Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-31-2019, 08:45 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I remember two years ago when many liberals were brimming with confidence that after a few years of President Trump, the Republican brand would be so badly damaged that there was NO WAY he could win again, and that Republicans would have to hang their heads in shame, beg for forgiveness, etc. Do you now see how wildly off-base those predictions were?
Yes, two years ago we still thought that Republicans could feel shame over doing terrible things. You proved us wrong.

It's just like three years ago when we thought you guys wouldn't be stupid enough to actually vote for Trump. You proved us wrong that time too.
  #202  
Old 01-31-2019, 10:07 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
What does "left" mean to you, anyway? What typifies someone who is demonstrably left-of-center (for some version of "center" you wish to define)?

My senator Amy Klobuchar is left of center. Not nearly as far left as AOC or Bernie Sanders, but she's pragmatically on the right side of history and common sense, which is to say the center-left side.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #203  
Old 02-01-2019, 01:19 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,092
Well, I was asking about principles, not persons, but I'll skim Klo's wiki page.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 02-01-2019 at 01:20 AM.
  #204  
Old 02-01-2019, 05:45 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
It seems like Howard Shultz has been dominating the news lately. In most cases, extra attention and press in a political race is a good thing, and Howard is getting exactly that. He's more of a moderate Democratic, finding himself under assault from factions of the far left.
  #205  
Old 02-01-2019, 05:47 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, two years ago we still thought that Republicans could feel shame over doing terrible things. You proved us wrong.

It's just like three years ago when we thought you guys wouldn't be stupid enough to actually vote for Trump. You proved us wrong that time too.
Who nominated Hillary Clinton to run against him? That would be the party you voted for, so please assign stupidity where it belongs.

Many people felt Trump was the better of two bad choices.
  #206  
Old 02-01-2019, 05:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Who nominated Hillary Clinton to run against him? That would be the party you voted for, so please assign stupidity where it belongs.

Many people felt Trump was the better of two bad choices.
Many people were wrong in ways that were painfully obvious to those of us who were paying attention.
  #207  
Old 02-01-2019, 06:46 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
It seems like Howard Shultz has been dominating the news lately.
I'm not even sure he's dominating this thread.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #208  
Old 02-01-2019, 07:01 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Who nominated Hillary Clinton to run against him? That would be the party you voted for, so please assign stupidity where it belongs.
Oh, we have.
  #209  
Old 02-01-2019, 07:09 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, two years ago we still thought that Republicans could feel shame over doing terrible things. You proved us wrong.

It's just like three years ago when we thought you guys wouldn't be stupid enough to actually vote for Trump. You proved us wrong that time too.
I haven't made that mistake since the '16 election and I won't be making it again in the future.
  #210  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Why wouldn't we be? He won 2 years ago. It'd be terrifying if there was a 1% chance he could be reelected... and the chances are a lot higher than that.

I’m not sure the chances are a LOT higher (538 today has a piece about how half of voters say they will “definitely” not vote for him, with others saying “probably” not), but I agree with the sentiment about 1% still being terrifyingly high.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Dude. Trump is very likely to lose, and lose big, in 2020. He's a very unpopular president.

He could still win though. That is why I will oppose anyone who supports him.

I have a fire extinguisher and a smoke alarm in my house, and if you came into my house and smashed my smoke alarm and threw away my fire extinguisher I'd be fucking pissed off. Does that mean I think it's likely that my house will catch fire tomorrow? No it doesn't. But stay the fuck away from my fucking smoke alarm.

Cosigned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I mean, if your only point is that many liberals tend to vacillate between irrational overconfidence and irrational pessimism, cheerfully granted.

Agreed. Puts me to mind of this awesome SNL video poking fun at nervous-Nellie Dems (and I was one of them!):

https://youtu.be/OdNNjCHGixE

ETA: I do think there’s reason to be nervous, as I’ve said before, about the huge vote totals (for a midterm cycle) Republican House candidates racked up this past November. Democrats won a big victory because our side picked up its turnout by an even more massive amount, but that’s sort of like winning a football game because your QB got hot and threw five TD passes to win a shootout 53-48. You still worry about your defense and feel uneasy going into the rematch, not sure if you can keep it up on the offensive end.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 02-01-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #211  
Old 02-01-2019, 06:30 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,916
Paul Krugman had an interesting discussion in today's Times. Not only would this help Trump enormously, but he discussed why Schultz's policy positions would be poor. He is, for example, obsessed with debt and would reduce the deficit. By raising taxes on the wealthy? Don't be silly. By cutting social security and medicare. Although Krugman doesn't say so, I can guess that he is a supply sider who believes that a rising tide lifts all boats. It lifts all yachts, for sure, but swamps all the rowboats. Here is a link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/o...president.html.

Here is a sample quote:
Quote:
Schultz, however, still declares debt our biggest problem. Yet true to centrist form, his deficit concerns are oddly selective. Bowles and Simpson, charged with proposing a solution to deficits, listed as their first principle … reducing tax rates. Sure enough, Schultz is all into cutting Social Security, but opposes any tax hike on the wealthy.
  #212  
Old 02-01-2019, 06:41 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,576
Seen on FB:

"The slow reveal that every under-employed billionaire is "pondering" running for president is like the end of the episode where the camera pans under the floor and reveals all the OTHER egg sacs."
  #213  
Old 02-02-2019, 12:53 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,023
Schultz called Elizabeth Warren "Fauxcahontas" and said Kamala Harris is "shrill".
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...tas-and-harris
  #214  
Old 02-02-2019, 01:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Guess he's figured that without any Dem-leaners going to vote for him, he needs to appeal to the Trumpsters?

In the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
  #215  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:05 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
MRAs, redpillers, and the idiots who went from Bernie to Trump.
  #216  
Old 02-02-2019, 02:28 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Schultz called Elizabeth Warren "Fauxcahontas" and said Kamala Harris is "shrill".
He tweeted a link to a column in which the author said those things. Schultz himself did not say those things.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #217  
Old 02-02-2019, 03:48 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
Seen on FB:

"The slow reveal that every under-employed billionaire is "pondering" running for president is like the end of the episode where the camera pans under the floor and reveals all the OTHER egg sacs."
That is awesome. (And way too apt.)
  #218  
Old 02-02-2019, 03:54 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
Schultz called Elizabeth Warren "Fauxcahontas" and said Kamala Harris is "shrill".
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...tas-and-harris
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
He tweeted a link to a column in which the author said those things. Schultz himself did not say those things.
No matter how counter-productive his economic policy proposals may be, Schultz knows that among those who will NOT vote for Trump is a sizable contingent of "Never-Ladyparts"* voters. This may include lifelong Democrats as well as Independents and more-traditional (i.e. Trump-averse) Republicans---voters for whom the prospect of a female in the Oval Office is absolutely, unequivocally terrifying.

Schultz, with that re-tweet, is clearly calling to those who believe that a female candidate---whether for President or for Veep---is intolerable.

He's going for the "she makes me scared in my pee-pee place" voter. And he may do well thereby.







*Or was it "Ladypants"? ...used earlier in this subforum and I don't care to research it.
  #219  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:14 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
He's going for the "she makes me scared in my pee-pee place" voter. And he may do well thereby.
There's never going to be a campaign. This is a ruse to sell his book.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #220  
Old 02-03-2019, 04:49 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
There's never going to be a campaign. This is a ruse to sell his book.
If there had been enthusiastic and vocal support for Schultz manifest in the days after his announcement, I bet you there would have been a serious campaign. He has the cash to get on the ballot in all the states, and if things continued to go well, could have counted on donations from his fellow-one-percenters.

But as things turned out: yeah, at this point, probably just the book.
  #221  
Old 02-03-2019, 05:16 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
he spent a lot of money on hiring political people. Sounds like a really dumb idea if you never had any intention to run. He can go on many of these same shows to promote a book without talking about running.
  #222  
Old 02-04-2019, 12:19 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Guess he's figured that without any Dem-leaners going to vote for him, he needs to appeal to the Trumpsters?

In the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
If he can keep his appeal to Trumpsters and people who want to vote for Trump but can't bring themselves to, then I'm starting to warm up on the idea of him running.

The only problem are people who pull more people from the Dems. I'd love, for instance, for another deplorable besides Trump with name recognition to run as Independent.

I just don't want a chance taken on anyone who pulls from the Dems.

Last edited by BigT; 02-04-2019 at 12:21 AM.
  #223  
Old 02-04-2019, 12:24 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
he spent a lot of money on hiring political people. Sounds like a really dumb idea if you never had any intention to run. He can go on many of these same shows to promote a book without talking about running.
Sure, but none of us would be paying attention without him claiming to run. I don't care that Starbucks guy has a book.
  #224  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:48 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
If Schultz is polling ahead of the Democratic candidate after he/she is nominated, the Democratic candidate should drop out if the goal is to remove Trump. Of course that will never happen. Too many hacks to feed.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 02-04-2019 at 03:49 AM.
  #225  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:22 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If Schultz is polling ahead of the Democratic candidate after he/she is nominated, the Democratic candidate should drop out if the goal is to remove Trump.
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
  #226  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:58 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
Which bridge is that and will it impact my commute?
  #227  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:02 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,126
Christie will block the ramp, don't worry.
  #228  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:00 AM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,179
Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog looks at some recent surveys examining whether Schultz would pull more voters from Trump or the Democratic candidate, and the conclusion is he'd pretty much guarantee a Trump win no matter which Dem is the candidate.

Conclusion: "Schultz is a menace."
  #229  
Old 02-04-2019, 01:24 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
If Schultz is polling ahead of the Democratic candidate after he/she is nominated, the Democratic candidate should drop out if the goal is to remove Trump. Of course that will never happen. Too many hacks to feed.
Dude, if that happens, I would actually agree with you. If the Democratic nominee is being outperformed by Schultz, then it's time to give up and disband the party.

However, that is never ever ever ever ever ever going to happen. If Schultz actually sticks it out, he'll be lucky to be getting over 3% support.

I could see a genuine populist with genuine charisma breaking 10%. Schultz is not that guy. Schultz is a middle of the road guy with a genuinely unpopular policy agenda. His signature policy is to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes on the rich and gutting social security and medicare. Dude, that is not a winning policy agenda.

Here's the thing. If Schultz's platform and personality were that appealing, why exactly wouldn't he run in the regular way? Why not win the Democratic nomination? Then instead of a three way race with Schultz playing spoiler, he's got the backing of 1/3 of the country guaranteed, and only needs to win over the middle. In the American political system the candidate who wins sets the agenda, not the other way around.

Or he could run as a Republican and force out Trump.

You know why he doesn't want to do either of those things? Because he knows he has no chance against Trump, and he knows he's only got a slim chance of beating out the other 37 people running for the Democratic nomination. So skip that step! Except you can't skip that step. If you can't beat Kamala Harris to the Democratic nomination, how exactly are you planning to beat Kamala Harris in the general election? If you were such a white knight that people will flock to vote for you, why exactly can't you do that in the fucking primary?

So he's running as an "independent". Which means he must, on some level, realize he has absolutely no chance of actually winning anything. OK, that's fine. Sometimes people run for president, not because they want to win, but because they want to publicize an issue and change the national conversation. Except "American billionaires need more money, American retirees and the poor need less money" is not going to work. It's a joke platform. Sure, plenty of Republicans believe it, but they're smart enough to lie about it, like Donald Trump did.
  #230  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:11 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Nevertheless, calls for him to not run or drop out are premature. If Dem-do-gooder is nominated and is out-polling him, yes. Right now? No.

I doubt he would stay in to get 3% or even 10%. He is obviously a smart guy and has better things to do than to waste his time. That is not true of some people that run frivolous campaigns. The frivolous campaigns are usually relegated to major party primaries.

I don’t think Perot was frivolous. He had an impact on the political discussion. Even someone like Nader wasn’t frivolous. There were legitimate things he had to say. People like Lindsey Graham and Martin O’Malley ran frivolous campaigns. They had nothing to say and were simply milking donors for self-aggrandizement.

Also, entitlements must be cut if the debt is to be taken seriously. That is just an adult conversation many are not ready to have. (Trump and Sanders types)

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 02-04-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #231  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:14 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Schultz has gotten too much media coverage at this point for his political statements. It doesn't have me worried in this particular case because it seems people can see through him for correct reasons, even though I think concern trolls on the right will latch on to giving him attention for some time. It's just tiresome and part of a pattern that can go very wrong.
  #232  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:19 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy View Post
Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog looks at some recent surveys examining whether Schultz would pull more voters from Trump or the Democratic candidate, and the conclusion is he'd pretty much guarantee a Trump win no matter which Dem is the candidate.

Conclusion: "Schultz is a menace."
The analysis is irrelevant with an unknown Dem and without giving voters a chance to examine Schultz. Who is to say the Dem is not pulling vote from Schultz.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 02-04-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #233  
Old 02-05-2019, 07:42 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,069
Have no idea who this guys supporters are other than the ultra-wealthy and those people who think we just elected the wrong businessman to bring "discipline" to government.

His latest proposal? He's taking a principled stand against the B-word!

"Howard Schultz says billionaires should be referred to as “people of means” or “people of wealth.” "

https://t.co/I3apM0h7aa

Last edited by JohnT; 02-05-2019 at 07:42 AM.
  #234  
Old 02-05-2019, 09:09 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,835
Goddam, I dislike him more and more. How stupid does he think we all are?
  #235  
Old 02-05-2019, 09:11 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Goddam, I dislike him more and more. How stupid does he think we all are?
To be fair, you elected Trump
  #236  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:12 AM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,835
Fair Point Alessan. My country has a lot of stupid.
  #237  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:29 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
He is obviously a smart guy and has better things to do than to waste his time.
He's not wasting his time if the inequality

(MY_DEM-ADMIN_TAXES - MY_2ND-TRUMP-ADMIN_TAXES) < CAMPAIGN_COST

is true.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #238  
Old 02-05-2019, 10:51 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
Nate Silver says a guy like Schultz could divide the pro Trump vote instead of hurting a Democrat

good explanation here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...trump-in-2016/
  #239  
Old 02-05-2019, 12:20 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Have no idea who this guys supporters are other than the ultra-wealthy and those people who think we just elected the wrong businessman to bring "discipline" to government.

His latest proposal? He's taking a principled stand against the B-word!

"Howard Schultz says billionaires should be referred to as “people of means” or “people of wealth.” "

https://t.co/I3apM0h7aa
I propose we eat this one first.
  #240  
Old 02-05-2019, 03:13 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I propose we eat this one first.
He should certainly be among the first MFs up against the wall.
  #241  
Old 02-05-2019, 05:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Here's the thing. If Schultz's platform and personality were that appealing, why exactly wouldn't he run in the regular way? Why not win the Democratic nomination?

I agree with you about all the ways Schultz is unappealing. But I don't think it's that hard to conceive of a situation in which the single most popular candidate is unable to win the primary in either party. Think Colin Powell in the 1990s. His pro-choice stance is a dealbreaker for hardcore conservatives; his military background and support for low taxes won't fly with Democrats. But I bet he would have had a good shot as an independent, if he had run in say 2000.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #242  
Old 02-05-2019, 05:43 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Check the 538 article linked above. Certain People are always calling for a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist independent" to break the two-party duopoly. Problem is that only like 15% of Americans are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
  #243  
Old 02-05-2019, 06:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Check the 538 article linked above. Certain People are always calling for a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative centrist independent" to break the two-party duopoly. Problem is that only like 15% of Americans are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Which candidate do you think those 15% supported in the last (Presidential) election?
  #244  
Old 02-05-2019, 06:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,069
Trump. It says so in the article. Did you not read it? I mean, the headline itself says:

Quote:
Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Voters Preferred Trump In 2016

Last edited by JohnT; 02-05-2019 at 06:14 PM.
  #245  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:01 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
Looks like Shultz isn't quite brain dead.

Intent on not aiding Trump, Schultz will take 3-4 months to decide on run
  #246  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:53 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
he's doing a town hall on CNN next week
  #247  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
he's doing a town hall on CNN next week
God CNN sucks. There are probably a dozen or more declared and soon-to-declare candidates with a much greater likelihood of becoming President than Shultz. But because he's a billionaire, he gets special treatment. Not surprising, but well worth criticizing.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-06-2019 at 02:55 PM.
  #248  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:01 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
In 2015 and 2016 Trump was on CNN more than Law and Order reruns on other channels. I guess they figured pretty quick he was boosting up the ratings. This year I figure they will do other candidates too at some point.
  #249  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
God CNN sucks. There are probably a dozen or more declared and soon-to-declare candidates with a much greater likelihood of becoming President than Shultz. But because he's a billionaire, he gets special treatment. Not surprising, but well worth criticizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
In 2015 and 2016 Trump was on CNN more than Law and Order reruns on other channels. I guess they figured pretty quick he was boosting up the ratings. This year I figure they will do other candidates too at some point.
Yes. Possibly their calculation is 'we need Schultz to be seen as a viable 3rd-party candidate because that will increase the chances that the 2020 election will be a squeaker---and we need that for our ratings.'

There are CNN reporters that I think highly of. But I definitely do NOT think highly of the CNN decision-makers, who are at least partially responsible (due to that massive coverage BD mentioned) for saddling us with Trump.
  #250  
Old 02-06-2019, 03:06 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,413
if he is such a bad candidate then more exposure of him would hurt him right? Then again that did not work with Trump.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017