2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Brian?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Latest ad from the Lincokn Project

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1273028594432958467

I really don't like these ads. They're too far in the gutter for me.

I know Trump does that and worse, but both are wrong.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

SCOTUS just struck down Trump admins attempts to end DACA.

Wow - The hits just keep on coming from a supposed "Conservative" supreme court.

They got 2 New Conservatives added and have yet to get a single meaningful win out of it..

So, the Social Conservatives that voted for Trump have basically gotten absolutely nothing out of him.

No Wall , No Repeal of Obamacare , No DACA removal , Still have Abortion and Gay Marriage and LGBTQ rights just reaffirmed by the courts.

They got taken for fools.

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Wow - The hits just keep on coming from a supposed "Conservative" supreme court.

They got 2 New Conservatives added and have yet to get a single meaningful win out of it..

So, the Social Conservatives that voted for Trump have basically gotten absolutely nothing out of him.

No Wall , No Repeal of Obamacare , No DACA removal , Still have Abortion and Gay Marriage and LGBTQ rights just reaffirmed by the courts.

They got taken for fools.

It’s almost as if writing laws to discriminate against people aren’t constitutional.

DrPhilG

Brian? wrote: »

You can quote me any time you want man. Just don't quote me to take a cheap shot, when it isn't me you should be aiming at.

It was aimed at you. I wasn't accusing you of being one of those who had shown double standards with regard to the medical diagnosis saga, but I was accusing you of unintentional irony (later corrected to hypocrisy) for lecturing one side but not the other, despite both being guilty of the same crime.

Brian? wrote: »

You've a real low bar for what you consider a strop.

Does that mean that you also have a real low bar for what you consider getting your underpants in a bunch?

Brian? wrote: »

I take it since you edited out the other parts of my post and didn't try to refute them you agree I was right?

No, it means you didn't spot my other post where I refuted the other bit. EDIT, you've since spotted it.

Kermit.de.frog

Brian? wrote: »

It’s almost as if writing laws to discriminate against people aren’t constitutional.

The reason they are so vicious is because Republicans are running them.

The Dems never had the bottle for hard hitting campaign ads.

Republicans know what works with the base.

DrPhilG

Brian? wrote: »

If someone critiques Trumps health, they should also be ready to accept that others will critique Biden's health. I defend Biden's health but have never commented on Trumps. I'm not interested in it. That's bias, not hypocrisy.

You're getting caught up in the medical diagnosis aspect. I didn't accuse you of hypocrisy about THAT.

I accused you of hypocrisy for condemning a lack of objectivity by one side but ignoring the same crime by the other.

That lack of objectivity runs throughout this thread, by both sides, on pretty much all topics.

duploelabs

DrPhilG wrote: »

Not really, one implies the other. If he tries again he might succeed which would mean that it wasn't a fair result, i.e. cannot be trusted.

Even if you disagree with the "not trusted" description, the point is the same. There's no point laughing (although it is laughable) at claims by Trump that the Democrats are going to cheat and steal the election, when that was the exact same tactic used by Schiff & others during the impeachment.




https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/05/the-trump-campaign-signaled-that-they-will-cheat-in-the-2020-election/

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499281-michael-moore-the-only-way-trump-wins-in-2020-is-if-he-cheats?amp

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/606643/

Implies means it's your interpretation. The very definition of cognitive bias

MeMen2_MoRi_

Trump has lost the supreme court case for ending DACA.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration

Not been a good couple of days in the supreme court for Donnie.

DrPhilG

duploelabs wrote: »

Implies means it's your interpretation. The very definition of cognitive bias

You realise you based that response on the first line of my post and ignored all the rest which replies to your reply in advance?

Quin_Dub

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Trump has lost the supreme court case for ending DACA.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration

Not been a good couple of days in the supreme court for Donnie.

Ladies & Gentlemen - The President of the United States

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273634152433188865

I don't even know where to start...

DrPhilG

Lol, nobody bloody likes him, why should they be any different.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Ladies & Gentlemen - The President of the United States

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273634152433188865

I don't even know where to start...

Child gets told they're not having it their own... Child cries they don't like me.

Billy Mays

For someone who claims to be a great judge of character Big Donnie sure has hired a lot of chumps who are sh!t at their job

Quin_Dub

Billy Mays wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a great judge of character Big Donnie sure has hired a lot of chumps who are sh!t at their job

I think the only person that has left the administration where Trump hasn't called them a loser afterwards was Scott Pruitt and he was a doozy!!

dark crystal

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1273418414103703552

duploelabs

DrPhilG wrote: »

You realise you based that response on the first line of my post and ignored all the rest which replies to your reply in advance?

No, I read your response, took it on board, yet I still have the same conclusion

duploelabs

Billy Mays wrote: »

For someone who claims to be a great judge of character Big Donnie sure has hired a lot of chumps who are sh!t at their job

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/976948306927607810?s=19

And then to....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273468029712707584?s=19

Cody montana

USA

Coronavirus Cases:
2,245,521
Deaths:
120,158

HDMI

It looks like the Supreme court has just sent daca back and told the DHS to go and try again, so unfortunately it's far from over.
They also haven't ruled out the possibility that Trump himself could rule out daca by executive order.

"Critically, however, Roberts pointed out in his decision that it wasn't necessarily unconstitutional for the Trump administration to terminate DACA, but the way it did so was."

Both sides need to get together and resolve it properly in law otherwise it still leaves them no safer. From talking to people since I moved over most are concerned about future kids that are brought across the border and are afraid that they will be given an automatic right to stay. I believe they are happy about legalizing the current daca applicants.

Quin_Dub

HDMI wrote: »

It looks like the Supreme court has just sent daca back and told the DHS to go and try again, so unfortunately it's far from over.
They also haven't ruled out the possibility that Trump himself could rule out daca by executive order.

"Critically, however, Roberts pointed out in his decision that it wasn't necessarily unconstitutional for the Trump administration to terminate DACA, but the way it did so was."

Both sides need to get together and resolve it properly in law otherwise it still leaves them no safer. From talking to people since I moved over most are concerned about future kids that are brought across the border and are afraid that they will be given an automatic right to stay. I believe they are happy about legalizing the current daca applicants.

Huge decision for the Trump administration on this.

DACA is generally supported , certainly among Democrats and Independents.

Do they leave it as it until after November or try again before the Election?

Which is likely to hurt them more.


If they leave it , might that win over some Independents? - Can't see it myself unless they announced that they actually going to fix the issue for current DACA people rather than simply cancel the program.

But - If they do that , will that lose them some core GOP support that they can ill afford to lose??

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Huge decision for the Trump administration on this.

DACA is generally supported , certainly among Democrats and Independents.

Do they leave it as it until after November or try again before the Election?

Which is likely to hurt them more.


If they leave it , might that win over some Independents? - Can't see it myself unless they announced that they actually going to fix the issue for current DACA people rather than simply cancel the program.

But - If they do that , will that lose them some core GOP support that they can ill afford to lose??

Trump won't lose core GOP support, no matter what. The mentality of us against them is too well embedded at this stage.

HDMI

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Huge decision for the Trump administration on this.

DACA is generally supported , certainly among Democrats and Independents.

Do they leave it as it until after November or try again before the Election?

Which is likely to hurt them more.


If they leave it , might that win over some Independents? - Can't see it myself unless they announced that they actually going to fix the issue for current DACA people rather than simply cancel the program.

But - If they do that , will that lose them some core GOP support that they can ill afford to lose??

Trump wants the Democrats to come to the table and resolve the issue, but I can't seem them giving him a big win. Even on immigration forums most conservatives were happy to allow the daca recipients to stay but just don't want it as an open ticket for future arrivals.

Bigger issue here for daca recipients is Trump loses the election and pushes through loads of executive orders before he leaves office. What was created by memo could be wiped away by executive order that could tie daca up in court for years.

Quin_Dub

HDMI wrote: »

Trump wants the Democrats to come to the table and resolve the issue, but I can't seem them giving him a big win. Even on immigration forums most conservatives were happy to allow the daca recipients to stay but just don't want it as an open ticket for future arrivals.

Bigger issue here for daca recipients is Trump loses the election and pushes through loads of executive orders before he leaves office. What was created by memo could be wiped away by executive order that could tie daca up in court for years.

That's actually not a problem - There's a claw-back rule that means that any legislation written in the previous 90 days can be rescinded.

Trump used it himself to undo the last few pieces of legislation that Obama signed

Quin_Dub

Brian? wrote: »

Trump won't lose core GOP support, no matter what. The mentality of us against them is too well embedded at this stage.

He is though - The latest Rasmussen report had him down 6 points with GOP voters from the previous poll , down 13 with Independents.

Those GOP voters aren't voting Biden , but they are increasingly likely to sit this one out.

Overheal

HDMI wrote: »

Trump wants the Democrats to come to the table and resolve the issue, but I can't seem them giving him a big win. Even on immigration forums most conservatives were happy to allow the daca recipients to stay but just don't want it as an open ticket for future arrivals.

Bigger issue here for daca recipients is Trump loses the election and pushes through loads of executive orders before he leaves office. What was created by memo could be wiped away by executive order that could tie daca up in court for years.

Major historical revisionism or honest ignorance?

Trump signaled to Congress he would accept any bipartisan deal they laid before his feet, this was back in 2018 iirc. In response both chambers passed a Bipartisan dreamers immigration reform bill that addressed DACA *and* gave him $25Bn to build his “wall.” The bull also funded the government.

He rejected it out of hand and initiated a government shutdown.

ohnonotgmail

HDMI wrote: »

It looks like the Supreme court has just sent daca back and told the DHS to go and try again, so unfortunately it's far from over.
They also haven't ruled out the possibility that Trump himself could rule out daca by executive order.

"Critically, however, Roberts pointed out in his decision that it wasn't necessarily unconstitutional for the Trump administration to terminate DACA, but the way it did so was."

Both sides need to get together and resolve it properly in law otherwise it still leaves them no safer. From talking to people since I moved over most are concerned about future kids that are brought across the border and are afraid that they will be given an automatic right to stay. I believe they are happy about legalizing the current daca applicants.

anything he does out of spite between november and january can be undone by biden just as easily. and he will certainly do things out of spite.

HDMI

Overheal wrote: »

Major historical revisionism or honest ignorance?

All I can find is Schumer going to Trump and offering a deal for daca and the wall to avert a government shutdown, can't seem to find anything passed by both houses. I only moved over September 2018 so any chance of a link?

HDMI

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

anything he does out of spite between november and january can be undone by biden just as easily. and he will certainly do things out of spite.

So if he does it before November by executive order it would be his legal right and no one could complain.

The Supreme Court should have found a way to end this once and for all.

ohnonotgmail

HDMI wrote: »

So if he does it before November by executive order it would be his legal right and no one could complain.

The Supreme Court should have found a way to end this once and for all.

it doesnt matter when he does it

HDMI

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it doesnt matter when he does it

So you think he should scrap it as easily as Obama made it?

A government of executive orders would be a mess, the last thing the US needs is Presidents bypassing the two houses. The two parties need to find a way to get things done properly.