believes the CIA and FBI have a hand in it. 

Posted
7 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

The message needs to be that whole swaths of our population will have their rights taken away under a Trump regime.  You also show the things Biden has done, like the Infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act.  He has been really effective given the thin majority he had.

This right here. It's not about getting the base fired up positively. Those days are over. It's negative campaigning now. 

Bitecofer nails it.

Political scientist and strategist Rachel Bitecofer came to prominence after predicting to the seat the size of the Democrats' rare Blue Wave in the 2018 midterms. At the heart of her prediction lay a powerful concept—negative partisanship, or the idea that voters, even most so-called independents, don’t vote for their candidate so much as they vote against their candidate’s opponent. Seen through this lens, Hit ‘Em Where It Hurts 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...