Michael Avenatti Says He's Officially "Exploring" a Presidential Run

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

Of course I did.

 

I didn't vote for him in the primary for that very reason.

 

Who did you vote for?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Who did you vote for?

I voted for Clinton in the VA primary.

[Kal-El814]

I honestly don’t know what a qualified presidential candidate looks like other than someone who was the governor of a state.

[Chris-]

The fact you guys are even having this argument proves that Trump has lowered the bar for candidates as opposed to raising it, and if our response to Trump’s incompetence is, ‘Hey, this lawyer guy is pretty fucking smart, he could be President!’ then let’s just burn everything down now. 

[Kal-El814]

3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

The fact you guys are even having this argument proves that Trump has lowered the bar for candidates as opposed to raising it, and if our response to Trump’s incompetence is, ‘Hey, this lawyer guy is pretty fucking smart, he could be President!’ then let’s just burn everything down now. 

But some of the framers were just pretty fucking smart lawyer guys so... fuck you? I’ve got nothing.

[Greatoneshere]

24 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I voted for Clinton in the VA primary.

 

Well Clinton was even less qualified than Obama so shows what you know!  

 

8 minutes ago, Chris- said:

The fact you guys are even having this argument proves that Trump has lowered the bar for candidates as opposed to raising it, and if our response to Trump’s incompetence is, ‘Hey, this lawyer guy is pretty fucking smart, he could be President!’ then let’s just burn everything down now. 

 

Yeah, I agree, but to be fair . . . 

 

4 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

But some of the framers were just pretty fucking smart lawyer guys so... fuck you? I’ve got nothing.

 

This.

 

Lawyers are legislators despite how dumb all the laywers in the news have been recently lawyers can certainly be Presidents, I think. Lincoln was a lawyer, guys. And it was his legal skills that helped him get abolition through. 

 

Not saying Avenatti is Lincoln or the Founders though, lolol. 

[Chris-]

34 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Well Clinton was even less qualified than Obama so shows what you know!  

 

 

Yeah, I agree, but to be fair . . . 

 

 

This.

 

Lawyers are legislators despite how dumb all the laywers in the news have been recently lawyers can certainly be Presidents, I think. Lincoln was a lawyer, guys. And it was his legal skills that helped him get abolition through. 

 

Not saying Avenatti is Lincoln or the Founders though, lolol. 

I don’t doubt that Avanatti is a smart guy and would be a better President than Trump...But neither one of those are particularly difficult hurdles to clear, and neither one means that a person is inherently ‘qualified’ to be President. Being better than the current President means nothing when the current President is so wildly unqualified. 

 

If any one of you really gives a shit about ‘restoring the honor of the Presidency’ or whatever, you should laugh people out of the room if they suggest Michael Avanatti or Mark Cuban or whoever. 

[Guest]

Creating a set of qualifications for President is difficult because there is absolutely no job like it. Even Governor of a large state like California or Texas doesn’t encapsulate the responsibilities of the POTUS. I think we have to look at things past presidents have done well and attempt to distill what it was they allowed them to do that and then look for candidates who seem to possess similar traits.

 

I think a lot of skills that lawyers tend to develop over their careers can be hugely helpful in parsing lots of opposing view points and creating consensus and coalitions of differing voices.

[Spork3245]

I eagerly look forward to Avenatti’s primary debates with The Zuck, and Rock “the Dwayne” Johnson.  

[SaysWho?]

3 hours ago, CayceG said:

I think we're saying different things with the same words. 

 

Being qualified is an objective thing. You have a list of qualities, or you don't. 

Supporting certain policies or not supporting policies is not a definition of "qualification" and is a subjective thing. You're using the term wrong, but I understand what you mean. 

 

I'm speaking in the objective sense though. 

 

Well, I'll preface this by saying I totally get what you or Wade are saying, but "qualified" doesn't really mean anything to me. Ex: McCain had decades of experience, and he was a neo-conservative who mocked Obama's proposal to go into Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence that Osama was there. That experience would have produced worse results than Obama.

 

One of the most infamous examples is the 1860 election. Lincoln had far less experience than Breckinridge, the latter later being a Confederate Secretary of War. I mean... eh, if someone agrees with me more, they're automatically more qualified because I don't see Trump's ideas leading to prosperity. 

 

That doesn't mean Avenatti is anywhere near my top choice, either. But I'd say yeah, Trump is less qualified.

 

1 hour ago, Chris- said:

The fact you guys are even having this argument proves that Trump has lowered the bar for candidates as opposed to raising it, and if our response to Trump’s incompetence is, ‘Hey, this lawyer guy is pretty fucking smart, he could be President!’ then let’s just burn everything down now. 

 

I do not disagree with you at all.  

[RedSoxFan9]

 

there are some glaring omissions on this list but I think Avenatti is in the top ten no mater what

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

there are some glaring omissions on this list but I think Avenatti is in the top ten no mater what

 

SCOTUS nominee Garland?

[Guest]

Abramson should be higher. 

[Greatoneshere]

28 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

there are some glaring omissions on this list but I think Avenatti is in the top ten no mater what

 

So long as it actually produces positive change overall for everyone, I couldn't care less if the masses are being grifted or not. I'd prefer it not be done that way, but I'll take that over most other options. 

[CayceG]

32 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Well, I'll preface this by saying I totally get what you or Wade are saying, but "qualified" doesn't really mean anything to me. Ex: McCain had decades of experience, and he was a neo-conservative who mocked Obama's proposal to go into Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence that Osama was there. That experience would have produced worse results than Obama.

 

One of the most infamous examples is the 1860 election. Lincoln had far less experience than Breckinridge, the latter later being a Confederate Secretary of War. I mean... eh, if someone agrees with me more, they're automatically more qualified because I don't see Trump's ideas leading to prosperity. 

 

That doesn't mean Avenatti is anywhere near my top choice, either. But I'd say yeah, Trump is less qualified.

 

 

Yeah, I understand you. 

 

You're just using "qualified" wrong. :P

[Kal-El814]

51 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

I eagerly look forward to Avenatti’s primary debates with The Zuck, and Rock “the Dwayne” Johnson.  

I thought The Rock was a Republican?

[RedSoxFan9]

33 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

SCOTUS nominee Garland?

 

Eric Garland the game theory grifter

[RedSoxFan9]

12 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

So long as it actually produces positive change overall for everyone, I couldn't care less if the masses are being grifted or not. I'd prefer it not be done that way, but I'll take that over most other options. 

 

You are going to be disappointed 

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

You are going to be disappointed 

 

I was just speaking generically. Avenatti specifically? I have no idea, but I don't like the idea, as I've said before in the thread heh. 

[RedSoxFan9]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I was just speaking generically. Avenatti specifically? I have no idea, but I don't like the idea, as I've said before in the thread heh. 

 

I was talking about all of the #resistance

[Greatoneshere]

3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I was talking about all of the #resistance

 

From the tweet or in general? 

 

As @SaysWho? says, guess we should all just fucking kill ourselves lawl. I think there's some hope or I'd move out of the country to a better one, obviously.  

 

Anyone who truly has no hope should stop bothering and move out of the country, at the very least. Put your beliefs where your mouth is. If you've already moved, good (speaking generically). Hopeless people are useless. 

[RedSoxFan9]

No one who is grifting the masses is going to make the world a better place. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

11 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Hopeless people are useless. 

"Hopeful" people are worse than useless - they're annoying.

[Greatoneshere]

6 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

No one who is grifting the masses is going to make the world a better place. 

 

Depends on the nature and goal of the grift. Often times good plans require grifting the masses. 

 

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

"Hopeful" people are worse than useless - they're annoying.

 

That's ridiculous and you know it.  

 

It's not binary - saying I have some hope doesn't make me a hopeful person, but a hopeless person in this dire political situation we find ourselves in truly is useless. A hopeful person at least has the potential to contribute. I think healthy skepticism is the way to live life, but if one truly feels this is a completely unsalvageable situation - why continue to live in America then?

 

That makes no sense. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Moving to another country isn’t exactly easy or inexpensive 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Moving to another country isn’t exactly easy or inexpensive 

Illegals do it all the time how can it be so hard? /s

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

but if one truly feels this is a completely unsalvageable situation - why continue to live in America then?

Because:

 

(a) it's a serious pain in the ass to move 

(b) it's kinda/sorta "fun" to watch/participate in this conflagration 

 

I well and truly have no "hope" whatsoever, but that hasn't stopped me yet from active engagement, has it?  To hell with "hope" - it's a pretty, empty four-letter word that's the refuge of the fearful.  It's only when all hope is lost and when the battle is based on something (anger/revenge/honor/etc.) other than that hollow vessel can there be any chance of victory.

[Greatoneshere]

7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Because:

 

(a) it's a serious pain in the ass to move 

(b) it's kinda/sorta "fun" to watch/participate in this conflagration 

 

I well and truly have no "hope" whatsoever, but that hasn't stopped me yet from active engagement, has it?  To hell with "hope" - it's a pretty, empty four-letter word that's the refuge of the fearful.  It's only when all hope is lost and when the battle is based on something (anger/revenge/honor/etc.) other than that hollow vessel can there be any chance of victory.

 

Hope isn't a feeling in this case - it's speculation on my part. I'm saying I have hope, based on the evidence I see, that things will, eventually, get better through, primarily, changing our elected representatives to the "right" people. Redsox doesn't think so. I simply replied that if he truly doesn't think so, why even bother with any of this? I think it's a fair question heh. Surely you see the irony in his statement?

 

I agree that sitting around hoping is a pointless waste of time, but hope is also a great motivator - certainly greater than a hopeless person is. True hopelessness means you don't expect anything to change, so that isn't helpful at all. You're right that it hasn't stopped you from active engagement, but I don't believe you when you say you truly have no hope, I think that's just your contrarian nature and a desire to not allow yourself to care or hope like many do as a way to cope, myself included. Again, my speculation. I think everyone here knows, deep down, you care because you aren't a monster, no matter how much we joke about it.

 

It is kinda/sorta fun to watch, I guess, until we keep remembering that this is having a real toll on real people. But I digress  - I didn't mean to imply anyone shouldn't try to find some fun in all this mayhem to cope, but to dismiss all Resistance because "we'll all be disappointed" strikes me as a dismissive attitude (referring to redsox's post). 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Unless the #Resistance is willing to guillotine their Trump-supporting neighbors by their own hands or -- more importantly -- sacrifice their own families for the cause, they should stop using that word to describe themselves.

[SaysWho?]

I have zero reason to have negative feelings about #TheResistance. I've seen them protesting from the beginning, recruiting, running for office, and stifling the president wherever possible.

 

They're good peeps.

[RedSoxFan9]

9 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Hope isn't a feeling in this case - it's speculation on my part. I'm saying I have hope, based on the evidence I see, that things will, eventually, get better through, primarily, changing our elected representatives to the "right" people. Redsox doesn't think so. I simply replied that if he truly doesn't think so, why even bother with any of this? I think it's a fair question heh. Surely you see the irony in his statement?

 

The #resistance is useless.  I don’t see how this means I should not bother with politics or move to Canada.

 

I have no idea where you came up with the underlined part.  I’m starting to think you don’t know what the #resistance is. 

[RedSoxFan9]

This image sums up the #resistance

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I have zero reason to have negative feelings about #TheResistance. I've seen them protesting from the beginning, recruiting, running for office, and stifling the president wherever possible.

 

They're good peeps.

 

I’d like to see some examples of this.

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

8 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

The #resistance is useless.  I don’t see how this means I should not bother with politics or move to Canada.

 

I have no idea where you came up with the underlined part.  I’m starting to think you don’t know what the #resistance is. 

 

Are you specifically talking those who associate themselves specifically with the hashtag or meme #resistance or anyone who considered themselves part of the group trying to get things back to normal?

 

I assumed you meant the latter, not the former, which is my mistake if so.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I thought The Rock was a Republican?

 

 

He's not registered with either party and is an independent, he attended both conventions in 2000 and publically stated he voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 (and neither Trump or Hillary in 2016). He was registered as a Republican prior to 2006-ish, I think.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

This image sums up the #resistance

 

 

 

 

I’d like to see some examples of this.

 

 

 

Who do you think showed up to the health care town halls en masse and completely changed the conversation, exactly? Or the significant increase in people becoming candidates, or joined gun control activist groups?

 

The Resistance isn't a club with a membership.