2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[HooDat]

Anyone who votes for a candidate on the basis of an expectation of reparations ever being enacted, is about a dumb as someone voting for Trump because they thought he would build a physical wall across the US southern border and make Mexico pay for it.

In other words, an idiot.

[runrussellrun]

But oh boy AFAN, evah the net mover. Massachusettes abolished slavery a few (six) years before 1789, when you claim claims can start. (US Constitution Congress the first ) You claimed it was a USA/Federal govt. problem. But, after me knocking your thinking cerebellum, perhaps realized that it was, after all, a states right. Until it was banned.

Until it was banned.....by whom? Take your time. The answer rhymes with "the government of the United States of America".

Keep digging your hole, my friend.

rather be digging a hole that shooting at windmill lacrosse nets that used to be over there, at least it would show progress

When did the USA ban IMPORTS of slavery. Yeah, I am here all day. ( the POINT is this : Reparations is a waste of time, for the tip of the iceburg issues. Indians anyone ? What the heck )

[a fan]

Never said they weren't a waste of time....it has to be adjudicated. Courts are at their disposal, as I told L&M.

How did I move the goalposts? Go ahead and explaain I have said the same exact thing in every post, it's Federal matter. Because it is. Haven't moved that one inch. It's still there. Shoot all you want.

An awful lot of posters sure like to claim strawman and moving goalposts when they've lost arguments and simply don't like it.

[runrussellrun]

Never said they weren't a waste of time....it has to be adjudicated. Courts are at their disposal, as I told L&M.

How did I move the goalposts? Go ahead and explaain I have said the same exact thing in every post, it's Federal matter. Because it is. Haven't moved that one inch. It's still there. Shoot all you want.

An awful lot of posters sure like to claim strawman and moving goalposts when they've lost arguments and simply don't like it.

Well, you wanna make it Federal, even though the Feds will kick it to the curb (states), but lets keep the ball in Fed court. The importation of slaves was banned 1805....or so. Now what?

Good luck with the records . Why adjudicate something like this, while ignoring the peoples that really deserve reparations? We killed the natives, took land that had gold, coal, water, oil, valuable minerals, etc. But ,the pretends only trot out big sitting jon to stop pipe lines. Because Pine Ridge is like the chesapeake.......decades long bad grades.

[a fan]

Well, you wanna make it Federal, even though the Feds will kick it to the curb (states), but lets keep the ball in Fed court. The importation of slaves was banned 1805....or so. Now what?

You think reparations are about importation, and when the importation stopped, it was "all good"?

Come on man.

Good luck with the records . Why adjudicate something like this, while ignoring the peoples that really deserve reparations? We killed the natives, took land that had gold, coal, water, oil, valuable minerals, etc. But ,the pretends only trot out big sitting jon to stop pipe lines. Because Pine Ridge is like the chesapeake.......decades long bad grades.

As I said---the courts are always at their disposal. Who did they sign the treaties with? Sue them. I have NO problem with that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But oh boy AFAN, evah the net mover. Massachusettes abolished slavery a few (six) years before 1789, when you claim claims can start. (US Constitution Congress the first ) You claimed it was a USA/Federal govt. problem. But, after me knocking your thinking cerebellum, perhaps realized that it was, after all, a states right. Until it was banned.

Until it was banned.....by whom? Take your time. The answer rhymes with "the government of the United States of America".

Keep digging your hole, my friend.

rather be digging a hole that shooting at windmill lacrosse nets that used to be over there, at least it would show progress

When did the USA ban IMPORTS of slavery. Yeah, I am here all day. ( the POINT is this : Reparations is a waste of time, for the tip of the iceburg issues. Indians anyone ? What the heck )

What I said.... If anyone has a case it is people that can 1) document that the government actually took their land away...2) the US Government broke a contract and has to pay damages. I have not thought much about reparations. Its another wheel spinner and not as fun as some of the other wheel spinning topics.

[runrussellrun]

Well, you wanna make it Federal, even though the Feds will kick it to the curb (states), but lets keep the ball in Fed court. The importation of slaves was banned 1805....or so. Now what?

You think reparations are about importation, and when the importation stopped, it was "all good"?

Come on man.

Good luck with the records . Why adjudicate something like this, while ignoring the peoples that really deserve reparations? We killed the natives, took land that had gold, coal, water, oil, valuable minerals, etc. But ,the pretends only trot out big sitting jon to stop pipe lines. Because Pine Ridge is like the chesapeake.......decades long bad grades.

As I said---the courts are always at their disposal. Who did they sign the treaties with? Sue them. I have NO problem with that.

Final question. What about the "nice" jimmy crack corn arse-whole human owning plantation landed who freed their slaves upon death? Do the ancestors get a check? Is it prorated?

[a fan]

Same answer. No moving goalposts---the Federal courts are at their disposal for an answer to that question.

[6ftstick]

AH HAH! AH HAH HAH HAH! HAAAAAAAA AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

https://nypost.com/2019/07/15/biden-rep ... ign-event/

“If you like your health care plan … you can keep it,” Biden said at an AARP event in Des Moines, Iowa. 2 Days ago.

[Trinity]

Trump would totally lead a lynch mob. And enjoy it. Some Republicans are offended.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics ... index.html

[RedFromMI]

Here is a read of where reparations were actually made (for Jim Crow and the aftermath of Brown vs. Board of Education) in Virginia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 913ae651e3

[ggait]

Great analysis by Nate Cohn of the NY Times. He's seeing it the same way as Nate Silver has previously written.

Which is that Trump will probably do worse in 2020 than 2016 (-2.1% in pop vote, 304 EVs), but the Dems probably won't do as well in 2020 as 2018 (GOP -8.6%, only 224 GOP EVs if you counted it that way).

Cohn thinks Trump can still win the Electoral College at -5% popular vote. He loses PA and Mich, but retains WI. 270-268. Beyond -5%, WI flips (260-278) and then a rout could be on (IA, NC, FL flip; even AZ and TX could flip).

The Dems will turn out to vote against Trump like they did in 2018 (and like they did not do in 2016). But a bunch of 2016 Trump voters stayed home in 2018 (since they are Trumpsters more than Republicans). Those folks are likely to return for Trump in 2020.

So Trump's down/dirty approach has a shot of working.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upsh ... edge-.html

[CU77]

Yes, especially if the Ds don't start tacking to the center. Which they do not seem bright enough to do.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, especially if the Ds don't start tacking to the center. Which they do not seem bright enough to do.

They're "bright enough" (see Pelosi and the lead Biden still has), but the energy, both emotional and intellectual, is with the most progressive ideas, So Warren plus Bernie have the largest overall share of support right now.

This period is really about sorting through those ideas, and the candidates who espouse them in various versions. When it comes time to pull the lever though, the question will be whether Dem voters prioritize voting for the most extreme versions/candidates or whether they prioritize beating Trump.

Looks to me like Harris might be the candidate who could thread the needle, but it's still super early.

[seacoaster]

Frank Bruni's Wednesday newsletter:

"Donald Trump’s election was in many ways born of disbelief.

For a while the media didn’t believe that his 2016 candidacy would go anywhere, and he made enormous headway by the time the necessary investigations and takedowns of him came.

Republican leaders and his rivals for the party’s nomination didn’t believe that he’d stick — and were sure that he’d self-destruct — so they dallied in registering the threat of his presidential bid, heeding the lessons of it and responding effectively.
Hillary Clinton and her advisers didn’t believe that he could beat her. In early 2016 some of those advisers told me that it was John Kasich, among the Republican contenders, whom they feared. Trump? He was a gimme. He was a gift. They wanted the Republican Party to nominate him in an act of what they considered suicide. By not appraising him accurately, they couldn’t plot correctly.
And the American voters who couldn’t imagine him in the presidency or stomach the thought didn’t believe that he’d get there. How could he, with all the scandals, all the stink bombs, all the lying, all the bragging? I have long contended that one of the underrated factors in his victory is how many Americans underestimated him and didn’t bother to cast ballots or threw away their votes because they were certain there wouldn’t be any price.

Well, there was. There is. We’re paying it. And we’ll pay it again if we make the same mistake: if we look at an incident like that chilling rally in North Carolina, where he indulged and encouraged those “send her back” chants about Representative Ilhan Omar, and decide that he’s finally overplayed his hand, that he’s nullified himself and that any Democratic nominee will triumph over him.

To defeat Trump in 2020 requires brutal realism — about what can work in American politics, about what can be stirred in American people and about what tricks and assets Trump possesses. In my column last weekend I talked about how important it was for Democrats not to indulge their every policy fantasy, not to see the electorate they want but the one that’s actually there, and not to think that calling Trump names and calling out his ugliness are strategy enough. I skipped over the most important “not.” I neglected to point out that Trump will win if people mistakenly decide that that’s outside the realm of what this country will accept.

It’s not. He won once already. And all the awful behavior we’ve seen since was on display before. So what must change is our response to it. That’s the focus of my column, and that should be something we’re all mulling as we evaluate the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Who’s talking most persuasively about topics other than Trump? Who’s as compelling about the America that he or she wants to create as about the America that Trump is destroying? Who counters the vicious storm of him with something calmer and better and truer?

I don't have the answer, but those are the questions, and I’ll carry them into next week’s Democratic debates, which, I trust, we’ll all watch with great interest — and with great hope."

[youthathletics]

This guy gets it, at least on this point. Who is going to prevail as the opponent?

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0j8F_-HSrU ... sfsp6b5de4

[a fan]

You just explained why the Dems are screwed.

"America: we're too stupid to figure out how to offer the same Health Care every other 1st world country has, at half the freaking price we're paying now", isn't exactly a slogan that will drive people to the polls.

We're approaching $10K per person per year for our health care. Canada is at less than $5k per person.

We've totally fallen apart as a nation in 20 short years.

[Farfromgeneva]

Yes, especially if the Ds don't start tacking to the center. Which they do not seem bright enough to do.

They're "bright enough" (see Pelosi and the lead Biden still has), but the energy, both emotional and intellectual, is with the most progressive ideas, So Warren plus Bernie have the largest overall share of support right now.

This period is really about sorting through those ideas, and the candidates who espouse them in various versions. When it comes time to pull the lever though, the question will be whether Dem voters prioritize voting for the most extreme versions/candidates or whether they prioritize beating Trump.

Looks to me like Harris might be the candidate who could thread the needle, but it's still super early.

Too pugilistic. Anyone who thinks she (or anyone) can spar with a Trump is delusional. It’s like utilizing old school rules of engagement against guerillas with zero respect or value for human life.

Mayor Pete (or Andrew yang) seem like the best in the middle but he won’t win.

Having energy and momentum is cool and all,but if it’s not harnessed properly and to optimize its benefits then it’s just underused/I utilized capacity that carries deprecaible value at light speed.

[CU77]

Mayor Pete is gay, married to a man. That knocks X% off his vote total in midwest swing states. I'm not sure what X is, but it ain't zero.

[Trinity]

Harris will depants Trump and mock him mercilessly. I’ll bet he fears her most as a general election opponent. She’ll point out he’s selling nukes to the Arabs and pals with Epstein and loves coddling dictators. Has he even picked a nickname for her? Scared of that.