Traitor Watch - The 45 Thread

ATTENTION: If you had an account that was created before September 1st 2021 you will need to re-create your account again. We apologize for this inconvenience. This should not happen again.

Ironbite4

Active member
Citizen
I want to point out something from this article and then maybe you guys will understand Trump's "successes" in some of these primaries.


Ok you ready? You ready for the really important part?

Of course, the bar for success wasn’t that high: Trump backed numerous incumbents who faced token primary opposition or were unopposed.

IT'S PRETTY EASY TO WIN WHEN NOBODY RUNS AGAINST YOU!

Ironbite-jesus.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
And regardless it's hardly news that Donald Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters. But he's extremely unpopular with the electorate at whole. So it remains to be seen how these endorsed candidates are going to do in November.
 

Pocket

Yep.
Citizen
Yeah, unfortunately it's a toss-up whether the Democrats have a better chance against the Trump fanatics who are a turn-off to the general public, or against the moderates who are a turn-off to the Trump cult itself. But hey, we have some of each, so maybe we'll find out together.
 

The Mighty Mollusk

The bold ever fight on, their lives echoed in song
Citizen
But he'll still just see it as the people he picked winning, so he'll still stroke his ego over it.
 

Pocket

Yep.
Citizen
Actually, I had a thought, somewhat off topic. It's one thing for incumbents to consistently sweep the general election, because most districts have a consistent bias for one party or the other that isn't going to chance from one year to the next, and most voters literally don't even know who the candidates are and just go with whoever is affiliated with their party. But what about primaries? What kind of people tend to vote in those, and what are their criteria? I'm sure they tend towards being better informed, but by how much? Do people just see the word "incumbent" and rubber-stamp that guy with a similar lack of further research? Would we start seeing a lot more people losing the primaries if we stopped printing that word on the ballot?
 

G.B.Blackrock

Active member
Citizen
Actually, I had a thought, somewhat off topic. It's one thing for incumbents to consistently sweep the general election, because most districts have a consistent bias for one party or the other that isn't going to chance from one year to the next, and most voters literally don't even know who the candidates are and just go with whoever is affiliated with their party. But what about primaries? What kind of people tend to vote in those, and what are their criteria? I'm sure they tend towards being better informed, but by how much? Do people just see the word "incumbent" and rubber-stamp that guy with a similar lack of further research? Would we start seeing a lot more people losing the primaries if we stopped printing that word on the ballot?
In California (or, at least, in my part of it), we don't have "incumbent" on the ballot, but each candidate's stated career is listed as an identifier.

Which, yeah, does amount to the same thing if the candidate's current job is the same as the job they're running for.
 

Kup

Active member
Citizen
Essentially he’s a GI Joe Villian who thinks GI Joe was a documentary instead of a child’s marketing show.

That makes a whole lot more sense than it should.
 

Wheelimus

Administrator
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
And hopefully the guy who won gets his ass kicked by Stacey Abrams in November.
 

Ironbite4

Active member
Citizen
So, just days after a massacre at a Texas elementary school, Trump has decided to talk at an NRA convention. There's just one issue with this. There will be no guns allowed at said convention. BUT! it's not the NRA who's doing this! It's the Secret Service.


Of course people are pointing out the hypocrisy in this but come on guys. You really think the Secret Service is going to allow guns near Trump?

Ironbite-as stupid as it is, he's still a former president and entitled to protection.
 

Pocket

Yep.
Citizen
Gee, it's almost as if people not having murder weapons is a good idea when you don't want someone's life to be in danger.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
https://variety.com/2022/digital/ne...n-6-hearings-according-to-reports-1235290726/

The irony is rich: Truth Social, Donald Trump’s Twitter copycat claiming it is “free from political discrimination,” has reportedly banned users who posted information from Thursday’s congressional hearing on the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — in which the former president is a key focus.

That’s according to several posts on Twitter by users who claimed Truth Social was censoring them. Reps for Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns and operates Truth Social, did not respond to a request for comment.

Travis Allen, whose Twitter bio describes him as an information security analyst, on Thursday evening posted a screenshot from the Truth Social app that said “Account suspended,” and he wrote: “My Truth Social account was just permanently suspended for talking about the January 6th Committee hearings.”
 

The Mighty Mollusk

The bold ever fight on, their lives echoed in song
Citizen
They have the evidence, but do they have the balls to piss off the cult, especially going into midterms?
 
Top Bottom