PBS Newshour on “trump and the Truth”.
It’s not uncertain at all, there were over three million more decent people than Trump voters and that didn’t work.
Or, “They say truth hurts, and what he says and how he says it ***hurts ***someone.”
BUT, hear me out: This is not out of some sort of organic sadism. It is out of many Americans having been raised and socialized for whole lifetimes, heck, for whole generations, in a toxic POV that life’s a zero-sum exercise of winners and losers and that your feelings will be hurt, you will be thrown under the bus, some suckup will get the credit for your work, you will be grabbed by the p**** and be quiet if you want the job, and it all means that IS the way the world works and it’s never gonna change so deal with it. So to them, if the libs or the intellectuals (who do not believe that is the immutable reality of life) say he is being offensive, it must mean he IS telling it “like it is” which ***includes ***the bullshit.
Thanks.
Who can the Dem’s run that is famous with ethics that isn’t 103 years old?
It doesn’t matter who is running against Trump, he’ll make his opponent an issue, drag them down and beat them with experience.
This. Remember the increasingly hysterical predictions about Brexit in the run-up to the Brexit? They were dismissed as obviously stupid and wrong and actually hindered the Remain cause.
Okay, you probably don’t because you’re not British. But perhaps you remember the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election? You know, the one which Moody’s predicted Trump’s election would cause 3.5 million lost jobs and a lengthy recession, which Citigroup echoed and amplified to a warning of a possible global recession. And those who predicted the stock market would crash have been proved wrong. If otherwise-respected groups who predicted disaster been found to be talking out of their arses, perhaps we ought to learn the lesson and be more circumspect?
There are literally about a hundred million possibilities. Approximately half the country is Democratic, most people are eligible to run for President, most people are ethical, the vast majority of people are under 103, and anyone at all who the Dems run will be famous.
It’s not incorrect.
No, it’s simply not. The chicken law is a state law that’s nearly inconsequential. When was the last time it was enforced?
Immigration violations are a much more serious violation.
P.S. Your “cites” are opinions, not factual.
Right?
So, if Obama had stopped enforcing immigration laws during his term, then they would be inconsequential by now?
In your opinion.
P.S. No they are not. I’m beginning to think that maybe you are under the mistaken idea that “opinion” means “Something that you disagree with.” because that is when you use that accusation, and it has nothing to do with the source of the material.
I’m not sure who it will be, and they don’t have to be “famous” with anything, IMO. I just think that it will be someone who isn’t burdened with Hillary-itis. She was the ultimate easy punching bag, even though I voted for her.
I think that by 2020, America will have had enough of Trump, as long as Dems don’t nominate an extremist.
No, you are wrong when you confuse facts with opinions.
The key to beating Trump is to make the public weary of the negative coverage of him. At a certain point, whether people agree with Stance X or not, they may cave in to Stance X if only to make the Stance X (“Trump is bad”) message stop going on 24/7.
You’re not going to beat Trump by out-Trumping Trump. You’re not going to beat Trump but by attacking his character, that’s already baked in. We knew what we were getting. You beat him by presentng a message that a majority of people can get behind and just being better than him. Clinton’s message was more of the status quo and people just don’t like her. That failed. So you need a decent person and a decent message that can capture the center and placate the fringe enough. Going farther left is not going to do that.
To beat Trump dems will have to aggressively go after the white vote. Hillary expected she would get it and targeted minorities and women. It just wasn’t enough.
The other thing they will need is a softer (public) stance on gun control. IMO that’s huge.
Honestly I wouldn’t mind a little white-washing just to get Trump out.
“Don’t fall for it Jack.
For the lie we keep telling ourselves. We do the dirty stuff to get the power. It’ll give us all the good things we really want. Then we get the power, we can’t even remember what goddamn thing what it was we wanted it for in the first place.“
~Jane (Head Office)
lol, no, not quite.
We need another FDR.
The only way we’re getting one is for Americans to realize that their little experiment with populism is a failed one.
I think they know he lies and lies daily; they don’t consider those lies to be that important. They’re more like white lies that he has to tell in order to fight off us foes and deal with the more important matters, like controlling immigration, cutting taxes, demolishing the federal government, and creating a right wing imagination land that takes them back to a golden era that never really existed.
Trump voters are fighting a culture war. In a culture war, the concept of truth and reality are going to be different for those fighting it. They view themselves as the true Americans. In their view, they’re the ones working 60-hour work weeks, competing like hell for business, creating wealth, putting people to work, paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes, navigating complicated bureaucracies, buying nice homes, maintaining their yards, obeying the law, and so forth. In their view, the real truth is that they’re the ones who are keeping the American dream and traditional American values alive, and liberals are the ones who are disrupting everything by doling out tax dollars to support people who don’t want to work and immigrants who don’t want to adapt. From their perspective, that is the truth.
There are of course different shades of this reality that exist along the right-left paradigm. The hardcore Trumpists will probably blame liberals and liberals only if their little experiment with disruption politics fails (which it will). As you get closer to the center, we’ll probably that those who didn’t like Trump but just had to vote against Hillary might take more nuanced views and realize that the only thing the right wing has accomplished is ‘breaking stuff,’ as in breaking with political norms and unspoken rules that maintain the strength of democracy.
I think the way to beat Trump is to promote fact-based reality. I don’t think showmanship is going to beat Trump, which is why I’m not a fan of Avenatti. I think it’s people like Robert Mueller, dedicated civil servants and investigative journalists who are willing to do very detailed, often boring work in the pursuit of truth.
What odds will you give me?
My statement stands as presented:
“Applying for asylum is not a crime. It is guaranteed under U.S. and international law.”
If there is an argument against the veracity of this statement, please, let’s see it.
You’ll excuse me, Counselor, if I don’t participate in the cross examination. My ability to participate in the board is sporadic, so doesn’t lend itself to extended dialogues (as demonstrated by my unfortunate delay in responding, for which I do apologize.) Also, I’m not particularly interested in being diverted down some Socratic path, drawing me to some predetermined position such as, “It’s perfectly fine and legal to separate parents from children if they crossed illegally.” That is a diversion.
I do hope that you are not meaning to infer that asylum-seeking families have not been swept up in this poorly-planned “zero tolerance” policy? There is substantial evidence to the contrary. There is also substantial evidence that due process for asylum seekers has been largely ignored or disregarded. And that, as I understand, would be an illegal act by whatever authority denied due process.
How many asylum-seeking families denied due process is too many? It’s actually a trivial answer. The path forward appears simple: Stop this illegal action. Stop it now. Then fix the damage done and make these people as whole as possible. After that, we can assess and change the process - and punish the guilty.
Again, Bricker, my apologies for the late reply. I hope I haven’t disrupted the thread too badly from its natural progression.
Even money. If you’re so sure he’ll lose, what odds will you give me?
I would not bet either way. After 2016 I no longer trust either my judgement or that of so called experts. (The judgement of obvious partisans, I’ve never trusted.) 2016 did prove one thing, however. When both parties nominate candidates that are unelectable, one of them wins anyway.