Just stop. Watch the first video and your “We have no clue who most of these people are” will be answered.
Ostrich much?
Walkaway movement gaining steam quickly.
- Thread starter nosurf2day
- Start date
Ostrich much?
I will do better. Look at the video link, Twitter is a cesspool so I really don’t give a shit about it. I care more about people willing to show their face than be forum trolls you typically cant verify.
it’s interesting that you are so fixated on the Twitter hashtag and ignoring everything else
I dont understand why you think todays party is so far apart from JFK. The 60s were ripe with activism just like today, and JFK was someone who pushed for civil rights.
And its not about it being a controversial idea, yes, peoples views can change and you obviously dont have to vote one way your entire life. But that also doesnt mean its true. I'll go back to Candace Owens. Owens acts like she left the Democratic party because she thinks Obama was a failure (which she very well might actually think that), and that lots of African Americans are doing the same, even though the voting booths at this point dont indicate that. What Candace Owens wont tell you, is that Turning Point USA, who recruited her, is funded by a dude worth over half a billion dollars. She is profiting off of her views, and whether her claims are true or not, she is making money. We dont know who, if anyone is actually financing walkaway, but there is a good chance it is being funded by someone and a good chance it is nothing more than a propaganda astroturf campaign. We will see how it turns out in November. Even if Trump wins, I guarantee you it isnt because of thousands upon thousands of life long Democrats suddenly switched sides.
I did watch it. I have no clue who the 85,000 people are, and neither do you. We know one guy.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryla...-753lqepjnzdrbmf3ieojqsttem-photogallery.html
BTW, about 100 people showed up for the rally today.
BTW, about 100 people showed up for the rally today.
Ira Stoll is a conservative writer. This is no different than Republicans trying to claim MLK was a conservative. Yes, Kennedy cut taxes and things of that nature, but he cut them down from 91% to 65%, , which of course no mainstream Democrat today is advocating for that type of tax bracket. Hell, Bernie's highest tax bracket was only 52%, so I guess if taxes is a mark of being conservative, then Bernie is a conservative. And a lot of other things are pretty wishy washy. The Clintons were for free trade too, so are they conservative? Free trade doesnt fit in with todays Democratic party? Trump has issued tarrifs, so is he a liberal? One of the points was he was anti-communist, which of course mainstream Democrats today arent pro communism, so not sure how that point matters at all. The abortion issue makes sense, he was Catholic, and abortion was a hot topic, but he also never really pushed to outlaw abortion, so I dont think that makes him a conservative, etc etc.
Weird take on bernie being a conservative compared to JFK with taxes. JFK cut taxes on the wealthy, Bernie and Biden want to raise them.
Regarding free trade, that has never fallen on party lines but yes, free trade is a conservative principle. Clinton was conservative on that issue, as was JFK and Trump is liberal on it.
Being pro-life is a decidedly conservative position and is looked upon negatively in today's democrat party
Do I know these people personally? No. However, I believe their vetted testimonials. If you actually watched the first video I posted you’ll know exactly what I mean by vetted.
There are countless more like them. These are the people you think don’t exist.
I am sure some exist, I dont think enough exist to make a dent in the election.
Yes, but he cut them to 65%, which is still much higher than any tax bracket we have today, and much higher than what Bernie or Biden have pushed for. It's not really a fair comparison to compare different time frames and the major policy differences to todays standards. The tax brackets were nothing like they are today, so I dont think its a fair take to claim that lowering taxes from 91% makes him a conservative by todays standards.
That is a fair take with regards to free trade, but it doesnt establish how he wouldnt fit with todays party.
This is true, but we are talking about the 1960s. Like the list you linked says, he didnt personally like abortion, and one judge he appointed vote against abortion in Roe v Wade, but that case was 10 years after Kennedy was killed, so kind of hard to associate that 1 judge and that 1 decision with a guy who had been dead 10 years.
And I havent read that book, so maybe the author brings up some of these types of things in the book, but his point about civil rights also isnt a fair point IMO. The south was heavily Democratic at the time, and he knew he couldnt afford to lose the South, so civil rights was certainly a delicate topic, again, we are comparing different times. So it may have appeared he wasnt out in front on civil rights, but he actually assigned Bobby to take the lead in that regard. Bobby was the one who met consistently with MLK and other black leaders, and of course LBJ eventually pushed it through after John was dead.
Hours of video 'proof' from @nosurf2day totally trumps all the polls that show:
- Biden over Trump in Wisconsin
- Biden over Trump in Michigan
- Biden over Trump in Pennsylvania
- Biden over Trump in Florida
- Biden over Trump in Texas
- Biden over Trump nationally by 15%
You’ll certainly experience déjà vu when Trump wins the election in November. Pretty sure those polls said that Hillary was going to win in a landslide back then as well. Something like 85% chance of winning the presidency. Yet, here we are.Hours of video 'proof' from @nosurf2day totally trumps all the polls that show:
Deja vu' I'm back to arguing with the Birthers.
- Biden over Trump in Wisconsin
- Biden over Trump in Michigan
- Biden over Trump in Pennsylvania
- Biden over Trump in Florida
- Biden over Trump in Texas
- Biden over Trump nationally by 15%
The polls had started tightening by this point in 2016, nationally at least. Even a CNN poll conducted from 7/22-24 in 2016 had Trump up by 5 points, and NBC poll had Trump up 2 points. Most polls did have Clinton up, but most werent big leads. Anything can happen between now and November for sure, but it is pretty obvious even Trump knows he is losing as of right now.
You know. It’s a funny thing those polls.Hours of video 'proof' from @nosurf2day totally trumps all the polls that show:
Deja vu' I'm back to arguing with the Birthers.
- Biden over Trump in Wisconsin
- Biden over Trump in Michigan
- Biden over Trump in Pennsylvania
- Biden over Trump in Florida
- Biden over Trump in Texas
- Biden over Trump nationally by 15%
Wisconsin:
https://www.gravismarketing.com/wisconsin-poll-results/
Poll doesn’t list the breakout of who they polled. Hmm...wonder why? Maybe oversampling?
Michigan:
The poll makeup is not representative of the party affiliation percentages.
Republicans were under represented by 4%
Independents over represented by 15%
Democrats under represented by 10%.
https://www.gravismarketing.com/michigan-poll-results/
How can a poll have 34% of the people polled be independent or another party when only 19% identity as independent?
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/michigan/party-affiliation/
I am not wasting my time with the other polls. They are all the same. Poor polling samples.
I just went trough some of the polls that fivethirtyeight has on their site with biden up +9. The polls that help that average are garbage. One had no data other than saying they polled 700+ people and failed to identify who they were by party. The questions were leading as well. Poll after poll is like that.
The majority of polls are trash.
Rasmussen’s is probably one of the more reliable polls based on their methodology. Now do they accurately weight is another story but the methodology is sound.
Rasmussen has “President Trump and likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden are now running neck-and-neck in Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey.”
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...ections/election_2020/white_house_watch_jul22
Last edited:
You mention hundreds of tweets by the minute here:
Yet you wont find a single twitter account that was recently supportive of liberal ideas because "its a cesspool?"
Cant even find a single account? Not even one?
You brought twitter up, not me. I assumed you would be able to find at least one credible account with a history of liberal tweets that actually walked away and now supports Trump.
Yet you wont find a single twitter account that was recently supportive of liberal ideas because "its a cesspool?"
Cant even find a single account? Not even one?
You brought twitter up, not me. I assumed you would be able to find at least one credible account with a history of liberal tweets that actually walked away and now supports Trump.
Wrong side, like for women's rights, voting rights, worker's rights and civil rights?It’s amusing that you’re marginalizing the liberal disenfranchised.
Must be tough being on the wrong side of issues all the time.
Dems are funded and run by big time Rich people, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Sorros, Bisos. and more the Dem party is now the party of Big Business, which likes Cronie capitalism and even Socialism as long as they are the inside elites pulling the strings. It has not been the working class party in a very very long time.
Are you putting forth an assertion that getting the funding of a person or people with a lot of money invalidates your cause or your position?
First:
I haven’t tried looking for one. I don’t have twitter. I just googled twitter to get to the home page. Not having a Twitter account limits how far back you can see tweets so I would be unable to show you any sort of historical tweet if it happened some time ago.
Second: Lets get down to brass tacks. Whether you believe there is a mass exodus of the democrat party doesn’t change the fact that it’s happening. Whether or not you believe the tweets is irrelevant to me.
I don’t care if a person walked away recently or since the last election. I will take them at face value because I have better things to do (spend time with my son) with my time than to stalk people’s twitter accounts to verify “at least one credible account.” I was correct in what I said, hundreds of tweets are being added by the day about the #walkaway movement.
My quote “Ohh, the #walkaway twitter hashtag has thousands of tweets of dems walking away and more and more are added by the minute.”
Let’s play the English language shall we... what is the subject of the sentence I wrote? There are two hints in the sentence. Tick tock.
I will help you out so you don’t have to look up the definition of a subject.
Possession
The subject usually appears before the predicate to show (a) what the sentence is about, or (b) who or what performs the action. As shown below, the subject is commonly a noun, pronoun, or noun phrase.
Hint, the subject is not “dems.” Nothing I said was inaccurate. Have a good day. Lessons over. You are dismissed from class.
**Remember** Whether or not you believe is irrelevant to what is happening. You could be right, you could be wrong. It doesn’t change anything based on which side you fall. You’re not that important.
Good day.
He is.
Unfortunately that’s not today’s democrat party. They worry about much more radical things.
Eliminating fossil fuels in 15 years and many other similarly absurd things all spelled out in the GND.
But since you brought up women's rights. What about babies rights? Do they not get a right to life? They are after all alive or, is it that you think life is expendable because someone may be inconvenienced? (Rhetorical question: I truly don’t care what your opinions on the matter are.)
In the time it took to type this you could have surely picked one of the hundreds of twitter accounts per min that are claiming to have left and found one.
But you, "have better things to do," like type 2000 words assuring me that democrats really are leaving en masse despite not being able to come up with a single instance of this outside a few curated videos that you assure me are real.
Pardon me for not being worried.
If you have partisan funding it certainly means it isnt a grassroots campaign and is most likely just a mouthpiece for a large donors. It doesnt necessarily invalidate a cause, but you also have to look at the results. There is no evidence that Blexit is anything more than a Candace Owens talking point, and there is no evidence this movement is going to have any impact what so ever. But when news outlets give interviews to people in these campaigns it does put forth the idea that these are growing movements, when actual evidence and quite simply reality, says they arent. Turning point for sure, is just the project of a large campaign donor and more or less Republican propaganda. The walkaway campaign isnt quite clear who, if anyone is behind the funding, but it also isnt a major campaign. The rally yesterday had around 100 attendees, and if you look at the photos I posted earlier, several are wearing BLM shirts and likely arent even followers of the movement.
Both parties are the party of big business. Yes, Democrats have lost their way over the last few couple of decades, but that doesnt change the fact that historically are the party of the working class.
The debates are going to be meaningless. Trump has been in office almost 4 years, a few hours of debating isnt going to influence people one way or the other.
The October suprise might very well be covid, it just came along well before October.
There will be something. Maybe a vaccine is announced which would boost Trump. The IG reports are still out there so that could go both ways. Probably not a whole lot that could really hurt Trump since he's had so much focus on him and has been thoroughly vetted by the media. Its hard to say but things have been extremely quiet outside of Covid and the riots for the last 3 months. Something will come up.
THIS ^^^^^^^^
TV events that mean diddily-squat.
If there is one, Trump announces he's stepping down to let Pence experience the landslide defeat.
I completely disagree. I think debates in general are typically pretty meaningless, at least in the general election, I think they do matter in primaries. For the debates to matter that much, you would have to have the premise that there are a lot of undecided voters out there, and especially this year, I just dont see that being the case. I think the Democrats have to worry more about people voting 3rd party, or not voting (which is usually the worry for Democrats) , than they do people switching to Trump based on a debate performance. And BTW, Trump is terrible debater. HIllary kicked his ass in all 3 debates in 2016, and he still won because debates dont really matter that much. Even if Joe doesnt do well, I highly doubt Trump knocks the debates out of the park.
But covid has probably been the most newsworthy event since Iraq, and maybe even since 9/11. I dont know what is going to come along that is going to over take that as a major issue or make people forget about Trump's handling of it.
No, she didn't. She came away from each of those debates looking incredibly weak and didn't say anything that was memorable. In large part, that was due to the fact that he absolutely is a terrible debater. He doesn't debate--he bullies, interrupts, deflects, and drops one-liners that get a rise. And that's also precisely why she didn't kick his ass.
A vaccine would, for sure. It would alleviate so much fear for a ton of people and Trump could point out how unprecedented it is to have one so quickly. He could, and already is, play up how dangerous the virus is and how devastating it has been and then claim that we've beaten it. I think that messaging would go further than you want to believe. He's got a lot of people he can point the finger at to deflect the blame away from himself, and he will on a level we haven't seen yet. I also think the covid press breifings being brought back is a political calculation. Hes going to use that as a platform to go on the offensive.
