Page 40 of 170 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 800 of 3387
  1. #781
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I agree with this.

    Trump uses the nicknames to brand his opponents. It is an old marketing gimmick. Putting aside my personal dislike of such tactics as fifth-grade bully stuff, there is no doubt that monikers such as "Crooked Hillary," "Pocahontas," "Low Energy Jeb" and ""Lyin' Ted Cruz" were/are very effective whether they are true or not.
    I strongly agree. It worked in 2016 and may work again in 2020. KISS matches up well with most U.S. voter's attention spans.

  2. #782
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    "OPK in 2020: Honey Badger Don't Care"

    Join the team, I'll name you to the Fed or whatever cabinet spot you want. Maybe a nice ambassadorship?
    SOLD! I'd like to Chair the Fed since, IMO, following Powell will be much easier than any other Chair of my lifetime.

  3. #783
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    SOLD! I'd like to Chair the Fed since, IMO, following Powell will be much easier than any other Chair of my lifetime.
    The job is yours.

    "Money doesn't talk -- it swears"
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  4. #784
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    The job is yours.
    Cool, heaven help this fool!

  5. #785
    I was typing a post delicately opining that discussion the effectiveness of the strategy of name-calling is within bounds for this thread, but endorsing/disapproving the specifics of that strategy might move closer to the PPB line - but others have already said as much, and far more effectively than I could.

    So, along strategic lines - surely "Sleepy Joe Biden" is not a typo (or maybe that was tongue in cheek, bundaberg?), but instead a name meant to evoke "Creepy Joe Biden" while giving Trump's camp the ability to point to the widely covered instance of Biden appearing to sleep through one of Obama's speeches and insist that they are targeting his age and apparent drowsiness instead of creepiness, right? Two birds with one stone and all that?

  6. #786
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Agreed! I also find it somewhat ironic that Sanders and Warren are One Percenters!
    Technically, pretty much anyone in the US making a "living wage" as defined by Sanders and Warren as $15/hr is in the top 1%. All it takes is $32,400 as a single person and you are in the top 1% of income worldwide. It's not a particularly hard hurdle to clear in the US of A (or most first world countries).

    It also highlights that as much as politicians in the US like to complain about income inequality they rarely look at the problem with a global scale.

    http://www.globalrichlist.com

  7. #787
    I was trying to remember if Trump had used "Sleepy" for anybody else and lo and behold there is a "List of nicknames used by Donald Trump" entry in Wikipedia.

  8. #788
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    What do you think is his outside date to announce? I could be wrong, but I don't think he has any infrastructure set up yet and the fundraising race is already going strong. Memorial Day weekend, maybe? That still seems awfully late to me, even with the name recognition he brings if he runs.

    I'll lower my odds of Uncle Joe running from about 75% to about 55% and falling. There are few visible signs of mounting a campaign and the push-back against the Creepy Joe meme was pretty muted. But like I suggested, if I was in the moderate camp as a candidate, a potential candidate (like Bloomberg), or most importantly a donor I would want some clarity on the issue much sooner than later. Fish or cut bait time should be approaching.
    Still plenty of time, especially for someone with Biden's name recognition. For comparison, Trump descended into the GOP race (via escalator) on June 16, 2015.

  9. #789
    Quote Originally Posted by IrishDevil View Post

    So, along strategic lines - surely "Sleepy Joe Biden" is not a typo (or maybe that was tongue in cheek, bundaberg?), but instead a name meant to evoke "Creepy Joe Biden" while giving Trump's camp the ability to point to the widely covered instance of Biden appearing to sleep through one of Obama's speeches and insist that they are targeting his age and apparent drowsiness instead of creepiness, right? Two birds with one stone and all that?
    If so, I bet Trump didnít come up with it. Or if he did, heís off game.

    I am surprised Trump didnít just go with Creepy Joe.

  10. #790
    Well, I got the name calling/nick name conversation going but expect it to have a shelf-life of about 9:30 am tomorrow when Barr holds his pre-release press conference on the Mueller report. I think the release of the report essentially constitutes the beginning of the 3rd quarter and we'll be talking about this --- and the legal/political process will still be unfolding --- right up to election time.

    Anyone have predictions they want to venture for what's in the public report and how it will start to play into the election going forward? Right now, I think we'll learn:

    1. Jon wins GoT but Trump urged the creators to bring Joffrey back to kill the invading hordes and rebuild the wall.

    2. Zion's Nike bursting was the next step in Littlefinger's plan.

    3. In all seriousness, I think the ugliness is about to get turned up to an 11.

  11. #791
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I thought my "disappointed bundaberg" comment was tongue in cheek enough to let folks know how I personally feel about Trump's nick-naming habits. But, as it relates to the bounds of this thread, I do think it's important insofar as it's his primary device for defining his opponents...and defining your opponent in unfavorable terms is part of the game. Expect his nickname choice for his opponent to be repeated ad nauseum at rallies, on certain media outlets, on yard signs,etc...same as Crooked Hillary. I was pointing out that I don't think either will be as effective.

    Is that the political system I personally prefer? No. But, as they say, you can wish in one hand and s*** in the other and see which gets filled faster. If mods feel this sets off a firestorm, they can certainly delete but I do think the topic is germane to the horse race.
    Yes, completely missed it. As Foghorn Leghorn once said (of me) "You're built too low, the fast ones go over your head!".

  12. #792
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Barr, attempting to land the Mueller report...

    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  13. #793
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    and . . . nothing changes. IF you like Trump, this doesn't phase you. If you hate Trump. this just confirms your opinion.

    I think for purposes of this thread, the question is: what do the Democrats do now? Do they follow the mantra of Pelosi to date and try to focus on policy issues? Or do the folks who wanted impeachment start to push for it? I do not think you can do both -- if someone seriously mashes the impeachment button, all focus on legislation is gone for the remainder of Trump's term.

    (FWIW I think Pelosi's position is the smarter politically)
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  14. #794
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    and . . . nothing changes. IF you like Trump, this doesn't phase you. If you hate Trump. this just confirms your opinion.

    I think for purposes of this thread, the question is: what do the Democrats do now? Do they follow the mantra of Pelosi to date and try to focus on policy issues? Or do the folks who wanted impeachment start to push for it? I do not think you can do both -- if someone seriously mashes the impeachment button, all focus on legislation is gone for the remainder of Trump's term.

    (FWIW I think Pelosi's position is the smarter politically)
    It seems to me (I have read a good 150 pages of this thing so far) that Mueller left the question of Obstruction up to congress. There will be Dems who will scream for it, but I don't see enough here to convince much of anyone in the GOP so conviction ain't happening in the Senate. I suspect Pelosi will realize that the press is carrying the "Trump is awful and a crook!" water for her party and she will continue to try to focus on issues. Given where we are today, I see very little chance of impeachment and I think that is probably good for the country.

    -Jason "next big event for this thread will be Joe's decision" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  15. #795
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    It seems to me (I have read a good 150 pages of this thing so far) that Mueller left the question of Obstruction up to congress. There will be Dems who will scream for it, but I don't see enough here to convince much of anyone in the GOP so conviction ain't happening in the Senate. I suspect Pelosi will realize that the press is carrying the "Trump is awful and a crook!" water for her party and she will continue to try to focus on issues. Given where we are today, I see very little chance of impeachment and I think that is probably good for the country.

    -Jason "next big event for this thread will be Joe's decision" Evans
    "Must spread comments . . . ."
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  16. #796
    As I understand it there are essentially three things that happened. If I'm wrong can someone correct/summarize for me?

    1. Russia trolled the interwebs and made comments to make each side not like each other, but in general more in favor of Trump?

    2. Russia hacked the DNC email server and made public emails that exposed all the things the DNC had been doing to help Clinton and hurt Sanders?

    3. Some Trump campaign folks tried to meet with Russians to get the dirty dirt on Clinton and in general came up empty handed?

    Is there more to it than my understanding of the story?

  17. #797
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    As I understand it there are essentially three things that happened. If I'm wrong can someone correct/summarize for me?

    1. Russia trolled the interwebs and made comments to make each side not like each other, but in general more in favor of Trump?

    2. Russia hacked the DNC email server and made public emails that exposed all the things the DNC had been doing to help Clinton and hurt Sanders?

    3. Some Trump campaign folks tried to meet with Russians to get the dirty dirt on Clinton and in general came up empty handed?

    Is there more to it than my understanding of the story?
    This is a bit like saying:

    As I understand the UNC thing is that these three things happened:
    1) Some athletes weren't succeeding in the class room
    2) UNC set up some classes that would help make easier for them to succeed
    3) Other students also benefited from these classes

    But yeah, there is significantly more to the story than you outlined.

  18. #798
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    (FWIW I think Pelosi's position is the smarter politically)
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans
    I see very little chance of impeachment and I think that is probably good for the country.
    Well, since we're allowed to give our opinion on the subject...

    I agree with OPK that not pursuing impeachment is the smarter move politically. However, it is a bit sad for the country in a broader sense in that it openly admits that part of our government is completely ineffective (surprise, I know). Impeachment was intentionally written as an option for extreme cases. Not pursuing it is a bit like the NCAA not giving the death penalty to Penn State or UNC... if the death penalty wasn't seriously considered for Penn State or UNC, what is even the point of having it as an option?

  19. #799
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    ****READ ME****

    I will freely admit that I am among the folks who have probably tread darn close (if not over) the line in the past several hours of Muellerstravaganza, but allow me to now reel things back in.

    We all know that the content of this thread must be confined to the horse race aspect of the 2020 Campaign. So, while the Muellerapalooza is fascinating, I think we need to make sure our comments only connect to how Meullergate will or will not impact the election. And, frankly, I have not seen anything thus far that seems likely to move the needle even a tiny bit when it comes to a) folks with strong feelings about the President or b) the 2.37% of the country who does not have a fixed-in-stone opinion on him already.

    So, I would urge all of us to not comment any more on the substance of what Mueller&Co found/wrote/concluded. If you want to talk about how it impacts the race, please do so carefully and if you can cite a source/article/poll/analysis to back up your comments, that would really be neat!

    -Jason "put another way, I feel a case of Muelleritis coming on and I need to rest up to ensure I don't get too sick" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  20. #800
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    [REDACTED] And, frankly, I have not seen anything thus far that seems likely to move the needle even a tiny bit when it comes to a) folks with strong feelings about the President or b) the 2.37% of the country who does not have a fixed-in-stone opinion on him already.

    [REDACTED]. If you want to talk about how it impacts the race, please do so carefully and if you can cite a source/article/poll/analysis to back up your comments, that would really be neat!

    -Jason "[REDACTED]" Evans
    To that point:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-that-matter/

    it will be interesting to see if the approval/disapproval numbers move beyond the margin of error over the next week -- my guess is that it will not.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 Duke men's basketball recruiting
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 998
    Last Post: Today, 06:41 AM
  2. One n dones and returning players. 2018-2020
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 10:03 AM
  3. Coming to the 2020 Olympics: 3-on-3 basketball!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 11:44 AM
  4. Cutcliffe Extended Through 2020-21
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •