POLITICS Bannon on Bloomberg

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Feb 3, 2020.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    If you want to get hung up on who Bannon is, or the site where this interview occurred, have at it.

    But I’d pay very close attention to what he’s saying here - and if for nothing else, than to compare it to events that have already unfolded or which may still come to pass.

    I’ll also add that this is essentially what Hillary did in 2015, and which is why the DNC is damned near bankrupt now.

    Background:
    You can’t be rid of her:
    Didn’t the DNC just make an exception for Bloomberg to be in the debates?

    Didn’t they also just change the nomination procedure, too?

    Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ergs_investment_of_2_billion_in_politics.html
     
  2. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    A shameful dismissal of tradition. Election meddling should be handled by foreign powers only.
     
    hohenfelsvol and Tenacious D like this.
  3. zehr27

    zehr27 8th's VIP

    My step Grampa who was a hard core Democrat is rolling in his grave over how fractured his party has become. Sad.
     
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I hate socialism and all of its obvious and inherent ills.

    But if they want to be socialists, they deserve the right. If they have the best ideas, they’ll win. If they don’t, they won’t.

    I am opposed to any one person doing what seems at risk here, and wish there was an easy way to push what he’s saying aside.
     
    zehr27 likes this.
  5. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I just feel like this storyline is hand-wringing over things that might happen. Sanders could just flat out lose for any number of reasons. Or he could win and they begrudgingly line up behind him. It's February.
     
  6. GahLee

    GahLee Director of Conspiracy Theories, 8th Maxim

    They obviously do not want him to be the guy.
     
  7. tvolsfan

    tvolsfan Chieftain

    Republicans definitely did not want Trump to be the guy in 2015-2016, either. Then it became obvious he was going to be the guy, and they sort of just got on board or remained quiet.
     
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It was worse even, he was an outsider, an establishment crusher.

    Now he's apparently the shining example of a Republican.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Trump?

    He’s always been the Republican.

    It’s the neo-Cons - Romney, Ryan, McCain - who hijacked shit.
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The party leadership at the time, yea. Very much never-Trump.

    You can conclude that the leadership of the party got awry, and has been corrected.

    But that was not the party's take when he entered the field.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    And maybe it’s the same with Bernie and the Dems.

    I don’t think that the GOP saw Trump as much of an existential threat as the DNC sees Bernie.
     
  12. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    I don't think anyone in either party took Trump seriously at the onset.
     
  13. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    It seems to me that it depends on who you ask. There's a sizable group of prominent party members, the neocons as Tenny described above, who are just waiting on a big enough misstep or waiting the storm out. Among the nobodies in the flock, I'd say you are mostly correct.
     
    Tenacious D likes this.
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    This was not the case at the beginning. There has been a massive correction, and you guys are stating it like it always was.

    Trump never shows up, and you folks are still all about Jeb for everyone but the hardcore Christian, who would go for Cruz.
     
  15. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    You folks my backside. You and your brethren can keep supporting your "two" party overlords.
     
  16. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    The nobodies, ie the GOP commoner voter, was always enamoured with Trump. There's a sizable group of never Trumpers awaiting their opportunity. McConnell and other prominent senators is the biggest swing I've noted. I'm sure there are some others, but to pretend all republicans are locked in arms to support Trump is silliness.

    I cant recall anyone being excited about Jeb.
     
  17. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Tenny, and half of everyone else, are standing in line to show you that something like 93% of republicans support Trump.

    That is as "locked in arms" as can be.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    In the conversation between we two, who is it you are thinking here votes for parties?
     
  19. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    you must be mistaking float for someone else.
     
  20. warhammer

    warhammer Chieftain

    I do not believe that. Maybe among the average voters and possibly on the surface of the major players, but I don't think that's close to right in reality among the people in control of the party. It appears to me that you have a legitimately sizeable portion that have aligned with him, but I'd also say that at least half are McConnell-ish who have decided that having the presidency is worth dealing with Trump or are more along the lines of Romney who are more open with their dislike and would prefer he never had been elected at any cost.
     
    fl0at_ likes this.

Share This Page