Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 99

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 07:07 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 02:32 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.

  19. #19
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.0aab71a9e7a5

    "In the vote, a majority of House Democrats joined with House Republicans to vote against moving forward on articles of impeachment filed by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas). This wasn’t a vote on whether to impeach Trump. It was a procedural motion, like the first step of the first step to even considering impeachment proceedings. And it failed by a vote of 332 to 95."

    Pelosi must be annoyed they even tried.

  20. #20
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  21. #21
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...dont-work.html

    Buy overpriced Trump straws. Because "liberal" straws don't work.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...dont-work.html

    Buy overpriced Trump straws. Because "liberal" straws don't work.
    This is the type of trolling I love.

  23. #23
    Oh man this was the guy the Democrats thought would do in Trump?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADqrnBRYHk

    And lest you think I'm being unfair or biased to that poor old man... it isn't just from the Right that sees Mueller as senile.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/michae...ing-in-ecstasy

    "Liberal activist and filmmaker Michael Moore delivered a scathing review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony on Wednesday, suggesting Democrats should reconsider why they trusted him in the first place.

    "A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions," Moore tweeted, apparently in reference to Mueller.

    "I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today -- All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller -- just STFU from now on."

  24. #24
    I've seen most of the hearing. It doesn't show what you think it shows. It does show that many republican legislators are pretty fucking weird though. Not sure why you think quoting Moore is informative. Mueller made sure not to say anything that might lead to legal problems for him or for anyone picking up where his team left off. Most non-republican commentators observed that the hearing mostly delivered what Mueller said it would deliver: the information that was already in the report, with some clarifications. It's pretty huge that Mueller confirmed Barr and Trump both lied, confirmed that Trump engaged in conduct that would otherwise have been interpreted as obstruction of justice, confirmed that Russia launched serious attacks on an American election with the intention of helping Trump win, and confirmed that the president can indeed in theory be charged for his conduct after he leaves office.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #25
    Because surprise surprise Lewk is a dumbass, here are some pointers for everyone concerning what was covered in the questioning.

    Trump was not exonerated for obstruction? Check.

    Russia attacked our election and there is no Russia hoax? Check.

    Russia wanted Trump to win? Check.

    Trump campaign welcomed this help? Check.

    Trump campaign shared info with Russian intelligence? Check.

    Trump told people to falsify records to cover it up? Check.

    Trump told folks to lie to cover his violations up? Check.

    Trump needed to be interviewed, but because he would have fought it for years, they moved on? Check.

    Trump also refused to answer most of the written questions. This impeded/hurt the investigation? Check.

    The written answers Trump did respond with contradicted other evidence, meaning he lied to the DoJ? Check.

    Russian fake propaganda was seen by over 120 million Americans online? Check.

    Trump lied to America about his business deal with Russia? Check.

    If Trump wasn't President, he could be indicted right now? Check.

    When Trump is no longer President, he can be indicted? Check.

    Is accepting Foreign Aid in order to help win an election unethical. “Yes. And a crime.”

    Oh, and if anyone was curious what the hell the GOP was smoking, they are hitting lewk level crazy.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...atch-fox-news/
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-25-2019 at 12:51 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    Republicans in the senate are now blocking bills to strength election security, which would 'would require campaigns to report to federal authorities any attempts by foreign entities to interfere in US elections' because, apparently, that's 'too partisan', which honestly speaks for itself.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/25/p...ion/index.html
    Why do we build the wall, my children, my children? We build the wall to keep us free.
    How does the wall keep us free, my children, my children? The wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    Who do we call the enemy, my children, my children? The enemy is poverty. And the wall keeps out the enemy. And we build the wall to keep us free.
    That's why we build the wall. We build the wall to keep us free. Because we have and they have not, my children, my my children. Because they want what we have got.
    What do we have that they should want, my children, my children? We have a wall to work upon. We have work and they have none. And our work is never done. And the war is never won.
    The enemy is poverty, the wall keeps out the enemy, and we build the wall to keep us free. That's why we build the wall, we build the wall to keep us free.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Oh man this was the guy the Democrats thought would do in Trump?
    You're confusing public testimony (under oath) with televised theatrics, and you're making false assumptions about both. But keep drinking that Fox News/Trump TV kool-aid that makes lib'ruls cry?

    And lest you think I'm being unfair or biased to that poor old man... it isn't just from the Right that sees Mueller as senile.
    But it *is* unfair and biased to suggest that Mueller is senile. Or that the "Mueller Investigation" wasn't legitimate because he didn't *perform* well on TV. Or that the entire Democrat party told the public to rely on Mueller's testimony. None of those things are entirely true, but they play well in small sound bites, for their intended audiences.

    The 2020 elections are gonna be a mess, thanks to McConnell and the (R) senate majority blocking all bills related to election security. The "new normal" is what Mueller feared---influence from foreign actors---and since Trump is on board with that, the GOP will comply with the Dear Leader's wishes.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I've seen most of the hearing. It doesn't show what you think it shows. It does show that many republican legislators are pretty fucking weird though. Not sure why you think quoting Moore is informative. Mueller made sure not to say anything that might lead to legal problems for him or for anyone picking up where his team left off. Most non-republican commentators observed that the hearing mostly delivered what Mueller said it would deliver: the information that was already in the report, with some clarifications. It's pretty huge that Mueller confirmed Barr and Trump both lied, confirmed that Trump engaged in conduct that would otherwise have been interpreted as obstruction of justice, confirmed that Russia launched serious attacks on an American election with the intention of helping Trump win, and confirmed that the president can indeed in theory be charged for his conduct after he leaves office.
    **

    “Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said Wednesday afternoon. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”

    Mueller, who had agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu in the first hearing, said he now disagreed with that framing.

    “That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

    **

    Mueller and his team did *not* come to the conclusion that a crime was committed by Trump. Also the idea that the president can be charged after leaving office isn't the bombshell you think it is. Of course he can be charged with a crime after leaving office, anyone can be charged with any crime outside of specific restrictions placed which is what Mueller is referring to.

    That said nothing much has changed. The Mueller report is not a smoking gun and it didn't lead to impeachment. Mueller testifying did not change the fundamental political calculus here or the facts on the the ground that there was no collusion. All it did was highlight how inept poor Mueller was, the guy really ought to retire from public life, old age catches up with us all and some sooner than others.

  29. #29
    To the contrary....all it did was highlight that Republicans don't give a shit about the Rule of Law.

  30. #30
    “That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
    They did not make a determination because of the OLC opinion. It was made abundantly clear during the hearing that the OLC opinion was the reason they did not go there. They do nevertheless give an account of Trump's conduct, and that conduct is such that any other person doing what he did would have been charged with obstruction of justice. This isn't controversial anywhere, to anyone, except to derpheads in the MAGA swamp.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

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