(11-12-2025 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course it doesn't matter. I was just interested in who was in charge.

In case I wanted to file a complaint with them. Which I do.

maybe I should make up a dart board and toss with a blindfold ... that'd be as good as any...

they're deflecting until after the mids ... watch Wes Moore announce ... only been callin' it for awhile now...

(11-12-2025 12:46 PM)Claw Wrote:  The brief flurry of attacks on Vance have suddenly stopped. Anyone notice? They were there and then - gone.

The plan for the mid-terms is to focus on the hatred of Trump. They don't want to distract from that in any way.

The day after the mid-terms the attacks on Vance will restart using which ever of the trial balloons looked best as the first volley.

bingo...

(11-12-2025 12:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course it doesn't matter. I was just interested in who was in charge.

In case I wanted to file a complaint with them. Which I do.

maybe I should make up a dart board and toss with a blindfold ... that'd be as good as any...

they're deflecting until after the mids ... watch Wes Moore announce ... only been callin' it for awhile now...

Yeah well, you called Michelle, too.

I do agree about Moore, though. He's the only one who seems like a decent possibility at the moment to be competitive.

But I'm trying to figure out who is in charge right now. Seems like no effing body.

Can't recall last time that happened, and I actually personally recall the 1952 race between Eisenhower and Stevenson.

Same as it ever was.

(11-12-2025 12:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 12:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 12:43 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Of course it doesn't matter. I was just interested in who was in charge.

In case I wanted to file a complaint with them. Which I do.

maybe I should make up a dart board and toss with a blindfold ... that'd be as good as any...

they're deflecting until after the mids ... watch Wes Moore announce ... only been callin' it for awhile now...

Yeah well, you called Michelle, too.

I do agree about Moore, though. He's the only one who seems like a decent possibility at the moment to be competitive.

But I'm trying to figure out who is in charge right now. Seems like no effing body.

it was a fear as I underestimated her disdain ... if she would've run, I don't think #groverII happens ... we're a year off from that ... I'm stickin' with the 'dark'horse ...

you're right ... they truly have zero leadership in the house or senate ... owl #s was right, ol' saggy vodka tiTTTs could whip her party as req'd ... they don't have that now...

Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

(11-12-2025 12:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I underestimated [Michelle Obama’s] disdain ... if she would've run, I don't think #groverII happens.

Michelle O definitely would’ve posed a different kind of challenge for Trump. In some ways that might’ve worked for him, and in other ways against him.

At the end of the day, I think there were two key facts (from the Obama POV) that kept her out of the race. First is that Michelle genuinely dislikes almost everyone involved in campaigns, politics/media, etc., and doesn’t want to have to be around them for more time than strictly necessary. That speaks well of her as a person (IMHO) but it’s a huge hindrance in terms of jumping into a race, especially against someone she hates as much as Trump.

And secondly, even if she was willing or could be somehow persuaded to do it, the simple fact that there was no to do it without publicly stomping on Kamala’s vanity and relegating her back to the minor leagues. Michelle Obama didn’t want to do that.

(11-12-2025 01:09 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 12:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I underestimated [Michelle Obama’s] disdain ... if she would've run, I don't think #groverII happens.

Michelle O definitely would’ve posed a different kind of challenge for Trump. In some ways that might’ve worked for him, and in other ways against him.

At the end of the day, I think there were two key facts (from the Obama POV) that kept her out of the race. First is that Michelle genuinely dislikes almost everyone involved in campaigns, politics/media, etc., and doesn’t want to have to be around them for more time than strictly necessary. That speaks well of her as a person (IMHO) but it’s a huge hindrance in terms of jumping into a race, especially against someone she hates as much as Trump.

And secondly, even if she was willing or could be somehow persuaded to do it, the simple fact that there was no to do it without publicly stomping on Kamala’s vanity and relegating her back to the minor leagues. Michelle Obama didn’t want to do that.

my point is bidet* was a gimme putt to not run ... how they let it get to the point of the debate was a monster misstep...

bottom line: the first black woman as president would've changed the 7 purple states ... her ability in front of the cam vs. kneepads is like night and dusk ...

I'm simply glad she saw the writing the first go-round and how sleazy it all is...

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

what's really amusing about all of this ... it was once considered appropriate to stay out of current politics after leaving office ... Zero was the first to defy such...

Leader, as in Individual? Or leader of whatever movement this appears to be.

If the former, that remains to be seen, the most vocal are all decidedly idiots.

I'd suggest it is not a person, but the most vocal and influential is pretty clearly The Crazy that make up our public school teachers, aka influencers. They are the loudest and most belligerent at the protests, purple hair and bone in the nose required.

Right behind are the teachers unions that are pushing the Marxist agenda and are heavily funded not buy just the members, though that is significant, but also the dark monies from Jorge and now lunatic son Alex Soro's as mentioned above.

The Unions pour sooooo much money into these races it is insane. The footsoldiers, the classroom "teachers", are the front line of attack trying to turn young students into radicalized leftists and they have 7 HOURS a day to ply their trade while unwitting parents do their Instagram and sports ball viewing.

What's not to like?

(11-12-2025 01:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Leader, as in Individual? Or leader of whatever movement this appears to be.

If the former, that remains to be seen, the most vocal are all decidedly idiots.

I'd suggest it is not a person, but the most vocal and influential is pretty clearly The Crazy that make up our public school teachers, aka influencers. They are the loudest and most belligerent at the protests, purple hair and bone in the nose required.

Right behind are the teachers unions that are pushing the Marxist agenda and are heavily funded not buy just the members, though that is significant, but also the dark monies from Jorge and now lunatic son Alex Soro's as mentioned above.

The Unions pour sooooo much money into these races it is insane. The footsoldiers, the classroom "teachers", are the front line of attack trying to turn young students into radicalized leftists and they have 7 HOURS a day to ply their trade while unwitting parents do their Instagram and sports ball viewing.

What's not to like?

it's why they're searching for faces and coming up feces ...

this is why the current battle of gerrymandering and subsequent challenge to mail-it-inns is going to be critical mass in the next 2 years...

(11-12-2025 01:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

what's really amusing about all of this ... it was once considered appropriate to stay out of current politics after leaving office ... Zero was the first to defy such...

His presidency made it okay for Jimmy Carter to chastise people for criticizing the Magic Negro (based on Joe Biden's "That Storybook, Man!" flub about Obama) on anything, then Bill Clinton eventually followed suit.

(11-12-2025 01:18 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

what's really amusing about all of this ... it was once considered appropriate to stay out of current politics after leaving office ... Zero was the first to defy such...

His presidency made it okay for Jimmy Carter to chastise people for criticizing the Magic Negro (based on Joe Biden's "That Storybook, Man!" flub about Obama) on anything, then Bill Clinton eventually followed suit.

that's XACLY! correct!!!

The correct answer is none. I think you are about to finally see the Dem tea party revolt happen. Not sure what it's going to be centered around, I'd prefer it be some sort of policy plank but what I suspect it's going to be is the current leadership having zero guts and ability to even pretend to fight effectively against Trump.

Schumer is all kinds of done, he wouldn't even publicly admit who he voted for in the NY Mayor race when Cuomo was literally endorsed by Trump and no one on earth believes he didn't essentially green light the cave on the shutdown even if he technically voted no on it. Whether I like him or not I have no doubt on earth if Harry Reid were in charge of the Senate he would have kept his caucus in line and kept them all voting no if that's what he wanted the outcome to be. Hell even as pathetic and weak as Schumer is if you look at the people who caved it was all people who are either not going to run again or aren't up for reelection until at least 2028. Essentially, they made the decision for Schumer that they knew the base would be mad about because they know they won't have to face any electoral backlash for years if ever. The base of the Dem's are furious at this cave, they caved for nothing, they got nothing, they caused the pain for nothing, and polling and the election results from last week show that they weren't taking the blunt of the blame for the shutdown. Schumer allowed the cave because he never wanted to fight in the first place, and is not the type of person who wants to "fight" anything. He's a yes man to big money donors, that's it and that's all.

(11-12-2025 01:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The correct answer is none. I think you are about to finally see the Dem tea party revolt happen. Not sure what it's going to be centered around, I'd prefer it be some sort of policy plank but what I suspect it's going to be is the current leadership having zero guts and ability to even pretend to fight effectively against Trump.

Schumer is all kinds of done, he wouldn't even publicly admit who he voted for in the NY Mayor race when Cuomo was literally endorsed by Trump and no one on earth believes he didn't essentially green light the cave on the shutdown even if he technically voted no on it. Whether I like him or not I have no doubt on earth if Harry Reid were in charge of the Senate he would have kept his caucus in line and kept them all voting no if that's what he wanted the outcome to be. Hell even as pathetic and weak as Schumer is if you look at the people who caved it people who are either not going to run again or aren't up for reelection until at least 2028. The base of the Dem's are furious at this cave, they caved for nothing, they got nothing, they caused the pain for nothing, and polling and the election results from last week show that they weren't taking the blunt of the blame for the shutdown. Schumer allowed the cave because he never wanted to fight in the first place, and is not the type of person who wants to "fight" anything. He's a yes man to big money donors, that's it and that's all.

the party left Manchin and Sinema ... now Fetterman sees the light (finally) ... now it's game on with the Schmuckster...

however, there's a lot of deliverable monies on the Schmuckster side of the equation ... not ne'r none on taTTTas that can dance...

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

Just to be clear, I am not a member of the GOP. I dislike the party. Just not as much as I dislike the Dem party, lol.

(11-12-2025 01:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  my point is bidet* was a gimme putt to not run ... how they let it get to the point of the debate was a monster misstep...

This. It really is the worst political screwup of the last 50 years and one of the worst of all time. Every one of those people — Dr. Jill, the Obamas, the Clintons, Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries, Kamala Harris, the media stooges, etc., etc., etc. — ALL OF THEM played a role in that disaster and really all of them are eternally discredited and distrusted (by the people who will have to deal with the consequences) for the rest of their lives.

Quote:bottom line: the first black woman as president would've changed the 7 purple states

Maybe, maybe not. But glad we will never have to find out, LOL

Quote:I'm simply glad she saw the writing the first go-round and how sleazy it all is...

Likewise.

(11-12-2025 01:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  what's really amusing about all of this ... it was once considered appropriate to stay out of current politics after leaving office ... Zero was the first to defy such...

William Jefferson Clinton defied it, too…

(11-12-2025 01:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The correct answer is none. I think you are about to finally see the Dem tea party revolt happen. Not sure what it's going to be centered around, I'd prefer it be some sort of policy plank but what I suspect it's going to be is the current leadership having zero guts and ability to even pretend to fight effectively against Trump.

Schumer is all kinds of done, he wouldn't even publicly admit who he voted for in the NY Mayor race when Cuomo was literally endorsed by Trump and no one on earth believes he didn't essentially green light the cave on the shutdown even if he technically voted no on it. Whether I like him or not I have no doubt on earth if Harry Reid were in charge of the Senate he would have kept his caucus in line and kept them all voting no if that's what he wanted the outcome to be. Hell even as pathetic and weak as Schumer is if you look at the people who caved it people who are either not going to run again or aren't up for reelection until at least 2028. The base of the Dem's are furious at this cave, they caved for nothing, they got nothing, they caused the pain for nothing, and polling and the election results from last week show that they weren't taking the blunt of the blame for the shutdown. Schumer allowed the cave because he never wanted to fight in the first place, and is not the type of person who wants to "fight" anything. He's a yes man to big money donors, that's it and that's all.

the party left Manchin and Sinema ... now Fetterman sees the light (finally) ... now it's game on with the Schmuckster...

however, there's a lot of deliverable monies on the Schmuckster side of the equation ... not ne'r none on taTTTas that can dance...

Schumer has been in the pocket of the donors who control the leadership of the Dem party, and I suspect they are going to realize he's far too damaged with the average Dem voter to be the vehicle for their will and desires for much longer. If they are smart they'll have the other people they own and control come out and publicly turn on him and get him out as minority leader. Then just prop up I'm not sure who but someone younger and who at least postures enough to the Dem base that they want to be adversarial and fight against Trump.

As much as I'd prefer the Dem base was shifting towards economic populism all I think they are doing is realizing that the current leadership are completely gutless clowns. If the money people are smart they could probably sub in a younger version of Schumer on every single policy position they actually care about as long as he just publicly fought against Trump and didn't cave on everything. Now they might not be smart, they might think their money is enough to keep overcoming everything, and if that's the case that could actually cause a real shift if the Dem base sees the only people actually fighting are the left flank. If the money people don't want that to happen they need to back their type of "centrists" who meet the Dem base desire to show fight.

(11-12-2025 01:33 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:12 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  my point is bidet* was a gimme putt to not run ... how they let it get to the point of the debate was a monster misstep...

This. It really is the worst political screwup of the last 50 years and one of the worst of all time. Every one of those people — Dr. Jill, the Obamas, the Clintons, Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries, Kamala Harris, the media stooges, etc., etc., etc. — ALL OF THEM played a role in that disaster and really all of them are eternally discredited and distrusted (by the people who will have to deal with the consequences) for the rest of their lives.

Quote:bottom line: the first black woman as president would've changed the 7 purple states

Maybe, maybe not. But glad we will never have to find out, LOL

Quote:I'm simply glad she saw the writing the first go-round and how sleazy it all is...

Likewise.

(11-12-2025 01:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  what's really amusing about all of this ... it was once considered appropriate to stay out of current politics after leaving office ... Zero was the first to defy such...

William Jefferson Clinton defied it, too…

as GC so aptly pointed out, only after Zero, AND when his 'wife' thought she had a chance coupled with a party becoming utter chaos due to even the most 'lay'z eye ...

the ride on the escalator is the most monumental moment in political history in my lifetime ... it's not even close ... as lifelong apolitical, I never thought the bulk had a chance ... it's still sketchy ... and all the sudden, up pops JDV ... time will tell, Ja?!