Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: TRUMP 2020

  1. #1

    Default TRUMP 2020

    Top 3 search results for TRUMP 2020:

    https://www.newsweek.com/lara-trump-...riends-1388252

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/robe...2020-landslide

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...e-2020-1260172



    Style subverts substance? Money matters most?
    If Trump can avoid sabotaging "his" good economic data, and exploit Democratic in-fighting to his advantage, is his second term a sure bet?
    Last edited by GGT; 04-08-2019 at 06:07 AM.

  2. #2
    I bet he even takes California in 2020.
    .

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    I bet he even takes California in 2020.
    I'll take that bet.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    I bet he even takes California in 2020.
    lol that isn't even remotely possible

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    If Trump can avoid sabotaging "his" good economic data, and exploit Democratic in-fighting to his advantage, is his second term a sure bet?
    No.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #6
    The presidential debates should be interesting, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. Some pretty tough questions will (should) be asked about the Rule of Law, intelligence agencies, national security, cabinet choices, the debt/deficit, corporate tax cuts....and allegiances.

    He will have banners saying Promises Made, Promises Kept for rallies of the faithful (who'd vote for him even if he shot someone on 5th Ave.) But he didn't bring back the coal industry, or the auto industry. Instead, his Executive Ordered Tariffs have failed miserably. He didn't Drain the Swamp but filled his cabinet with self-dealing millionaires that violate gov't ethics. He didn't make a deal with North Korea, the "summits" were nothing more than photo-ops, and now Kim is meeting with Putin. And Putin got away with his election interference (he was strong in his denials at Helsinki).

    Trump's "policy advisors" include Stephen Miller (anti-immigrant xenophobe), Steve Bannon (self-avowed Leninist), and Stephen Moore (economist hack). Maybe he just likes guys named Steve.

    He promised to make his tax returns public once the audits were done. (Never mind that every president has their tax returns audited, yet still makes them public.) He claims to be the most transparent president in history, but still hides his business transactions and bank loans. Probably too many questions for the debates, huh. That's been an effective tactic so far.


    Oh yeah, and he didn't Build the Wall either, which was the main tenet of his immigration "policy". He just made matters worse by not funding more immigration/asylum judges and threatening to *close the southern border* altogether. The zero-tolerance Family Separation policy was enacted under his tenure, and he doesn't even have the guts to admit it.
    Last edited by GGT; 04-25-2019 at 01:32 AM.

  7. #7
    https://www.vox.com/2019/4/29/185223...curate-refrain

    Coverage of Trump’s latest rally shows how major media outlets normalize his worst excesses


    Lying is still being recast as “reviv[ing] an inaccurate refrain.”


    President Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday night in Green Bay, Wisconsin, was an ugly affair. The president falsely accused Democrats of supporting infanticide, called the FBI and Justice Department leaders he’s purged from government “scum,” referred to the assembled media as “sick people,” and even admitted his proposal to punish blue states by relocating undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities was “actually my sick idea.”


    The crowd ate it up, at various points chanting “lock her up!” and “CNN sucks!” and booing loudly as Trump demonized his political opponents.


    Like most Trump rallies, it was a disturbing and unusual spectacle. But to listen to the mainstream media tell it, it was a completely normal political event.
    As Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star highlighted, the headlines major outlets used to describe Trump’s rally completely ignored his lies and incendiary smears. And it goes beyond headlines — in their articles about the rally, CBS, USA Today, the Associated Press, and the Hill failed to so much as mention that Trump pushed a number of false claims.

    The New York Times did attempt to fact-check Trump’s lie about Democrats and abortion — Trump accused Democrats of supporting doctors who “wrap the baby beautifully” before they get together with the mother and “determine whether or not they will execute the baby” — but in so doing, the outlet demonstrated it doesn’t really have a vocabulary to adequately deal with Trump.


    Instead of calling Trump’s lie a lie, the Times used the euphemism “revived an inaccurate refrain” in a tweet that was widely mocked. The accompanying article goes out of its way to avoid accusing Trump of lying, instead describing him as “reviv[ing] on Saturday night what is fast becoming a standard, and inaccurate, refrain about doctors ‘executing babies.’”


    Major media outlets have long struggled with how exactly to cover Trump, with the Times famously coming to the word “lie” in a headline late, something the paper’s own public editor criticized it for. This effort to find euphemisms for the word “lie” is actually normalizing his worst excesses. Coverage of this sort makes him seem like any other politician.


    The irony is that on Saturday night, as always, the media was one of Trump’s foremost targets of abuse — yet the very outlets Trump demeans continue to bend over backward to cover him in the most favorable possible light.





    How should the media cover Trump's lies at rallies? They can fact-check all day long (over 10,000 lies to date) but it doesn't seem to matter. At least not to his base, the GOP leadership, or Trump TV (Fox News) who will use the same incendiary language. Seriously, *executing babies*?

  8. #8
    This is not the USA I used to know...
    https://www.businessinsider.com/san-...-a-year-2018-8
    Not even third world has such a patrol.
    http://joemiller.us/2019/04/this-nea...-need-to-know/
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  9. #9
    Bumping this thread and hope it finally replaces TRUMP 2016! Every complaint made there should be part of the 2020 election. Instead of re-hashing the 2016 election, and posting every horrible thing about Trump in that old thread....let's move things forward.

    In the final debates, I hope the panel asks candidates for their views about liberal democracy. (Trump seems to think it means west coast Democrats.)

    And if they accept the limits of the Executive branch, and see congress as co-equal branch of gov't. (Trump has said he can do whatever he wants, it's right there in Article 2!)

    I could go on, but it won't matter if y'all keep that 2016 thread alive.

  10. #10
    Who's dumber: the idiot, or the galaxy brains who believe the idiot?

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  11. #11
    Trump is considering an Executive Order to overrule the SCOTUS decision, and AG Barr seems to be on board with any new rationale. That should scare everyone, including the rule-of-law Republicans who became Trumpistas for the chance to change the judiciary.

  12. #12
    Trump should also be asked about the Epstein sex trafficking trial......and why his Secretary of Labor wasn't fired. Also:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...y-epstein-case

    Drain the Swamp my ass.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Trump is considering an Executive Order to overrule the SCOTUS decision, and AG Barr seems to be on board with any new rationale. That should scare everyone, including the rule-of-law Republicans who became Trumpistas for the chance to change the judiciary.
    I'm betting you didn't read the courts reasoning, it was not a "you can't have that question on the census period" it was "the pretext you used was shit"

  14. #14
    The court must not accept any justification that is obviously pretextual now that the true motives have become clear. I presume you haven't thought through the implications of signaling to the govt that you want them to blatantly lie to the highest court in the US; the career DOJ lawyers representing the govt, however, do appear to have thought about the issue of lying to the court—and they've decided it's better to resign from this particular assignment.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  15. #15
    Does this mean we can finally start to accept public choice theory and admit that governments cynically do things for selfish unstated-but-obvious reasons? And we can admit that DACA was basically a long-term voter-registration drive?

  16. #16
    TDS in Action:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ck/1724178001/

    Thankfully the police were quick on the draw!

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm betting you didn't read the courts reasoning, it was not a "you can't have that question on the census period" it was "the pretext you used was shit"
    Yes, in other words --- they don't accept LIES as justifiable rationale. The Trump admin. knew they couldn't come up with another LIE on such short notice, even tho they cited Time in fast-tracking the case to SCOTUS. And getting a whole new roster of lawyers would be too obvious to the court.

    If Trump truly thought this was a priority, he would have started on it right after inauguration, and had 3 full years to make it happen. But this was just another stunt to rile up his base (and people like you) who don't like our changing demographics, and would rather have a Census that under-counts than one that's accurate.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Does this mean we can finally start to accept public choice theory and admit that governments cynically do things for selfish unstated-but-obvious reasons?
    I think this means the unitary executive theory will be part of the 2020 election debates, defining presidential limits. Plus the role of our Attorney General, the relationship (power dynamics) between the branches of government, and what to do when the WH or DoJ simply ignores congressional subpoenas that prevents their oversight abilities....

    And we can admit that DACA was basically a long-term voter-registration drive?
    No, because it's *deferred* action that's still unresolved. (Keep pushing those restrictive Voter ID laws tho, right?) All things related to Immigration and Citizenship will be on their platforms, and it's gonna get nasty.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •