Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Election 2024 & Presidential Cage Match: Dark Brandon 46 vs Felonious Farty 45


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

Christie said that the Presidents of Harvard, Penn and Cornell should be fired. I heard this on C-SPAN. No media coverage of this at all.  It's ridiculous. He basically accused the University Presidents of being closet antisemites... I find that a bit ridiculous.  

 

Best thing I heard is that he has qualified for the 4th debate.  Most interesting thing is he said it was a mistake to support Trump in 2016. I am wondering if Biden campaign can recruit him for 2024....

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Trump’s advantage in New Hampshire remains short of the majority support he garners in primary polling nationally: 42% say they would vote for him, followed by Haley at 20%, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 14%, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis at 9%, tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy at 8%, and no other candidate holding more than 2% support. Haley’s support has climbed 8 percentage points from the last CNN/UNH poll in September, with Ramaswamy dipping 5 points and support for Trump, Christie and DeSantis remaining relatively steady.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/politics/cnn-poll-new-hampshire-republican-primary/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2023 at 11:36 AM, Renegade7 said:

 

.......

 

I love Obama, but he was a mediocre president that set the stage for our country not electing someone because it would be a first for us anymore (it diluted Hillary being first women president being enough to beat Trump).

 

......

 

 

 

 this is just...... nonsensical.      Obama set the stage for trump by existing, and existing as a darkie.  Obama was (is) galling to Trumps base, and it awakened them in a huge way... but to call that a failure of his presidency is an insult to obama, and frankly, to humanity in general.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/11/16/donald-trump-poses-the-biggest-danger-to-the-world-in-2024

 

Quote
Leaders | America and the world

Donald Trump poses the biggest danger to the world in 2024

What his victory in America’s election would mean

20231118_LDD001.jpg image: andrea ucini
Nov 16th 2023

A shadow looms over the world. In this week’s edition we publish The World Ahead 2024, our 38th annual predictive guide to the coming year, and in all that time no single person has ever eclipsed our analysis as much as Donald Trump eclipses 2024. That a Trump victory next November is a coin-toss probability is beginning to sink in.

 

Mr Trump dominates the Republican primary. Several polls have him ahead of President Joe Biden in swing states. In one, for the New York Times, 59% of voters trusted him on the economy, compared with just 37% for Mr Biden. In the primaries, at least, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions have only strengthened Mr Trump. For decades Democrats have relied on support among black and Hispanic voters, but a meaningful number are abandoning the party. In the next 12 months a stumble by either candidate could determine the race—and thus upend the world.

 

This is a perilous moment for a man like Mr Trump to be back knocking on the door of the Oval Office. Democracy is in trouble at home. Mr Trump’s claim to have won the election in 2020 was more than a lie: it was a cynical bet that he could manipulate and intimidate his compatriots, and it has worked. America also faces growing hostility abroad, challenged by Russia in Ukraine, by Iran and its allied militias in the Middle East and by China across the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea. Those three countries loosely co-ordinate their efforts and share a vision of a new international order in which might is right and autocrats are secure.

 

Because maga Republicans have been planning his second term for months, Trump 2 would be more organised than Trump 1. True believers would occupy the most important positions. Mr Trump would be unbound in his pursuit of retribution, economic protectionism and theatrically extravagant deals. No wonder the prospect of a second Trump term fills the world’s parliaments and boardrooms with despair. But despair is not a plan. It is past time to impose order on anxiety.

 

The greatest threat Mr Trump poses is to his own country. Having won back power because of his election-denial in 2020, he would surely be affirmed in his gut feeling that only losers allow themselves to be bound by the norms, customs and self-sacrifice that make a nation. In pursuing his enemies, Mr Trump will wage war on any institution that stands in his way, including the courts and the Department of Justice.

 

Yet a Trump victory next year would also have a profound effect abroad. China and its friends would rejoice over the evidence that American democracy is dysfunctional. If Mr Trump trampled due process and civil rights in the United States, his diplomats could not proclaim them abroad. The global south would be confirmed in its suspicion that American appeals to do what is right are really just an exercise in hypocrisy. America would become just another big power.

 

Mr Trump’s protectionist instincts would be unbound, too. In his first term the economy thrived despite his China tariffs. His plans for a second term would be more damaging. He and his lieutenants are contemplating a universal 10% levy on imports, more than three times the level today. Even if the Senate reins him in, protectionism justified by an expansive view of national security would increase prices for Americans. Mr Trump also fired up the economy in his first term by cutting taxes and handing out covid-19 payments. This time, America is running budget deficits on a scale only seen in war and the cost of servicing debts is higher. Tax cuts would feed inflation, not growth.

Abroad, Mr Trump’s first term was better than expected. His administration provided weapons to Ukraine, pursued a peace deal between Israel, the uae and Bahrain, and scared European countries into raising their defence spending. America’s policy towards China became more hawkish. If you squint, another transactional presidency could bring some benefits. Mr Trump’s indifference to human rights might make the Saudi government more biddable once the Gaza war is over, and strengthen relations with Narendra Modi’s government in India.

 

But a second term would be different, because the world has changed. There is nothing wrong in countries being transactional: they are bound to put their own interests first. However, Mr Trump’s lust for a deal and his sense of America’s interests are unconstrained by reality and unanchored by values.

 

Mr Trump judges that for America to spend blood and treasure in Europe is a bad deal. He has therefore threatened to end the Ukraine war in a day and to wreck nato, perhaps by reneging on America’s commitment to treat an attack on one country as an attack on all. In the Middle East Mr Trump is likely to back Israel without reserve, however much that stirs up conflict in the region. In Asia he may be open to doing a deal with China’s president, Xi Jinping, to abandon Taiwan because he cannot see why America would go to war with a nuclear-armed superpower to benefit a tiny island.

 

But knowing that America would abandon Europe, Mr Putin would have an incentive to fight on in Ukraine and to pick off former Soviet countries such as Moldova or the Baltic states. Without American pressure, Israel is unlikely to generate an internal consensus for peace talks with the Palestinians. Calculating that Mr Trump does not stand by his allies, Japan and South Korea could acquire nuclear weapons. By asserting that America has no global responsibility to help deal with climate change, Mr Trump would crush efforts to slow it. And he is surrounded by China hawks who believe confrontation is the only way to preserve American dominance. Caught between a dealmaking president and his warmongering officials, China could easily miscalculate over Taiwan, with catastrophic consequences.

 

The election that matters
A second Trump term would be a watershed in a way the first was not. Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, its moral authority would decline. The election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters in just a handful of states. In 2024 the fate of the world will depend on their ballots. 
 

 

this is not hyperbole.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/11/16/donald-trump-poses-the-biggest-danger-to-the-world-in-2024

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 this is just...... nonsensical.      Obama set the stage for trump by existing, and existing as a darkie.  Obama was (is) galling to Trumps base, and it awakened them in a huge way... but to call that a failure of his presidency is an insult to obama, and frankly, to humanity in general.

 

That isn't a specific failure of Obama's presidency, I never said that...more backfiring in regards to the number of people that voted for him because he was black and first real chance at the first black president. 

 

Even then in 07-08 I felt Hillary was more qualified, but made a judgment based a lot on how he articulated himself that he'd be a better leader, that recovering from the great recession would be self-explanatory and her better on the job as larger matters after that he'd be better ready to address.

 

That's not how it worked out, many people I know flat out admit the reason they voted for him was to have a black president, same as how many voted for Hillary to have a first female president.

 

We shouldn't vote like this, its hard of seen how electing Obama would've lead to Trump, case can be made electing Hillary would've reduced the amount of race-based vitriol that built up around the same time Trump started establishing his base wouldn't of been the same if it was gender based with Hillary. 

 

Thats all revisionist speculation, it's not Obama's fault Trump came next, it's ours.  The less we talk about first the more we can talk about folks just being the right person for the job, but that really hard with so many first left to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That isn't a specific failure of Obama's presidency, I never said that...more backfiring in regards to the number of people that voted for him because he was black and first real chance at the first black president. 

 

Even then in 07-08 I felt Hillary was more qualified, but made a judgment based a lot on how he articulated himself that he'd be a better leader, that recovering from the great recession would be self-explanatory and her better on the job as larger matters after that he'd be better ready to address.

 

That's not how it worked out, many people I know flat out admit the reason they voted for him was to have a black president, same as how many voted for Hillary to have a first female president.

 

We shouldn't vote like this, its hard of seen how electing Obama would've lead to Trump, case can be made electing Hillary would've reduced the amount of race-based vitriol that built up around the same time Trump started establishing his base wouldn't of been the same if it was gender based with Hillary. 

 

Thats all revisionist speculation, it's not Obama's fault Trump came next, it's ours.  The less we talk about first the more we can talk about folks just being the right person for the job, but that really hard with so many first left to go.

 

If you're trying to say people should vote for candidate A or B because they would be good not because they would be the first whatever, I agree.  But if that's the point you are trying to make, you really lose me with the Obama/Hillary/Trump mash up going on your post.  I don't really follow what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

If you're trying to say people should vote for candidate A or B because they would be good not because they would be the first whatever, I agree.  But if that's the point you are trying to make, you really lose me with the Obama/Hillary/Trump mash up going on your post.  I don't really follow what you are trying to say.

 

The first point is what really matters, the second is just another opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Christie Snaps at Newsmax Host: ‘No! I’m Not Gonna Put Up With You Saying That,”

 

“Going after Trump doesn’t seem to be working. I mean, is it time to change the strategy?” asked Bolling on his show The Balance, to which Christie replied:

 

Quote

No, it’s not time to change the strategy. The guy who’s 20 points ahead is the guy you have to beat to be the nominee, Eric and that’s why I think the Haley and DeSantis strategy is so ineffective and why Ron DeSantis is now in single digits in New Hampshire, because he’s not making the case against the one person who you need to beat if you want to be the Republican nominee for president, and that’s Donald Trump.

 

And by the way, the reason I make that case is not just because I want to win, but I want our party to win, and he [Trump] will not beat Joe Biden from, you know, a courtroom in Washington, D.C., where he’s being tried for crimes. And now, Eric, his own chief of staff has signed up to testify against him. Not some, you know, woke prosecutor. Not some crazy Democrat from the Justice Department. Mark Meadows, one of the founders of the Freedom Caucus and his chief of staff, is going to testify that Donald Trump committed crimes.


Click on the link for the full article 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump tripped by 88 pages of contributions that ‘exceed federal limits’

 

The Federal Election Commission sent Donald Trump’s presidential campaign committee an 88-page list of contributions that it says appear to exceed federal limits.
 

The FEC letter to Donald J. Trump For President 2024, Inc., flags contributions from 72 individuals. As in the past with Trump, several people gave relatively small amounts so often — sometimes multiple donations on the same day — that they appear addicted to giving the former president their money.

 

Federal rules mandate that individuals aren’t allowed to give more than $3,300 per election to candidates for federal office. That includes multiple small donations that, taken together, exceed the limit.

 

Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Accepting some level of excessive contributions — and having the FEC call them into question — isn’t unusual for a big-dollar presidential campaign, be it Republican or Democrat.

 

But the campaigns do have to correct the problems, often by issuing refunds or by the donor redesignating excess donations for a later campaign — for example, the general election instead of the primary.

 

What’s notable for Trump is the number of MAGA supporters who exceed the federal campaign donation limits by making repeated small-dollar donations to Trump — a man who famously brags about wealth.

 

The New York Times reported in 2021 that Trump used aggressive fundraising techniques that caused donors to unwittingly give his campaign more money than they had planned. Trump’s committee had to return millions in campaign contributions because people intending to make a single payment didn’t understand that they had to opt out of recurring payments by unchecking a box on an online payment form.

 

Despite facing 91 felony counts across four criminal cases, Trump’s fundraising has continued at full speed with the former president using the legal troubles as fundraising fodder, Raw Story reported.

 

Click on the link for the full article 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

Hey.  

 

For him simply letting somebody else write that, and him not "improving" it, is a major sign of restraint.  

 

Or he's busy watching videos of himself.  

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if he dies will some folks not believe it and someone or organization will capitalize on that like some Weekend at Bernie's ghostwriter...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sometimes I wonder if he dies will some folks not believe it and someone or organization will capitalize on that like some Weekend at Bernie's ghostwriter...

 

I could imagine his kids burying him on a golf course, and keeping him Twitter account going. 

 

But who am I kidding? His kids will be eating each other's faces, over the scraps of the estate. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...