• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Republican Gov. John Kasich to speak at DNC

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Are you worried at all about the Lincoln Project, a never-Trump PAC started by Republicans that many have speculated aims to infiltrate the Democratic party, influence Biden right, and shift the Overton window further?

The Problem with The Lincoln Project – TREMG
a) Wecome to DP; b) Not really. The Lincoln Project may have a later influence in the Republican party, but right now they are aligned primarily because of Trump. Once Trump and his influence are out of the party, they will revert to being conservative spokespeople.
 

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
1,351
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Are you worried at all about the Lincoln Project, a never-Trump PAC started by Republicans that many have speculated aims to infiltrate the Democratic party, influence Biden right, and shift the Overton window further?

The Problem with The Lincoln Project – TREMG
not particularly. Did you fail to notice there is no evidence of this 'trojan horse' in that article? They have evidence that these are unhappy republicans who dislike Donald Trump. I was amused by this line "These are the kind of people Democrats have welcomed with open arms into their coalition while completely shunning the left." Basically this author/ progressive in our party acts like jealous older sibling except nobody has filed any adoption papers and nobody has shown up with a baby. We have always worked with republican allies on specific shared goals. You cannot be a major party with any experience governing an industrialized nation without so that is nothing new. We just don't ever get the luxury of having them fund attack ads for us. We have always entertained moderates and conservatives in our party including the Dixiecrats, the 0boll weevil southerners, the CDM, and the DLC and they grow in influence whenever we take a shellacking with a candidate like McGovern. And whenever they try to move the leadership too far to the right, we end up with progressives reminding them of the consequences. Jesse Jackson won Louisiana, Washington DC, South Carolina, and Mississippi and came within a hair of winning Virginia and you can see the practical impact of Sanders in the 2018 reforms in our party structure in 2020.

These same forces that you are worried about always exist, and they will always try to leverage their economic weight buying influence in any Democratic Administration, and in our party for business interests. And we have to be on constant guard to ensure that our values are not corrupted by those corporate contributions. Money is addictive. Money is the fuel of politics. Money matters, and money is corrosive. That is always the danger.

I have paid a LOT of attention to these Lincoln project ads. They are all over the board. There are social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarian types, vets, moderates, church pastors, farmers, housewives. They come from all over the country and they represent devout conservatives with nothing but great things to say about their party, to ones claiming to have been driven out of their party. Some are retaining their party membership, some are becoming Dems. Some are voting libertarian, some are voting Biden. Many are attacking Trump for not being conservative enough and selling out conservative values. There is zero consistency in the messaging other than they are attack ads against Trump.

Conway and friends want their own party back and they think they can take it back once he's gone. They want it back enough to want to crush Trump's testicles in a vice that they are willing to buy themselves to get it back.

Whether they are naïve or not, let them crush those testicles,
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,167
Reaction score
32,753
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kasich stayed in the 2016 GOP primary long, long, long after he was non-viable, and split the non-Trump vote which was, for most states, a majority of the GOP, allowing Trump to "win" with a Plurality, and he lied about his intentions in doing so.

There are a few people who are more responsible for giving us Trump than Kasich (Hillary comes to mind). But not many. F Kasich.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,627
Reaction score
74,604
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gee, what do you do when your fellow republicans are voting against you?
that was the case 4 years ago. GOP members who figured they'd get shut out of the spoils from a Trump administration were anti Trump. So were the ones who are RINOS
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,627
Reaction score
74,604
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Kasich stayed in the 2016 GOP primary long, long, long after he was non-viable, and split the non-Trump vote which was, for most states, a majority of the GOP, allowing Trump to "win" with a Plurality, and he lied about his intentions in doing so.

There are a few people who are more responsible for giving us Trump than Kasich (Hillary comes to mind). But not many. F Kasich.
I never gave that much thought-I did vote for Kasich in the primary but your point is very well taken
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,967
Reaction score
14,099
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't disagree, but this is a convention. It's about defeating Trump and Trumpism. Once in office, tack left.

I also believe the energy and future of the Democratic party is on the left. AOC deserves a significant platform, in my opinion. But she does more in 60 seconds than most pols can achieve in an hour.
AOC won in a district a Democrat can't lose in. We don't think anything of a conservative Republican being primaried by an even more conservative Republican in a rural Southern district. So why do we think it is the future of the party when a liberal Democrat loses in a primary to an even more liberal Democrat in a very liberal district?

The Democrats flipped more seats in a midterm election than they ever have in 2018, and in the vast majority of the districts they flipped, they won with more moderate candidates. For example, my congresswoman is Sharice Davids, she lives around the corner from me, and she ran as a more moderate candidate and managed to flip a congressional district on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. The future battles are going to be in the suburbs, especially the more diverse inner-ring suburbs, and AOC type candidates don't flip those districts. If the Democratic Party wants to have a long term majority, their future is center-left.
 

RealityNow

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gee, what do you do when your fellow republicans are voting against you?
At least he is standing up for America... and Respect for American Democracy... and not falling in the hole with the other swap trash that cleaves unto Trump like he's their Mob Boss Daddy.

Trump's acts with the Post Office is nothing but Proof that he did the Russian Collussion, because he demonstrates over and over than he will do anything for his ego and vanity in his want for money and power.

Trump followers are devoted to ignorance, one after the next who left that vile administration have told the American People what a disaster Trump is, and Trump supporters lust so much for the racist obsessions they cling to, until they can't think, they can't hear, they don't listen and they don't see... all they know is they will accept anything, to try and hang on to the racism that is groomed into them... They'll screw up anything and everything of and within America, trying to make their skin pretend to be something that its not, and thinking their skin makes them something they are not.

A person on the media said it correctly: She said, All that American white people learned in school was devoted to promoting White Nationalism, as all the history paints the white man as hero in every story, and claims his as the creator and inventor of anything and everything... (It's all a Lie)... but they have been taught those lies for generations and it would crack a hole in their lives if they face the real truth.

They are scared as hell to face the Truth they have been trying to bury for 100's of years. They'd support the racism rather than what history has proven.. America has always done better under Democratic Administration.

Trump knows it, but now he won't tell his cult that truth, because he loves their cult devotion and their promotions and support of racism too much.


"Good Cheer's and Congratulations" for these Republicans who choose to support the Democrat's promotion of Respect for America and Respect for American Democracy and Respect for American Government and Respect and Support an Economy; Respect for American Civic Society, and Respect for All That American Is, Which Is Of Design To Work For Everyone.
 
Last edited:

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
AOC won in a district a Democrat can't lose in. We don't think anything of a conservative Republican being primaried by an even more conservative Republican in a rural Southern district. So why do we think it is the future of the party when a liberal Democrat loses in a primary to an even more liberal Democrat in a very liberal district?

The Democrats flipped more seats in a midterm election than they ever have in 2018, and in the vast majority of the districts they flipped, they won with more moderate candidates. For example, my congresswoman is Sharice Davids, she lives around the corner from me, and she ran as a more moderate candidate and managed to flip a congressional district on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. The future battles are going to be in the suburbs, especially the more diverse inner-ring suburbs, and AOC type candidates don't flip those districts. If the Democratic Party wants to have a long term majority, their future is center-left.
Congratulations on being in her District - my old stomping grounds, where I grew up.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
AOC won in a district a Democrat can't lose in. We don't think anything of a conservative Republican being primaried by an even more conservative Republican in a rural Southern district. So why do we think it is the future of the party when a liberal Democrat loses in a primary to an even more liberal Democrat in a very liberal district?

The Democrats flipped more seats in a midterm election than they ever have in 2018, and in the vast majority of the districts they flipped, they won with more moderate candidates. For example, my congresswoman is Sharice Davids, she lives around the corner from me, and she ran as a more moderate candidate and managed to flip a congressional district on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro. The future battles are going to be in the suburbs, especially the more diverse inner-ring suburbs, and AOC type candidates don't flip those districts. If the Democratic Party wants to have a long term majority, their future is center-left.
While I don't disagree with most of your post, that's because you overinterpreted mine. When I say, "the energy and future of the Democratic party is on the left," that doesn't conflict with your hypothesis.

This nation is more liberal than it thinks it is, because the intellectual CENTER is much further left than its politics. There are geographic, social and institutional reasons for that, which are well beyond this topic. Suffice to say, here, that the "blue" trend is irreversible, especially in the suburbs.

But, your assertion that "The future battles are going to be in the suburbs, especially the more diverse inner-ring suburbs, and AOC type candidates don't flip those districts" applies only in the short term. I agree that, generally, moderate candidates flip these transitional Districts. I made the same arguments about the 2018 results - the majority of Districts that changed went from Moderate right to Moderate left. That trend will continue for some time.

But the energy for that change comes from the pull of the further left, and the ideas that are leading the change come from there, too. Women's rights, minority rights, equal justice, universal care, etc., have become liberal standards having been watered down from the more radical left, rather than organically appearing from the middle. This will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:

tylerTeach

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the center-left parties aren't going to be enough to force the corporations most responsible for the climate crisis to change their practices through regulation, their future is non-existent, as is the future for most life on earth.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,627
Reaction score
74,604
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If the center-left parties aren't going to be enough to force the corporations most responsible for the climate crisis to change their practices through regulation, their future is non-existent, as is the future for most life on earth.
most of those corporations are in countries where the government has far more power and is not about to hamstring their own businesses
 

tylerTeach

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I appreciate the welcome! One thing I'm concerned about is that people seem to think that Trump's ideology will disappear from politics once he's gone, and I'm not so sure about that. The Republican Party was on a steady shift rightward before Trump, and aspiring grifter tools like Gaetz and Cotton are waiting eagerly to take his mantle. Joe's administration, in its commitment to corporate interests, tries to win over the moderate Republicans rather than the progressives, because their political interests align more closely with the corporations', so the Democratic base shifts right as well. It seems to me like the new Democratic Party is moderate conservative neolib and the new GOP is Trump's prodigy club.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I appreciate the welcome! One thing I'm concerned about is that people seem to think that Trump's ideology will disappear from politics once he's gone, and I'm not so sure about that. The Republican Party was on a steady shift rightward before Trump, and aspiring grifter tools like Gaetz and Cotton are waiting eagerly to take his mantle. Joe's administration, in its commitment to corporate interests, tries to win over the moderate Republicans rather than the progressives, because their political interests align more closely with the corporations', so the Democratic base shifts right as well. It seems to me like the new Democratic Party is moderate conservative neolib and the new GOP is Trump's prodigy club.
While I don't agree with every element, I appreciate the depth of thought that has gone into it. I agree that Gaetz, Cotton, Meadows and others will try to latch onto the mantle and claim to be the "heirs" to Trump's legacy - and they are welcome to it, as they are as execrable. I don't think it is going to fade away, but that is because Trump is not the cause, but the symptom. He well represents the current Republican party, even if they prefer to pretend otherwise. Barr is not an outlier. The party itself is lost and needs to languish in the wilderness until it can reform itself.

I also agree that there is a centrist element of the Democratic party - the DLC - that is far too deferential to corporate interests. I'll even confess that I originally thought that they were approaching it appropriately. But, that is not the heart and soul of the Democratic party, as you posit, and I think you are misreading the currents. I understand the impetus of that wing, even.

In order to govern, and govern well, one has to be able to understand and influence the economy. The bulk of economic power of nearly any economy is in corporate forms. It is, in my estimation, a "necessary evil". Those that ignore that or pretend that capitalism/industry is the enemy of the nation are doomed to failure and irrelevance. At the same time, every relationship with major industries is fraught. I spent a good deal of my career dealing with "regulated industries". Every agency that is established to bring them to heal runs the risk of being captured by the very entities they are established to regulate - especially if foxes are put in charge of the henhouses.

I think, of our current crop of thinkers on the subject, Elizabeth Warren best understands this and has the best ideas about how to manage them. The CFPB is a good example of that. The FDIC and NCUA are as well. But, they are all directed at the financial industry. Similarly, the SEC only regulates the financial aspects of markets. Individual industries have individual regulators (FDA, USDA, etc.). The smaller the agency, and the smaller the slice of the economy they are established to regulate, the greater the risk of capture. When that happens, they become an advocate for the industry within the government, rather than a regulator of that industry itself. Being aware of this dynamic is essential for the leadership of any of these agencies.

That tension between good governance and a thriving industry (which is good for the economy) requires a delicate balance. It is not always going to balance, tilting one way or the other. Our problem, nationally, is that there is one party that is unabashedly aligned with those corporate interests deliberately trying to upset the balance. Whenever they hold sway, corporate interests get to romp gaily through the regulatory agencies disrupting any semblance of regulation and unfettered by rationality.

There is a problem within the Democratic party as well, which you touch on, but I think that your response misses a great deal of that dynamic. The assumption that Joe Biden, and other moderates, are "captured" by corporations is generated by anti-capitalists within the party as well. They tend to tilt at windmills, or howl at the wind, without considering what the windmills produce and the good that they can do for society if maintained properly. That is the role of government, to maintain the windmills in good working order, rather than tear them all down. Now, some should be dismantled, but one has to know enough about how they work to be able to discern the difference.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think I got carried away with my analogy with my last post, so let me simplify: I do not believe that capitalism is entirely bad. It certainly has its problems, but it is, at present, the most effective way of using the nation's capital to generate benefits for the greatest portion of the denizenry. [Analogy warning!] Nonetheless, it is like handling dynamite - a substance that, when used properly, can do great things, but that is inherently dangerous. One has to proceed with great caution.

Rather than being the enemy of capitalism, as some more radical elements of the Democratic party believe, I think the role of government is to understand the benefits of capitalism to the economy and direct them, within reasonable bounds, to the benefit of the nation. Nor do I believe that government is the partner of capitalism. Industries perform a vastly different function than governments. The Post Office is a great example. It is a government service. While some aspects of its operation parallel the "shipping industry" - they are not the same thing, and should not be treated as such. (By the way, I feel the same about highways, rail service, and a number of other government service agencies, even when they are formed as "government corporations".)

NASA is a government agency. It performs a governmental function. Some of the functions of NASA can be replicated by private entities (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, & etc) but they are not the government. Some of the components and services NASA needs to perform its mission can also come from the private sector (Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, & etc.), but, again, they are not the government. Similarly, contractors can provide services or products to the Defense Department (e.g., uniforms, equipment, dining services), but they are not the government.

The government performs a separate and distinct function in society than industry. I think our biggest problems in governing are that people both within and without the government forget where that line is drawn.
 

tylerTeach

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In order to govern, and govern well, one has to be able to understand and influence the economy. The bulk of economic power of nearly any economy is in corporate forms. It is, in my estimation, a "necessary evil". Those that ignore that or pretend that capitalism/industry is the enemy of the nation are doomed to failure and irrelevance.
In order to govern, and govern well, one has to be able to understand and influence the economy. The bulk of economic power of nearly any economy is in corporate forms. It is, in my estimation, a "necessary evil". Those that ignore that or pretend that capitalism/industry is the enemy of the nation are doomed to failure and irrelevance.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm educated on these issues, because I'm very much a novice to the political sphere, but I wonder why you're so quick to justify capitalism as necessary? In my understanding, capitalism has regular "downturns" built-in while socialist models do not. Capitalism necessarily leaves our most vulnerable destitute while those with access to unimaginable wealth multiply their billions. And I also wonder why you claim that the bulk of the economic power lies in corporate form as if that's necessarily true. Wouldn't it be true that way more economic power would be in "government form" if the gov't had received shares for the bailouts they do?
 

tylerTeach

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
3
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The government performs a separate and distinct function in society than industry. I think our biggest problems in governing are that people both within and without the government forget where that line is drawn.
Also, where do you think that line stands? Do you support a single-payer M4A?
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Also, where do you think that line stands? Do you support a single-payer M4A?
Yes. Although I prefer "universal healthcare" rather than that particular shorthand. I believe medical care is a social good - a political right - and a minimal standard is required, provided either directly, or through other methods. Medicare is a good model. There may be others.

I am, as my profile indicates, an "eco-social marketeer". What that means, to me, is that all government programs are, by definition, for the benefit of the community. I begin with this premise: Natural resources are the property of the polity, and everything else flows from that. We, as a society, have decided that private property is a social good. I happen to agree with that assessment. To facilitate, and regulate, the exchange of value we have established a very complicated set of systems and institutions - money, banks, taxes, laws, courts and agencies - in short, a governmental structure. It is remarkably complex, but also robust and meaningful.

To wax excessive: I am a conservative, in the sense that we should preserve our institutions and systems - that I swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend - and our norms; I am a liberal, in that I believe that government is a good thing; I am a socialist, in that I believe the government has as its purpose to provide the greatest good to the greatest number and should be structured to accomplish that; I am a libertarian, in that I believe that an individual's behavior should be constrained no more than is necessary to accomplish social ends, but am decidedly not a Libertarian, in that I find it a vacuous mindset and set of "ideas". I am, decidedly, verbose.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not going to pretend that I'm educated on these issues, because I'm very much a novice to the political sphere, but I wonder why you're so quick to justify capitalism as necessary? In my understanding, capitalism has regular "downturns" built-in while socialist models do not. Capitalism necessarily leaves our most vulnerable destitute while those with access to unimaginable wealth multiply their billions. And I also wonder why you claim that the bulk of the economic power lies in corporate form as if that's necessarily true. Wouldn't it be true that way more economic power would be in "government form" if the gov't had received shares for the bailouts they do?
There's a lot to unpack there, and I appreciate it, so I don't want to give it short shrift, but I've already strayed pretty far from the topic. Nonetheless, here goes:

I have idiosyncratic ideas about "Capitalism." let me acknowledge that up front. That is because I actually think about capitalism in its specific form, as opposed to the loose way it is generally thrown about (usually to obfuscate underlying issues and mechanisms). In my view, capitalism is simply the separation of ownership from production. In a modern economy, I think this is necessary, even if there are associated evils that accompany it everywhere.

It is government's responsibility to ameliorate those associated evils. Included in those mitigation efforts is planning for and minimizing the impacts of the cyclical downturns that are inevitable - that includes funding and managing "safety net" systems. (That, by the way, is another aspect of managing the economy that Republicans in general, and Trump in particular, have failed at spectacularly.) MANY of our "safety net" programs are poorly conceived and executed. They need systematic overhaul.

By the way, socialist systems also experience significant "downturns" and other disruptions. They are just not as well-known. In some circumstances, those effects are much more dire and result in the loss of millions of lives.
 
Last edited:

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,131
Reaction score
9,987
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Tantrum throwing bad losers are the most disgusting pathetic people on earth: Romney, Kasich, Romney, Clinton, McCain, Graham etc.

All Kasich has done is confirmed how correct Republicans were not to nominate him. Losers should accept lose gracefully, not become tantrum throwing backstabbers betraying everyone who did vote for them. Name anything conservative or Republican about Kasich now? There is nothing. He supports defunding police, open borders, free healthcare for everyone in the world paid for by Americans... the list is endless.
I'm saving this post for November 4th....
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
28,484
Reaction score
7,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Democrats need to embrace the progressive left, the faction of the party that is winning electorally and has momentum behind them, and not embrace Republicans and become an even farther conservative party.
Better brace yourself for four more years of trump.

but you can say "but but Joe won the popular vote"...that seemed to be popular with you progressives in 2016.

The fact is.. the progressives in the democrat party are what scares the beejusus out of the folks you need to win the presidential election. Its what you need to wing the electoral college.

the more progressive/left that joe gets.. watch how Trump gets closer.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
28,484
Reaction score
7,512
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
that was the case 4 years ago. GOP members who figured they'd get shut out of the spoils from a Trump administration were anti Trump. So were the ones who are RINOS
And anyone else in the GOP who knew Trump was an incompetent blowhard.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Better brace yourself for four more years of trump.

but you can say "but but Joe won the popular vote"...that seemed to be popular with you progressives in 2016.

The fact is.. the progressives in the democrat party are what scares the beejusus out of the folks you need to win the presidential election. Its what you need to wing the electoral college.

the more progressive/left that joe gets.. watch how Trump gets closer.
There will be some tightening of the polls, but likely not within the margin of error. The polls have been far too stable in that regard. I know that there are some posters here flogging the outlier polls, but they are apt to flog anything that gives them pleasure, even if it is based on fantasy.

I think your basic premise is flawed. The policies being put forth by progressive elements of the Democratic party are popular, nationally. I think you've missed the boat. It is quite likely that more progressive policies will increase Biden's popularity. When one's view is constricted to party-centric sources of information, one can get a skewed perception of what is "popular".


For some perspective, Pew Center.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,627
Reaction score
74,604
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And anyone else in the GOP who knew Trump was an incompetent blowhard.
his incompetence has lead to a great economy, great judges and low unemployment.

Sounds pretty incompetent to me

not
 

Parrish

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
4,427
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
The stock market is not the economy.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
8,711
Reaction score
4,366
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And anyone else in the GOP who knew Trump was an incompetent blowhard.
"No one could have seen that coming."

Yeah, right.
 
Top Bottom