Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Well...

    Share

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 am

    blondy28 wrote:
    jaywit wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:Aloha, is that your girl Alyssa Milano I see behind Kavanaugh?

    Presumably it's not, but sure looks like her!

    The Hawaii senator is less than impressive.  She should cede her time to Kamala Harris.

    I like her line of questioning, actually.  She is a weird one, though.  Kind of robotic.
    I was least impressed with Harris.  As the senators proceeded in turn, Kavanaugh's game plan became obvious.  Talk long, talk circuitous, repeat, all in an effort to eat up the 5 minute allotted question/answer period.  Hirono and Booker at least attempted with some success to cut off Kavanaugh.  For the last minute of her time, Harris look-dumbfounded with her chin resting on her folded hands as Kavanaugh rambled, all the body language of not knowing how to cut Kavanaugh short.


    I have a lot of respect for Hirono.  From what I see, she calls a spade a spade, forthright, confident, and persevering while battling stage IV kidney cancer.

    That's pretty interesting.  My son and I were watching that part together and we both had the impression that Harris was trying to highlight how totally calm she was, as an attempt to show how off-the-rails Kavanaugh was.  We had a totally different impression than you.
    It occurred to me that she was making a calculated move but instead I got more the impression she was exasperated.  I'll retract my "dumbfounded" comment, that was a little harsh.  She was at the end of the questioning.  Maybe her talking points were already made.  Maybe she was personally disgusted talking to him.  Maybe she was wishing it was a court of law in which she could direct his comments to stay on point.  I know she is a particularly sharp politician and individual.  Of the Q&A I witnessed, I found her five minutes to be least revealing.
    avatar
    sharpy
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 445
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Well...

    Post by sharpy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:19 am

    All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:26 am

    jaywit wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    I was least impressed with Harris.  As the senators proceeded in turn, Kavanaugh's game plan became obvious.  Talk long, talk circuitous, repeat, all in an effort to eat up the 5 minute allotted question/answer period.  Hirono and Booker at least attempted with some success to cut off Kavanaugh.  For the last minute of her time, Harris look-dumbfounded with her chin resting on her folded hands as Kavanaugh rambled, all the body language of not knowing how to cut Kavanaugh short.

    Interesting comments and observations on Harris.  I'm generally impressed with her on most occasions.  Not "WOW" impressed, but I find her seriousness and intelligence a bit entertaining and almost scary sometimes.  

    Lately, I'm having a sneaking suspicion she will be the Dem on the ticket in 2020, unless it's someone like Biden.  She'll play well in the southern primaries and California.  I also think there might be a reflexive reaction by the left to nominate someone that is in every way the exact opposite of Trump, and in Harris' case, she is pretty much the 180 degree opposite in every plausible realm.  Not saying this to tout her or say I hope she's the nominee.  Just saying I have a sneaking feeling that's where the party might be headed be it for good or bad.

    She seems very bright, very articulate, very self-assured and won't take any BS.  Why do you think she'd do well in the south?

    Understand I'm speaking about the primaries.  I think she'll do well with black voters, especially females.  The reason Hillary was the 2016 Dem ticket candidate is because she had the black vote in the south.  She cleaned house down there and won basically every single delegate available across the south.  People were crying about her stealing the ticket from Bernie.  Gimme a fucking break.  Blacks in the south weren't gonna vote for Bernie.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:29 am

    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:37 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:43 am

    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.
    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:33 pm

    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.
    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    I'm not sure I understand.  Biden didn't run in 2016, and I don't think any of the Republicans in the primaries approached Trump that way.  Rather they were hair on fire "Did you hear what he said?  YOU WILL NOT INSULT MY WIFE!"
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:20 pm

    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 866
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Well...

    Post by alohafri on Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:48 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.

    Well Hell, why don't we just get Kark or Al in Cal to run against Trump? I've never seen anyone throw out insults like those two.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:49 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.

    Well Hell, why don't we just get Kark or Al in Cal to run against Trump? I've never seen anyone throw out insults like those two.

    Kark and Al are too busy having a Devil's Triangle Boof session with Trump to run against him.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:48 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.
    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    I'm not sure I understand.  Biden didn't run in 2016, and I don't think any of the Republicans in the primaries approached Trump that way.  Rather they were hair on fire "Did you hear what he said?  YOU WILL NOT INSULT MY WIFE!"
    In the primaries, Kasich stayed above the fray and stuck to his talking points and except for me and Aloha, everyone yawned.  I also thought Hillary did plenty of smiling and shaking her head as Trump spouted his ridiculousness.  Smiling and shaking your head, hoping that the American public comes to common sense, sadly, didn't work.  It takes more than that to overcome cultlike worship of a demigogue.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:52 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.

    Well Hell, why don't we just get Kark or Al in Cal to run against Trump? I've never seen anyone throw out insults like those two.

    Kark and Al are too busy having a Devil's Triangle Boof session with Trump to run against him.
    Playing quarters and farting with Trump?  Sounds like something you could buy at a charity auction.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:56 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.
    I'd like to see someone with Avanatti's attributes.  Extremely articulate and quick on his feet, cock-sure of himself, not afraid to call someone a shithead.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:15 pm

    jaywit wrote:

    I'd like to see someone with Avanatti's attributes.  Extremely articulate and quick on his feet, cock-sure of himself, not afraid to call someone a shithead.

    I think it might take someone like that, or a likable or serious female who the public believes to be beyond reproach, which is why I toss out names like Harris or Klobuchar as examples.  Not sure Harris has enough likability factor to get to the finish line.  She's serious to the point of being downright frightening at times.  

    Can you imagine a debate between Avanatti and Trump?  Good lord.  I'd miss my own mother's funeral to see that.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:21 pm

    jaywit wrote:

    In the primaries, Kasich stayed above the fray and stuck to his talking points and except for me and Aloha, everyone yawned.  I also thought Hillary did plenty of smiling and shaking her head as Trump spouted his ridiculousness.  Smiling and shaking your head, hoping that the American public comes to common sense, sadly, didn't work.  It takes more than that to overcome cultlike worship of a demigogue.

    Kasich comes across to me as a truly reasonable guy who just happens to differ with me ideologically.  I'd not vote for him versus a Harris or Biden, etc, but if Kasich won, I'd not walk away mad or with deep concern about where this country is headed.  My reaction would be along the lines of "Oh well..."  Same goes for Jeff Flake or Ben Sasse.  Thing is, I don't think the conservative right sees those three guys as their kind of guy anymore.  Those three would all have a hell of a lot better chance of winning a presidency by running as conserva-Dems, in my opinion.  There is too big of a group of wacko right wingers that won't vote for limp wristed RINOS like those in a primary.  My favorite Repub is Flake.  Granted, he lets me down and votes for shit that disgusts me sometimes, but he just seems to me like a truly good person of strong character...the kind of guy you'd love to have as your neighbor.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:12 pm

    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.
    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    I'm not sure I understand.  Biden didn't run in 2016, and I don't think any of the Republicans in the primaries approached Trump that way.  Rather they were hair on fire "Did you hear what he said?  YOU WILL NOT INSULT MY WIFE!"
    In the primaries, Kasich stayed above the fray and stuck to his talking points and except for me and Aloha, everyone yawned.  I also thought Hillary did plenty of smiling and shaking her head as Trump spouted his ridiculousness.  Smiling and shaking your head, hoping that the American public comes to common sense, sadly, didn't work.  It takes more than that to overcome cultlike worship of a demigogue.

    Don't you think Kasich's downfall was expanding medicaid?  Yes, Hillary smiled and shook her head...and she got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.  I can pretty much guarantee that as a woman, if she would have fired insults back at him, she would not have won the popular vote, and would have lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by a lot more...and may have lost even more states.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:13 pm

    jaywit wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    Interesting analysis, Jay.  If there's one thing I've learned with Trump is that it's hard to predict.  He's a total crapshoot and totally unpredictable.  Maybe that's by design or because he's just too damn dumb to be anything different.  

    Trump is said to despise nothing more than being laughed at and made fun of.  So you might be right.  Biden could surely play that game.  I keep hearing Avanatti might run against him.  And while I don't in any way view him (Avanatti) as a guy I necessarily want as my president, I'd find it amusing to watch him run against Trump because he doesn't play around and can play the same games in the same way that Donald does.  Similarly, I'd enjoy Mark Cuban running against Trump.
    I'd like to see someone with Avanatti's attributes.  Extremely articulate and quick on his feet, cock-sure of himself, not afraid to call someone a shithead.

    A woman couldn't do that.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:15 pm

    So this Ramirez accusation has got legs.  I kinda thought hers was the weakest story of them all, but it appears that there are some incriminating texts in the hands of the FBI.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:44 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    In the primaries, Kasich stayed above the fray and stuck to his talking points and except for me and Aloha, everyone yawned.  I also thought Hillary did plenty of smiling and shaking her head as Trump spouted his ridiculousness.  Smiling and shaking your head, hoping that the American public comes to common sense, sadly, didn't work.  It takes more than that to overcome cultlike worship of a demigogue.

    Kasich comes across to me as a truly reasonable guy who just happens to differ with me ideologically.  I'd not vote for him versus a Harris or Biden, etc, but if Kasich won, I'd not walk away mad or with deep concern about where this country is headed.  My reaction would be along the lines of "Oh well..."  Same goes for Jeff Flake or Ben Sasse.  Thing is, I don't think the conservative right sees those three guys as their kind of guy anymore.  Those three would all have a hell of a lot better chance of winning a presidency by running as conserva-Dems, in my opinion.  There is too big of a group of wacko right wingers that won't vote for limp wristed RINOS like those in a primary.  My favorite Repub is Flake.  Granted, he lets me down and votes for shit that disgusts me sometimes, but he just seems to me like a truly good person of strong character...the kind of guy you'd love to have as your neighbor.
    On 60 Minutes last night, I was saddened by Flakes response to the question, "could you have done that (outreached to Coons) if you were running for re-election?" 



    "Oh no, those days are gone."


    Or something to that effect.

    jaywit
    Not a Fanboy

    Posts : 59
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Well...

    Post by jaywit on Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:52 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    jaywit wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    sharpy wrote:All this talk and praise about women senators and possible candidates for 2020. I am a strong proponent of and for women taking over and leading the world, however having a woman as a presidential candidate again in 2020 is setting the table for another loss. I can see trump at the debate stalking behind her, looking intimidating and all the hillbobs commenting how weak she is and what we need is strength not brains in the White House. No, what the dems need is a politically incorrect tough ass who when trump starts stalking he turns around and tells him to sit his orange ass down. And as much as I hope it's somebody young and energetic, at this moment, that points to Biden. I said it in 16, Biden should have been the nominee with Clinton as VP, and then hiliiary runs. Same here. Everyone want Harris? Great - make her VP and then run her in 2024. Or Warren.  Or Gillibrand. I just don't think that since 53% of women voted Trump in 16, that's shifting that much, just yet. 

    Would enjoy seeing Biden run and win the nomination, even perhaps as a one-termer with someone like Harris or Klobuchar as VP slated to run as the replacement in four years. Not Warren.  She wouldn't win.  She's viewed as shrill by too many.

    Like Warren's policies and ideas...but she's a terrible candidate.  Like watching paint dry.  David Axelrod made a great point on Real Time a short time ago saying that the candidate going up against Trump has to laugh at his insults.  Women would be more likely to take a position...a legitimate position...and point out what a vile disgusting pig he is, but against Trump, much better to have a calm Biden, just smiling and shaking his head, then replying with substance.
    But smiling and shaking his head and talking with substance didn't win in 2016.  We'll soon see if there is a true blue wave and if there is and it continues to crest for 2 more years, then maybe someone like Joe Biden, who clearly is the better man, will win the election.  If the blue wave is not a tsunami, however, I have my doubts about Joe.  Trumps cult will become increasingly energized as the election nears and as the bully comes up with a new derogatory name such as "Sleepy Joe".  


    I agree with Sharpy.  The dems need someone larger than life and/or, someone who will outbully the bully, refer to Trump as "The Adulterator" or "The genital grabber".   


    I think it's safe to say that whoever is nominated will win the intellectual vote hands down.  The dems don't need to cater to that group.  They need someone to somehow invigorate the idle masses who normally don't vote.

    I'm not sure I understand.  Biden didn't run in 2016, and I don't think any of the Republicans in the primaries approached Trump that way.  Rather they were hair on fire "Did you hear what he said?  YOU WILL NOT INSULT MY WIFE!"
    In the primaries, Kasich stayed above the fray and stuck to his talking points and except for me and Aloha, everyone yawned.  I also thought Hillary did plenty of smiling and shaking her head as Trump spouted his ridiculousness.  Smiling and shaking your head, hoping that the American public comes to common sense, sadly, didn't work.  It takes more than that to overcome cultlike worship of a demigogue.

    Don't you think Kasich's downfall was expanding medicaid?  Yes, Hillary smiled and shook her head...and she got 3,000,000 more votes than Trump.  I can pretty much guarantee that as a woman, if she would have fired insults back at him, she would not have won the popular vote, and would have lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by a lot more...and may have lost even more states.
    Yes, medicaid, as well as dealing with illegal immigrants with some humanity.  Hugging people in the crowd.  The right didn't want that.  After 8 years of absolutely hating Obama, there was a large faction of the country that wasn't ready for hugs.  They were ready to put that hate to function.  Kasich could have perfectly mirrored Trumps stances on all issues and he still wouldn't have won.  The right was ready to hate.  Trump embodied that.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:13 pm

    jaywit wrote:

    On 60 Minutes last night, I was saddened by Flakes response to the question, "could you have done that (outreached to Coons) if you were running for re-election?" 



    "Oh no, those days are gone."


    Or something to that effect.

    Goes to show that nobody has any guts or principles in DC.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 804
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Well...

    Post by blondy28 on Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:31 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    jaywit wrote:

    On 60 Minutes last night, I was saddened by Flakes response to the question, "could you have done that (outreached to Coons) if you were running for re-election?" 



    "Oh no, those days are gone."


    Or something to that effect.

    Goes to show that nobody has any guts or principles in DC.

    The brown guy changed that.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1013
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Well...

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:35 am

    Schumer gets on the soapbox today and just mealy mouths his misgivings about Kavanaugh.  "He was loose with facts and danced around the truth..."

    Give me a fucking break, Chuck.  You're in a damn war.  Fight, for god's sake.  Tell the viewers he sat in front of the nation under oath and he lied.  He committed perjury.  There's a very credible sex abuse claim against him.  Do you want a lying, perjuring sex assualter on the Supreme Court?  

    There's a reason that the Dems can't get out of their own way and keep stepping on their own dicks.  They have Schumer hitting McConnell with a pillow, and you have McConnell swinging an axe back at him.  Dems are such pussies.  They need to keep on using words like "perjury," and "lying," and "sex assault" if they want to make headway with public opinion.  Not sure they can affect change all that much anyway, but if they keep on with speaking directly, they'll get more acceptance of the inevitable slate of House investigative hearings against Kavanaugh that are surely coming this spring if the Dems win the House majority.

    I don't say this as a means for running out the clock, trying to win the Senate, and blocking the GOP from nominating someone else.  They ought to nominate someone else now and attempt to get him/her through in short order.  There is still time.  SURELY there is someone better than this fucking guy Kavanaugh.  There has to be someone that's not a liar with a drunken, belligerent history of mistreating women.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 866
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Well...

    Post by alohafri on Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:53 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:Schumer gets on the soapbox today and just mealy mouths his misgivings about Kavanaugh.  "He was loose with facts and danced around the truth..."

    Give me a fucking break, Chuck.  You're in a damn war.  Fight, for god's sake.  Tell the viewers he sat in front of the nation under oath and he lied.  He committed perjury.  There's a very credible sex abuse claim against him.  Do you want a lying, perjuring sex assualter on the Supreme Court?  

    There's a reason that the Dems can't get out of their own way and keep stepping on their own dicks.  They have Schumer hitting McConnell with a pillow, and you have McConnell swinging an axe back at him.  Dems are such pussies.  They need to keep on using words like "perjury," and "lying," and "sex assault" if they want to make headway with public opinion.  Not sure they can affect change all that much anyway, but if they keep on with speaking directly, they'll get more acceptance of the inevitable slate of House investigative hearings against Kavanaugh that are surely coming this spring if the Dems win the House majority.

    I don't say this as a means for running out the clock, trying to win the Senate, and blocking the GOP from nominating someone else.  They ought to nominate someone else now and attempt to get him/her through in short order.  There is still time.  SURELY there is someone better than this fucking guy Kavanaugh.  There has to be someone that's not a liar with a drunken, belligerent history of mistreating women.

    I thought he would have gone with Amy Coney Barrett. But I think he went with Kavanaugh because of his argument that a sitting President should not be forced to testify (or whatever it was that he argued).
    avatar
    sharpy
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 445
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Well...

    Post by sharpy on Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:02 am

    Give me a fucking break, Chuck.  You're in a damn war.  Fight, for god's sake.  Tell the viewers he sat in front of the nation under oath and he lied.  He committed perjury.  There's a very credible sex abuse claim against him.  Do you want a lying, perjuring sex assualter on the Supreme Court?  




    Well the dems as a whole seem to not want to hurt anyone's feelings. They have this dumb ass idea that if they play fair, so will the GOP. Problem is , they ar civil and the GOP say to themselves: "Thanks dumbass"

    Sponsored content

    Re: Well...

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:27 pm