Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

Would be much better to happen after the election.

Especially if they nominate one of those feminist women. It will be an election for wamynz and you would be surprised how many of them vote for vagina.

You'd be surprised how many of them don't vote vagina if it's Amy Coney Barrett who is replacing RBG. The Dems will still cry bloody murder, even if the Republicans nominate a woman to the SCOTUS, the vagina factor is irrelevant unless that vagina agrees with the Democrats. In fact the Dems will claim Barrett is anti-woman because of her stance on abortion, if she is picked to replace RBG.

Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions, they are political opportunists reaching for a weapon to attack their ideological opponents, the woman card is simply one of the nearest objects within reach most of the time, the second that they realize that playing that card actually works against them, they will hypocritically ignore the vagina factor altogether as if they never gave a shit about it at all. What really mattered is that someone they agree with is in a position of power, gender ain't ahead of that in the pecking order.

Your problem is you think most Democrats actually believe in the ideological purity spiral pandering their politicians engage in, when it's simply a means to an end.

Yet another reason why you are writing Biden's chances far too quickly I might add, if they think Biden has the best shot at beating Trump, they won't care that he doesn't have a vagina, and isn't as far left as they would hope, they'll still vote for him. The only reason they wouldn't for vote for Biden is that they think Warren or Sanders has a better chance against Trump, if you think intersectionality is more important to Democrat primary voters than electability, you aren't really paying attention.

Trump didn't win the Republican primary in 2016 because most conservatives thought he was the most conservative Republican, Trump won because they thought Trump has the best chances of beating Hillary Clinton.

Electability > Shared Values, Trump Knows.

In the 2012 Republican primary, Mitt Romney did not win because most conservatives saw him as the most conservative Republican, Romney won because they thought Romney had the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

In the 2008 Dem primary, Hillary was neck and neck with Obama, until the DNC finally realized he was actually more electable than she was, and that turned the tide in Obama's favor, as well as the votes of the superdelegates, who switched their support not because of shared values, but because of electability.

If there is tie in electability, then shared values will make the difference, but if there is a noticeable gap in electability, shared values are irrelevant.

That's a big word salad of straw man fallacies to cross snipe threads.

Leaving your ridiculous attempts to campaign for Biden everywhere aside, you are confusing the propensity of many women to vote for a female politician with a male president (presumably) appointing a female judge after the election (if he wins). First of all, Ginsburg will not be replaced until after this election. The same effect that put wind in the 2016 republican candidate's sails will go into the democratic candidate's sails next year if Ginsburg dies.

Secondly, women already have female justices. Ginsburg is the most popular justice as it is. Women have zero presidents. A substantial number of them will vote for the democratic party candidate just because she has a vagina. Trump's best outcome is to split the female vote like he did in 2016, isolating the vagina voters behind a losing candidate. Yet his ability to isolate them in 2016 came down to the fact that Hillary was just God damned awful. Warren might he a grifter and an affirmative action fraud, but so to are many women.

The election still probably comes down to the rust belt where Trump won only by very slight margins. Of that Biden is correct. But where he is wrong is in the idea that the only way to win there is to appeal to white working class men. Trump already lost huge support from those guys who rarely vote. They are not likely coming back to the polls to vote for more "we need millions of Mexicans because the Trump economy is so good". And, in any case, all the democrats need is an energized base to overcome those margins. Only the white collar white women were energized for Hillary in 2016. Give dems a chance to take back SCOTUS and you could very well see them pick up the 2k votes they need in just one rust belt state.

You completely ignore the fact that Trump won that election by a cunt hair.

Then you have little idea what democrats actually think and believe, having zero daily interactions with these people, and you come in here arguing with us what you saw on television news. The television news narrative is fake. Grok that already. I don"t pontificate to you about the inner workings the typical trashy Canadians that live in the trailer park frontier of your faggot province.

[StCapps]

Would be much better to happen after the election.

Especially if they nominate one of those feminist women. It will be an election for wamynz and you would be surprised how many of them vote for vagina.

You'd be surprised how many of them don't vote vagina if it's Amy Coney Barrett who is replacing RBG. The Dems will still cry bloody murder, even if the Republicans nominate a woman to the SCOTUS, the vagina factor is irrelevant unless that vagina agrees with the Democrats. In fact the Dems will claim Barrett is anti-woman because of her stance on abortion, if she is picked to replace RBG.

Democrats do not have the courage of their convictions, they are political opportunists reaching for a weapon to attack their ideological opponents, the woman card is simply one of the nearest objects within reach most of the time, the second that they realize that playing that card actually works against them, they will hypocritically ignore the vagina factor altogether as if they never gave a shit about it at all. What really mattered is that someone they agree with is in a position of power, gender ain't ahead of that in the pecking order.

Your problem is you think most Democrats actually believe in the ideological purity spiral pandering their politicians engage in, when it's simply a means to an end.

Yet another reason why you are writing Biden's chances far too quickly I might add, if they think Biden has the best shot at beating Trump, they won't care that he doesn't have a vagina, and isn't as far left as they would hope, they'll still vote for him. The only reason they wouldn't for vote for Biden is that they think Warren or Sanders has a better chance against Trump, if you think intersectionality is more important to Democrat primary voters than electability, you aren't really paying attention.

Trump didn't win the Republican primary in 2016 because most conservatives thought he was the most conservative Republican, Trump won because they thought Trump has the best chances of beating Hillary Clinton.

Electability > Shared Values, Trump Knows.

In the 2012 Republican primary, Mitt Romney did not win because most conservatives saw him as the most conservative Republican, Romney won because they thought Romney had the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

In the 2008 Dem primary, Hillary was neck and neck with Obama, until the DNC finally realized he was actually more electable than she was, and that turned the tide in Obama's favor, as well as the votes of the superdelegates, who switched their support not because of shared values, but because of electability.

If there is tie in electability, then shared values will make the difference, but if there is a noticeable gap in electability, shared values are irrelevant.

That's a big word salad of straw man fallacies to cross snipe threads.

Leaving your ridiculous attempts to campaign for Biden everywhere aside, you are confusing the propensity of many women to vote for a female politician with a male president (presumably) appointing a female judge after the election (if he wins). First of all, Ginsburg will not be replaced until after this election. The same effect that put wind in the 2016 republican candidate's sails will go into the democratic candidate's sails next year if Ginsburg dies.

Secondly, women already have female justices. Ginsburg is the most popular justice as it is. Women have zero presidents. A substantial number of them will vote for the democratic party candidate just because she has a vagina. Trump's best outcome is to split the female vote like he did in 2016, isolating the vagina voters behind a losing candidate. Yet his ability to isolate them in 2016 came down to the fact that Hillary was just God damned awful. Warren might he a grifter and an affirmative action fraud, but so to are many women.

The election still probably comes down to the rust belt where Trump won only by very slight margins. Of that Biden is correct. But where he is wrong is in the idea that the only way to win there is to appeal to white working class men. Trump already lost huge support from those guys who rarely vote. They are not likely coming back to the polls to vote for more "we need millions of Mexicans because the Trump economy is so good". And, in any case, all the democrats need is an energized base to overcome those margins. Only the white collar white women were energized for Hillary in 2016. Give dems a chance to take back SCOTUS and you could very well see them pick up the 2k votes they need in just one rust belt state.

You completely ignore the fact that Trump won that election by a cunt hair.

Then you have little idea what democrats actually think and believe, having zero daily interactions with these people, and you come in here arguing with us what you saw on television news. The television news narrative is fake. Grok that already. I don"t pontificate to you about the inner workings the typical trashy Canadians that live in the trailer park frontier of your faggot province.

Trump is more popular now than on election day in 2016, including in the rust belt, so your theory that no one will vote for him is retarded. Hillary was not that awful, she just ran a bad campaign, she wasn't Obama, but neither is any Democrat in 2020. Whichever chump or chumpete wins the 2020 Dem primary is going to lose by a bigger margin than Clinton in 2016.

[Speaker to Animals]

You should take it to the election thread.

[Fife]

Back to the SCOTUS topic,

The way that Trump is running his business, he's probably better off if RBG lives through the election, TBH.

The tightrope he's walking with the "hare-brained inflation + zero restraints (or even any discussion) on spending + tariffs squeezing the shit out of domestic producers" approach doesn't need a Merrick Garland situation where he's obligated to continuously suck the Turtle's dick during the election season.

Trump is a popcorn fart away from getting blown out by any of the degenerate commies the DNC puts up there.

[StCapps]

Back to the SCOTUS topic,

The way that Trump is running his business, he's probably better off if RBG lives through the election, TBH.

The tightrope he's walking with the "hare-brained inflation + zero restraints (or even any discussion) on spending + tariffs squeezing the shit out of domestic producers" approach doesn't need a Merrick Garland situation where he's obligated to continuously suck the Turtle's dick during the election season.

Trump is a popcorn fart away from getting blown out by any of the degenerate commies the DNC puts up there.

Trump isn't going to lose unless the economy goes into the shitter at the exact wrong moment, those are pretty good odds. A SCOTUS nomination fight ain't going to cost him the election, that will just fire up conservatives to get that sweet sweet 6-3 majority.

[Speaker to Animals]

Opposite of that. Of the economy goes into recession, people are going to assume the bankers and deep.state fucked us just to spite Trump.

[StCapps]

Opposite of that. Of the economy goes into recession, people are going to assume the bankers and deep.state fucked us just to spite Trump.

The economy going in the shitter would be good for Trump? You're delusional, the president in power always get blamed for that shit, regardless of how much of it is their fault. Stop projecting your views on the American electorate, ffs.

[pineapplemike]

especially the economy that he has taken sole responsibility for

[Martin Hash]

The economy's going down during his campaign, probably with the help of Dems. Trump's spin will be that they did it just to win an election. It's a good bit.

[Speaker to Animals]

Opposite of that. Of the economy goes into recession, people are going to assume the bankers and deep.state fucked us just to spite Trump.

The economy going in the shitter would be good for Trump? You're delusional, the president in power always get blamed for that shit, regardless of how much of it is their fault. Stop projecting your views on the American electorate, ffs.

Stop straw manning, you lying little faggot.

I said it would have little effect. A recession is already priced into this market. It's like leading up to the first gulf war when everybody assumed oil prices would rally if the war actually commenced. But they didn't. The war was planned out in the open. People already reacted to it gradually going in. In fact, the smart thing to do was bet against oil, and some did.

Everything that is talked about and planned openly causes people to react to it ahead of time. We have spent the past two years of democrats threatening to crash the economy to save America from Trump. Now if the economy goes into recession for any reason, Trump supporters will not blame Trump. Nor will most independents. The ability of the democrats to blame Trump will be undercut by their previous two years of threatening to do it themselves.