RugbyRebels

Without looking it up I'd assume Trump was part of the storyline, but it deserves to be true

Mikey Brown wrote:On a slightly lighter Trump related note, I had missed this story from a while back where he called WWE to check that Vince McMahon was okay after a big on-air limo explosion.

“Back in 2007, WWE ran a storyline that culminated with CEO Vince McMahon being blown up in a limo. You don’t need me to tell you that McMahon is still alive and was not actually blown to pieces, because you aren’t a moron who thinks wrestling is real. Apparently, the same cannot be said for our future president.”

https://deadspin.com/triple-h-donald-tr ... 1790037536

Certainly ties in with the stories we hear that his most strongly held opinions tend to just be those of the last thing he saw on TV or the last person he happened to speak to.

Please let that be true.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:On a slightly lighter Trump related note, I had missed this story from a while back where he called WWE to check that Vince McMahon was okay after a big on-air limo explosion.

“Back in 2007, WWE ran a storyline that culminated with CEO Vince McMahon being blown up in a limo. You don’t need me to tell you that McMahon is still alive and was not actually blown to pieces, because you aren’t a moron who thinks wrestling is real. Apparently, the same cannot be said for our future president.”

https://deadspin.com/triple-h-donald-tr ... 1790037536

Certainly ties in with the stories we hear that his most strongly held opinions tend to just be those of the last thing he saw on TV or the last person he happened to speak to.

Please let that be true.

I don't expect anyone to value their time as little as me and actually watch it, but there's a video in there with a guy involved telling the story. He probably knows Trump to be honest.

I'm certainly choosing to believe. Got to have faith in something, right?

Jesus fuck. What a repugnant pack of cunts.

Puja wrote:FB_IMG_1593804575558.jpg

Puja

Wtf, in what context are they tweeting the prisoner symbols? Cant read it

paddy no 11 wrote:

Puja wrote:FB_IMG_1593804575558.jpg

Puja

Wtf, in what context are they tweeting the prisoner symbols? Cant read it

They claim it's a symbol used by Antifa and are "warning against it". Cause nothing bad comes from using the Nazi political prisoner symbol and claiming it's an emblem of the people who oppose you.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/18/tech ... index.html

Puja

Thank you Mr. Trump. Here was me thinking that public health, outrageous social inequality, and institutionalized racism were the main problems of the day, but no, its white grievance. Thank you for pointing this out in front of a packed crowd of sweaty fat white trash while trampling over the rights of native Americans and garnishing your narrative with the cheesiest bits from Red Dawn.

Trump is an irrelevant moron, but maybe someone in his party of out of touch crackers could suggest that someone other than Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner write speeches from now on. Every enabler of this government is on the wrong side of history, so who amongst you has the cojones to stand up and do the right thing before the country fucking collapses?

morepork wrote:Thank you Mr. Trump. Here was me thinking that public health, outrageous social inequality, and institutionalized racism were the main problems of the day, but no, its white grievance. Thank you for pointing this out in front of a packed crowd of sweaty fat white trash while trampling over the rights of native Americans and garnishing your narrative with the cheesiest bits from Red Dawn.

Trump is an irrelevant moron, but maybe someone in his party of out of touch crackers could suggest that someone other than Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner write speeches from now on. Every enabler of this government is on the wrong side of history, so who amongst you has the cojones to stand up and do the right thing before the country fucking collapses?

The problem is...

The narrative is strong. It's been pushed hard and there are millions of Americans who believe in it. Strongly.

Priorities.


Jesus Titty Fucking Christ.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53292585

Tbh I preferred his fans yelling at those from the Lakota Nation protesting the rally in South Dakota to 'go home', presumably on the basis they thought them hispanic (said without any attempt to find out why Trump fans thought their chanting remotely accurate and/or appropriate)

This is how easy it is to stir up his core demographic with nothing but social media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html



This country is sick to it's marrow. Jesus.

It's only about a week ago Trump was tweeting out White Power videos, how young and innocent we were back then. But things are on the up, the Trump campaign have sidelined long time planning officer Michael Glassner and replaced him with someone known to is friends as Half, Jeff DeWit, oddly Jeff knows Jared which is something entirely incidental to Jeff taking on a senior leadership role in the Trump campaign

Digby wrote:A big win for Jamaal Bowman in his congressional primary. Not easy to usurp a sitting candidate, especially not one with such traditional support structures. And does show if Biden wins he's going to face a lot of pressure from his left

What was a step to the left in backing Bowman isn't a step that was repeated in Kentucky where Amy McGrath took the Democratic nomination for Senate over Charles Booker in a race that was closer than expected going back 6 months or so. Booker looks an impressive performer and a name to remember, unless he carries on with rancid bullshit like calling McGrath a Trump Democrat, which was annoying because it was such blatant bollocks and that he had a positive message he ignored to go daftly negative at times.

Whether McGrath can now successfully take the fight to some chap called Mitch McConnell isn't clear, you don't win as many terms as Moscow Mitch without building support and an understanding of what it takes to keep winning. But it's interesting that so far Mitch has very little to say about McGrath, as with Trump and Biden he's not been able to find a negative attack line that's effective about McGrath (and Mitch is a man who likes a negative smear campaign against others), instead Mitch is going with a similar message to Trump, ignore the opponent, ignore Covid, emphasise the looters and rioters

McGrath has already raised a lot of money, so at minimum she's going to force the GOP into a fight where they would hope to walk home unopposed

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:A big win for Jamaal Bowman in his congressional primary. Not easy to usurp a sitting candidate, especially not one with such traditional support structures. And does show if Biden wins he's going to face a lot of pressure from his left

What was a step to the left in backing Bowman isn't a step that was repeated in Kentucky where Amy McGrath took the Democratic nomination for Senate over Charles Booker in a race that was closer than expected going back 6 months or so. Booker looks an impressive performer and a name to remember, unless he carries on with rancid bullshit like calling McGrath a Trump Democrat, which was annoying because it was such blatant bollocks and that he had a positive message he ignored to go daftly negative at times.

Whether McGrath can now successfully take the fight to some chap called Mitch McConnell isn't clear, you don't win as many terms as Moscow Mitch without building support and an understanding of what it takes to keep winning. But it's interesting that so far Mitch has very little to say about McGrath, as with Trump and Biden he's not been able to find a negative attack line that's effective about McGrath (and Mitch is a man who likes a negative smear campaign against others), instead Mitch is going with a similar message to Trump, ignore the opponent, ignore Covid, emphasise the looters and rioters

McGrath has already raised a lot of money, so at minimum she's going to force the GOP into a fight where they would hope to walk home unopposed

That's good news for the Democrats, in my opinion. Booker might be closer to my viewpoint, but in a state like Kentucky, they need a candidate who is as close to the centre ground as possible - the left wing there aren't going to abandon her when there's this much at stake and they need to make a play for as many as possible of the Republican voters who are troubled by Trump and Trumpism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who isn't for guns and country and capitalism. She's pro-stronger immigration controls, pro-2nd amendment, anti-Medicare for all, anti-free tuition, and while she's pro-choice she's leavened that by opposing "late term abortions" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). She might be "not a real Democrat" to a lot of the party, but to people who have voted Republican for decades, that makes her an acceptable option rather than a betrayal of everything their America stands for.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Digby wrote:A big win for Jamaal Bowman in his congressional primary. Not easy to usurp a sitting candidate, especially not one with such traditional support structures. And does show if Biden wins he's going to face a lot of pressure from his left

What was a step to the left in backing Bowman isn't a step that was repeated in Kentucky where Amy McGrath took the Democratic nomination for Senate over Charles Booker in a race that was closer than expected going back 6 months or so. Booker looks an impressive performer and a name to remember, unless he carries on with rancid bullshit like calling McGrath a Trump Democrat, which was annoying because it was such blatant bollocks and that he had a positive message he ignored to go daftly negative at times.

Whether McGrath can now successfully take the fight to some chap called Mitch McConnell isn't clear, you don't win as many terms as Moscow Mitch without building support and an understanding of what it takes to keep winning. But it's interesting that so far Mitch has very little to say about McGrath, as with Trump and Biden he's not been able to find a negative attack line that's effective about McGrath (and Mitch is a man who likes a negative smear campaign against others), instead Mitch is going with a similar message to Trump, ignore the opponent, ignore Covid, emphasise the looters and rioters

McGrath has already raised a lot of money, so at minimum she's going to force the GOP into a fight where they would hope to walk home unopposed

That's good news for the Democrats, in my opinion. Booker might be closer to my viewpoint, but in a state like Kentucky, they need a candidate who is as close to the centre ground as possible - the left wing there aren't going to abandon her when there's this much at stake and they need to make a play for as many as possible of the Republican voters who are troubled by Trump and Trumpism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who isn't for guns and country and capitalism. She's pro-stronger immigration controls, pro-2nd amendment, anti-Medicare for all, anti-free tuition, and while she's pro-choice she's leavened that by opposing "late term abortions" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). She might be "not a real Democrat" to a lot of the party, but to people who have voted Republican for decades, that makes her an acceptable option rather than a betrayal of everything their America stands for.

Puja

Isn't that a stick anti-abortionists use to suggest it's wrong? That you can have an abortion when the baby is already a baby! OMG! So, by saying this, she might just be negating that viewpoint. Doesn't change much, as late-term abortions are generally a bad idea anyway.

And we now get to see in clear terms how Moscow Mitch will spend GOP money. Whilst the GOP is very popular in Kentucky it probably isn't a surprise that Mitch as a consequence of being Mitch really isn't, Bernie Sanders might a have better individual popularity rating in the Bluegrass state for all I know, so will Mitch spend to save himself, or will he target monies in a manner that best supports the Republicans?

The Lincoln Project, on the verge of making themselves a celebrity cause against Trump, have started doing something quite interesting in targeting any number of down stream races in favour of the Dems. It's a ballsy move, and even if they see both houses of Congress go Blue and Biden win it's not obvious they'll even get the discussion they want around a return to tradition conservative values

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
What was a step to the left in backing Bowman isn't a step that was repeated in Kentucky where Amy McGrath took the Democratic nomination for Senate over Charles Booker in a race that was closer than expected going back 6 months or so. Booker looks an impressive performer and a name to remember, unless he carries on with rancid bullshit like calling McGrath a Trump Democrat, which was annoying because it was such blatant bollocks and that he had a positive message he ignored to go daftly negative at times.

Whether McGrath can now successfully take the fight to some chap called Mitch McConnell isn't clear, you don't win as many terms as Moscow Mitch without building support and an understanding of what it takes to keep winning. But it's interesting that so far Mitch has very little to say about McGrath, as with Trump and Biden he's not been able to find a negative attack line that's effective about McGrath (and Mitch is a man who likes a negative smear campaign against others), instead Mitch is going with a similar message to Trump, ignore the opponent, ignore Covid, emphasise the looters and rioters

McGrath has already raised a lot of money, so at minimum she's going to force the GOP into a fight where they would hope to walk home unopposed

That's good news for the Democrats, in my opinion. Booker might be closer to my viewpoint, but in a state like Kentucky, they need a candidate who is as close to the centre ground as possible - the left wing there aren't going to abandon her when there's this much at stake and they need to make a play for as many as possible of the Republican voters who are troubled by Trump and Trumpism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who isn't for guns and country and capitalism. She's pro-stronger immigration controls, pro-2nd amendment, anti-Medicare for all, anti-free tuition, and while she's pro-choice she's leavened that by opposing "late term abortions" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). She might be "not a real Democrat" to a lot of the party, but to people who have voted Republican for decades, that makes her an acceptable option rather than a betrayal of everything their America stands for.

Puja

Isn't that a stick anti-abortionists use to suggest it's wrong? That you can have an abortion when the baby is already a baby! OMG! So, by saying this, she might just be negating that viewpoint. Doesn't change much, as late-term abortions are generally a bad idea anyway.

It is, but it's also a fake point that pro-choice people use to show themselves as moderates - they're pro-choice, sure, but they stand firmly against those swathes of immoral people who are going in to have an abortion 2 weeks before due for the lols, so they're really anti-abortion when you look at it!

It's solid politicking, but meaningless when you actually look at it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's good news for the Democrats, in my opinion. Booker might be closer to my viewpoint, but in a state like Kentucky, they need a candidate who is as close to the centre ground as possible - the left wing there aren't going to abandon her when there's this much at stake and they need to make a play for as many as possible of the Republican voters who are troubled by Trump and Trumpism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone who isn't for guns and country and capitalism. She's pro-stronger immigration controls, pro-2nd amendment, anti-Medicare for all, anti-free tuition, and while she's pro-choice she's leavened that by opposing "late term abortions" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). She might be "not a real Democrat" to a lot of the party, but to people who have voted Republican for decades, that makes her an acceptable option rather than a betrayal of everything their America stands for.

Puja

Isn't that a stick anti-abortionists use to suggest it's wrong? That you can have an abortion when the baby is already a baby! OMG! So, by saying this, she might just be negating that viewpoint. Doesn't change much, as late-term abortions are generally a bad idea anyway.

It is, but it's also a fake point that pro-choice people use to show themselves as moderates - they're pro-choice, sure, but they stand firmly against those swathes of immoral people who are going in to have an abortion 2 weeks before due for the lols, so they're really anti-abortion when you look at it!

It's solid politicking, but meaningless when you actually look at it.

Puja

Well, yeah, that's the idea...counter their argument with something meaningless for 90% of people but that negates the negative reaction in 10%.

That's simple and it works.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
Isn't that a stick anti-abortionists use to suggest it's wrong? That you can have an abortion when the baby is already a baby! OMG! So, by saying this, she might just be negating that viewpoint. Doesn't change much, as late-term abortions are generally a bad idea anyway.

It is, but it's also a fake point that pro-choice people use to show themselves as moderates - they're pro-choice, sure, but they stand firmly against those swathes of immoral people who are going in to have an abortion 2 weeks before due for the lols, so they're really anti-abortion when you look at it!

It's solid politicking, but meaningless when you actually look at it.

Puja

Well, yeah, that's the idea...counter their argument with something meaningless for 90% of people but that negates the negative reaction in 10%.

That's simple and it works.

Ah, I think we're arguing exactly the same thing. I blame my lack of coherency.

Puja

Um...



Am I the last person to find out this existed or what?

So these Lincoln project people seem like... a bunch of cunts? No?

Mikey Brown wrote:So these Lincoln project people seem like... a bunch of cunts? No?

You know those personal and not attack ads the republicans are famous for? The ones I personally found disgusting?

Well, guess where the worst of the lot is working now?

So yes, you are mostly accurate.

You go down the road and you find you have strange companions to your journey...

Better than KKK or white nationalist, in my view. Still strange companions.

Mikey Brown wrote:So these Lincoln project people seem like... a bunch of cunts? No?

No.

I don't share their politics, but their concern that whatever the politics there be a demonstration of honesty and endeavour and even basic humanity doesn't seem unreasonable