New member first post (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

JimEverett

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
29
Age
111
Location
Nashville
Offline
Trump's only way to win is drive his opponent's negatives through the roof - essentially getting them close to his negatives. I think Warren or Sanders are the easiest ones to do that to.
That doesn't mean I think Trump will beat Warren, but I do think he has a shot against her.
And you can tell Trump fears Biden for exactly that reason. No way he can run up Biden's negatives to anywhere close to his own.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
57
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Trump is already having success getting Republicans and swing voters to see Biden as corrupt as or even more corrupt than Trump is.

I think Biden is the most suceptible to Trump's tactics, that's why Trump is targeting him the most. Bullies always prey on the people they think are the weakest and most vulnerable.
 

lurk

NOT Seth Dunlap
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
24
Reaction score
18
Location
on [ ] off [x]
Offline
Trump is already having success getting Republicans and swing voters to see Biden as corrupt as or even more corrupt than Trump is.

I think Biden is the most suceptible to Trump's tactics, that's why Trump is targeting him the most. Bullies always prey on the people they think are the weakest and most vulnerable.
While I think you are right about the general behavior of bullies, I disagree in the case of Trump. I think Trump is attacking Biden because he thinks Biden poses the biggest threat out of the frontrunners to his reelection. I also think he thinks that potential Biden voters are the most swayable votes on that side (namely independents who are interested in Biden).

You can observe this same behavior as it relates to the media in general. Recall that when the term "fake news" first appeared towards the end of the last election, it was a term used by the press to describe fake, purposely manipulative right wing news that generally targeted social media. Trump and the right wing media immediately latched onto the term and began using it so ubiquitously that it had morphed in common parlance to refer to "mainstream," "liberal" media as a whole and to any news unfavorable to Trump in particular. It was a complete redefining of the word in a matter of weeks because it was a word that threatened the effectiveness of the Republicans.

Notice also the case of CNN. In the political spectrum of cable news networks, the left to right alignment is clearly MSNBC - CNN - FOX. CNN has always been by far the centrist of the networks. Because they are the most centrist, they tend to be the most trusted by voters who don't bat for a specific party as well as moderates who do bat for a party. They are also the network that more polarized voters would use to fact check information from the highly partisan networks when it didn't sound quite right. Notice that when Trump began his attack on the media, he didn't go after MSNBC, he went after CNN. In fact, he continues to frequently go after CNN and barely ever mentions MSNBC, despite the fact that it is far more critical of him. The reason for this is that he knows he has to do tons of work to change the mind of a few MSNBC viewers, while he and the right wing media have managed to paint CNN as far left of MSNBC in the minds of their base - leaving Fox as the sole, unquestioned source of news information for a significant segment of the country.

This is not a schoolyard bully. This is a targeted effort (with significant behind-the-scenes support from those much smarter and more savvy than himself) to silently move the yardsticks such a distance that the perspective is permanently skewed for those who don't notice it happening.
 

Lazybones

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
234
Reaction score
74
Age
46
Location
Louisiana
Online
Trump's only way to win is drive his opponent's negatives through the roof - essentially getting them close to his negatives. I think Warren or Sanders are the easiest ones to do that to.
That doesn't mean I think Trump will beat Warren, but I do think he has a shot against her.
And you can tell Trump fears Biden for exactly that reason. No way he can run up Biden's negatives to anywhere close to his own.
Really? It seems like Biden will be the easiest to make a fool of. He doesn’t handle the pressure very well imo.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
130
Location
Midwest
Offline
It sure seems to me that Trump is most afraid of Biden. He sure went to a lot of trouble, broke some laws, committed unethical acts to try to smear Biden, and specifically Biden.
 

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
57
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
While I think you are right about the general behavior of bullies, I disagree in the case of Trump. I think Trump is attacking Biden because he thinks Biden poses the biggest threat out of the frontrunners to his reelection. I also think he thinks that potential Biden voters are the most swayable votes on that side (namely independents who are interested in Biden).
I was speaking of political vulnerability. If Trump sees Biden's voters as the most swayable votes, that makes Biden the most politically vulnerable and weakest in Trump's worldview. If Trump really does see them as the most swayable, then logically Biden is who he would want to face in the general election.

I think the actual bigger threats from the Democratic candidates are the one's with the least swayable voters. That gives them the advantage of being able to play offense with the undecideds, instead of playing defense to protect their voters from being swayed by Trump's lies.
Notice also the case of CNN. In the political spectrum of cable news networks, the left to right alignment is clearly MSNBC - CNN - FOX. CNN has always been by far the centrist of the networks. Because they are the most centrist, they tend to be the most trusted by voters who don't bat for a specific party as well as moderates who do bat for a party. They are also the network that more polarized voters would use to fact check information from the highly partisan networks when it didn't sound quite right. Notice that when Trump began his attack on the media, he didn't go after MSNBC, he went after CNN. In fact, he continues to frequently go after CNN and barely ever mentions MSNBC, despite the fact that it is far more critical of him. The reason for this is that he knows he has to do tons of work to change the mind of a few MSNBC viewers, while he and the right wing media have managed to paint CNN as far left of MSNBC in the minds of their base - leaving Fox as the sole, unquestioned source of news information for a significant segment of the country.
First, CNN was considered "liberal" and "left" leaning by FOX consumers long before Trump became involved in politics.

Second, again this is an example of Trump preying on the vulnerable. He knows he can't sway the MSNBC audience, so he goes after the susceptible audience which is CNN's audience.

Swindlers target those that are the easiest for them to swindle. In both of your above examples, Trump is preying on Biden voters and CNN watchers, because he thinks they are the easy marks. Easy marks are not seen as a threat or strong. Easy marks are seen as vulnerable and weak.
This is not a schoolyard bully.
I agree. It's despot and autocratic bullying. It's still bullying. It's still more driven by emotions, than it is by reason.
This is a targeted effort (with significant behind-the-scenes support from those much smarter and more savvy than himself) to silently move the yardsticks such a distance that the perspective is permanently skewed for those who don't notice it happening.
Trump does what Trump impulsively and selfishly wants to do. The reason he's had such a high turnover of campaign advisers, cabinet members and other appointed advisers is because Trump does not listen to expert advice. In fact he's very contrarian to expert advise and has a high disdain for experts. I think people make the mistake of thinking that Trump does anything like other people do. He doesn't. Trump is attacking Biden, because Trump wants to attack Biden. His current advisers may be on board with it, but not for the same reasons Trump is.

When trying to understand Trump's motivations for anything, the first thing one has to do is put themselves in the mind of someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and obsessive compulsive tendencies. Nothing about Trump is normal or truly rational, including what motivates him to do the things that he does.
 
Last edited:

Andrus

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
50
Reaction score
69
Age
60
Location
Sunset, Louisiana
Offline
Welcome to the community Indy 2019. I heard from a friend here that you are a really great fellow. :9:

As System Shock stated, we are still in testing mode and it is mostly members from our old political board participating right now. We have been waiting patiently on our coder to shake free to make a few fixes to some of his custom work before we launch officially and come out of the shadows. Hopefully you will hang in there with us. :9:
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
116
Reaction score
88
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Online
Yes, I think she could. Is she my preferred candidate? No, but she's in the top 3. I'm probably the odd ball. I like Mayor Pete. The guy just resonates with me. Probably due to growing up within an hour of each other around the same time frame.

Warren on the issues. Sure, some will be off putting to the conservatives, and some moderates, but a lot are pretty populist notions of wage stagnation, property prices, a lack of housing supply, unfair corporate practices, and re-aligning the taxes on the wealthy.


I do think the wealth tax, while probably terrifying, is also a novel approach. You can still center it on the housing marking. The wealthy and banks scooped up so many properties. So many LLC's own properties, with a lack of new homes being built, mostly due to land and labor/materials costs. There has been a tremendous 'wealth' transfer, but not necessarily income. So, is concentrating that much 'wealth' a good thing or bad thing for our country/economy? Wealth, doesn't circulate through the economy, income does. You don't spend your wealth, you spend your cash flow (usually income).

In a way, it's a class based gentrification of many of our cities.

I think a lot of her views / ideas / stances, can really tackle those problems.

But back on Pete, for a quick thing. He's more polished/restrained than I'd expect, but what you can see, is that he legitimately Listens to people, thinks about what they are saying, then acts/responds. I think that's an excellent executive quality. He'd listen, consider, and take decisive, thoughtful action.
 
OP
OP

Indy2019

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
4
Reaction score
9
Age
68
Location
Opelousas, LA
Offline
Yes, I think she could. Is she my preferred candidate? No, but she's in the top 3. I'm probably the odd ball. I like Mayor Pete. The guy just resonates with me. Probably due to growing up within an hour of each other around the same time frame.

Warren on the issues. Sure, some will be off putting to the conservatives, and some moderates, but a lot are pretty populist notions of wage stagnation, property prices, a lack of housing supply, unfair corporate practices, and re-aligning the taxes on the wealthy.


I do think the wealth tax, while probably terrifying, is also a novel approach. You can still center it on the housing marking. The wealthy and banks scooped up so many properties. So many LLC's own properties, with a lack of new homes being built, mostly due to land and labor/materials costs. There has been a tremendous 'wealth' transfer, but not necessarily income. So, is concentrating that much 'wealth' a good thing or bad thing for our country/economy? Wealth, doesn't circulate through the economy, income does. You don't spend your wealth, you spend your cash flow (usually income).

In a way, it's a class based gentrification of many of our cities.

I think a lot of her views / ideas / stances, can really tackle those problems.

But back on Pete, for a quick thing. He's more polished/restrained than I'd expect, but what you can see, is that he legitimately Listens to people, thinks about what they are saying, then acts/responds. I think that's an excellent executive quality. He'd listen, consider, and take decisive, thoughtful action.
I’m a moderate and listed as independent. Of all the dem candidates I like Mayor Pete the best. He listens. He thinks. He’s not predictable, that is, not dogmatic. He actually answers the question he’s asked. Unfortunately I don’t think this is his time for the number one slot. Today, I’d rate Warren as the candidate to win the nomination. This may be the first time in my life (68yo) that I may not vote. Trump or Warren? No place for me to go. I don’t know if you’ve read Howard Schultz most recent book. He was considering running as an independent. Really liked what he had to say and the way he counted on talented people to get big things done.
 

st dude

Admin
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
14
Reaction score
36
Location
Louisiana
Offline
I’m a moderate and listed as independent. Of all the dem candidates I like Mayor Pete the best. He listens. He thinks. He’s not predictable, that is, not dogmatic. He actually answers the question he’s asked. Unfortunately I don’t think this is his time for the number one slot. Today, I’d rate Warren as the candidate to win the nomination. This may be the first time in my life (68yo) that I may not vote. Trump or Warren? No place for me to go. I don’t know if you’ve read Howard Schultz most recent book. He was considering running as an independent. Really liked what he had to say and the way he counted on talented people to get big things done.

I easily could have not voted in the last election with Clinton and Trump as the choices, and there have been other elections I felt the same way. I always end up voting though because it’s never been a pure case of equal evils for me, so I vote for the lesser evil as a vote against the greater evil. Every candidate for me is a lesser evil than Trump. I can’t stand Ted Cruz either, but if they were the only two running, I would easily pull the lever for Cruz.

That said, it’s a moot point for us in Louisiana. No matter how you or I vote, Trump still wins the state. I am actually fine with your mostly symbolic protest by not voting with those two choices. It’s not like it will be close where our votes count.

I personally always end up voting when faced with two unacceptable choices. I just feel somehow that i have to vote, and I see it not as voting for a candidate I do not like but rather as voting against the greater evil of the two.

There might not be a greater evil for you in this race, I get that. I wish Mayor Pete would pull an upset and get the nomination. I think you and I could end up voting for the same person. Lol. You never know. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both came out of nowhere to get their nominations.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
130
Location
Midwest
Offline
I wouldn’t count Mayor Pete out just yet. He would be my first choice as well, especially if there would be someone more experienced on the ticket with him.

Warren would be fine with me as well. She’s got the best plan for ending the influence of special interests in our government, I think. She’s not as far left as Sanders, she knows the value of preserving our market economy. I would also vote for Biden without hesitation. Of course, in the famous words of one of our former Republicans on here, I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Trump.

The case could be made that the Republicans would be politically smart to remove Trump from office and clear the way for a Haley primary battle against Pence. At least we’d have a valid choice in 2020.
 

lurk

NOT Seth Dunlap
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
24
Reaction score
18
Location
on [ ] off [x]
Offline
I, too, like Mayor Pete (although if I'm being honest, I think he benefits from my general disinterest in pretty much the entire rest of the field).
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
116
Reaction score
88
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Online
So, here is a weird thing.

A lot of people all say they like him. So... how come that doesn't translate to the polls?

Is it a certain kind of demographic? Is it that so many on the left are fed up (like how the right felt) that they want to go big/extreme?

Anger, to me, has never been a great way to run a country. It's a great way to have a revolt...
 

JimEverett

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
29
Age
111
Location
Nashville
Offline
Trump is already having success getting Republicans and swing voters to see Biden as corrupt as or even more corrupt than Trump is.

I think Biden is the most suceptible to Trump's tactics, that's why Trump is targeting him the most. Bullies always prey on the people they think are the weakest and most vulnerable.
I see your point. It is interesting and perhaps true.
But I am thinking along the lines that with a Warren or Sanders Trump can more easily drive negatives up in emphasizing the "scariness" of their ideas. So, for example, suburban women (as an example) who voted for Democrats in 2018 and dislike Trump might go to Trump out of fear of some sort of economic shock.
I think that would be a much harder job if Biden were the nminee.
 

Dadsdream

Ugly people have ugly children.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
40
Age
62
Location
Hancock
Offline
If 2016 taught us nothing else, it's that political public opinion polls should never be presented as facts.
Any conclusions or predictions drawn from such polls carry roughly the same weight as tarot cards and tea leaves.
Of course, that's just my opinion. :hihi:
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
116
Reaction score
88
Age
39
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Online
If 2016 taught us nothing else, it's that political public opinion polls should never be presented as facts.
Any conclusions or predictions drawn from such polls carry roughly the same weight as tarot cards and tea leaves.
Of course, that's just my opinion. :hihi:
I'm going to nit pick. They are facts. But they do not predict outcomes with 100% certainty. I believe that is what you actually meant though.

They are better than tea leaves, though.

Even the 2016 polling showed significant error overlap in the polling. It reflected the popular vote pretty well, but the states that were very close showed a significant chance of either candidate winning.

Obviously opinion polls, even the best, don't capture the exact mix of county demographics to accurately predict the polls that matter... the voting polls.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom