New Donald Trump thread

[swordfish]

1 hour ago, TheStatGuy said:

If Joe Biden can't speak a sentence and showing dementia..that must say a lot about that political novice in the white house and how bad of a candidate he is....

 

You are assuming the current polling reports are accurate........(which tells SF a lot about TSG)......

[TheStatGuy]

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

You are assuming the current polling reports are accurate........(which tells SF a lot about TSG)......

RCP average on July 15, 2016
Clinton: 43.1%
Trump: 40.4%

RCP average on July 15 2020. 
Biden: 48.3%
Trump: 40.2%

 

The FiveThirtyEight national polling average with 110 days until E-Day:

2020: Biden+9.1
2016: Clinton+1.1.
2012: Obama+0.9...
2008: Obama+4.2...
2004: Kerry+1.9... 
2000: Bush+6.4....
1996: Clinton+15.2
1992: Clinton+13.7
1988: Dukakis+4.0
1984: Reagan+12.1
1980: Reagan+11.3
1976: Carter+7.0

1988, 2004 and 2016 were wrong but all three were in the margin of error. 

The polls were pretty good in 2018 and 2019. 

I think Biden either wins in a route or Trump squeaks by again. 

[Muda69]

15 hours ago, TheStatGuy said:

also Trump is showing signs of mental illness and has since 2016. . 

 

Impartial citations from medical professionals please.

 

[Muda69]

Goya Boycott: Everything Is Political Now

https://reason.com/2020/07/16/goya-boycott-everything-is-political-now/

Quote

In Spanish, there is an idiom that refers to finding things "even in one's soup," when they are overbearingly ubiquitous. As U.S. politicians and activists enter day seven of a battle over canned beans and adobo seasoning, cancel culture and political point-scoring are undeniably hasta en la sopa.

Speaking as a guest in the White House on July 9, Goya Foods CEO Bob Unanue praised President Donald Trump for being a "builder" and said Americans were "truly blessed" to have him as a leader.

Faster than you can say "cancel culture," famous progressive Latinos took to Twitter, invoked the spirit of Roman Emperor Caracalla, and executed Unanue's and thereby Goya's damnatio memoriae.

"Oh look, it's the sound of me Googling 'how to make your own Adobo,'" tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) about a popular Goya product. Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote that "we learned to bake bread in this pandemic, we can learn to make our own adobo con pimienta. Bye." Former Housing and Urban Development Sec. Julian Castro added that "Americans should think twice before buying their products," as he used the hashtag #Goyaway.

As the boycott against Goya gained steam on social media, Unanue took to Fox News to claim his right to free speech was being constrained. This misses the point, since calling for an economic boycott also constitutes free expression. More troubling is when members of Congress like Ocasio-Cortez and former high-ranking bureaucrats such as Castro use their power and influence to punish a private business in order to score partisan points. 

Meanwhile, Republican former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tweeted that leftists need no beans since "their speeches and whining already produce all the gas the planet can take." Ivanka Trump posted a photo in which she "endorses" Goya products ("if it's Goya, it has to be good"), only to be immediately accused of violating government ethics rules. Even the president tried to score partisan points on the food fight, staging a photo-op with Goya products in the Oval Office, an endorsement that arguably skews free-market competition since Goya's competitors have not been boosted in public by the commander in chief as a thanks for praise.

Among the sins that justify the uproar against Unanue in progressives' eyes are his past donations to Republican politicians such as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, even though Unanue has also donated to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.). Unanue even mentioned his previous appearance at the White House under President Obama in 2011, when he said he was "honored and humbled" to be in the former president's presence. In 2012, Goya also took part in Michelle Obama's "Let's Move!" initiative, designed to provide parents "with the information they need to make healthy choices." None of which led to calls for Goya's cancellation.

The #GoyAway movement seeks to categorize all Hispanics into a single, monolithic ethnic group, whose members are capable of thinking only within the strict boundaries that their betters in politics and the media assign to them. Forget that, according to the Pew Research Center, a significant minority of Hispanics tend to vote Republican; perhaps they're not worthy of decent peppered adobo.

Many of those boycotting Goya are doing so because they disagree with the president's stance on immigration and racial issues that impact Latinos. But the boycott will end up disproportionately hurting immigrants and Latinos. Goya employs 4,000 people, and as Unanue said in May, well before the current Twitter storm, "All the employees are family working together for the same purpose. Many of us are immigrants and we extend a hand to our brothers." Unanue also announced at the White House that Goya was donating 2 million cans of its products to food banks in order to ease the plight of the worst-off during the pandemic.

This raises the question of who brings more lasting value to U.S. Latinos and the nation at large: the country's largest Hispanic-owned business, which exemplifies the American dream of immigrant wealth and job creation through hard work, or the cadre of politicians and celebrities who are eager to play politics with photos of canned coconut milk.

Goya will likely be fine, but politicians and activists warring over supermarket products should leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth. An omnipresent politics is especially dangerous because, as Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges commented, the best government is an invisible one.

"We arrived in Switzerland in 1914," Borges said about his family's stay in the Alpine country, "and like good South Americans, we asked the president's name. They could only stare at us, because nobody knew the answer."

The detached approach to politics of the Swiss was striking compared to Latin Americans' obsession with caudillos such as Juan Domingo Perón in Borges' Argentina and, more recently, Cuba's Fidel Castro or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. All were domineering figures whose unwelcome presence in daily life was sadly unavoidable for any civilian.

Whether you prefer Goya's seasoned stews or chicken noodles, when politics begins to pop up in your soup you can be sure that everyone has taken a step in the wrong direction.

FTA:  "This raises the question of who brings more lasting value to U.S. Latinos and the nation at large: the country's largest Hispanic-owned business, which exemplifies the American dream of immigrant wealth and job creation through hard work, or the cadre of politicians and celebrities who are eager to play politics with photos of canned coconut milk."   

That is an easy question to answer.  The former of course.

 

[DanteEstonia]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

"We arrived in Switzerland in 1914," Borges said about his family's stay in the Alpine country, "and like good South Americans, we asked the president's name. They could only stare at us, because nobody knew the answer."

This quote shows how clueless Borges was about Swiss politics. No one knew the president’s name because Switzerland has no President.

[Muda69]

34 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

This quote shows how clueless Borges was about Swiss politics. No one knew the president’s name because Switzerland has no President.

It must be nice to be an expert on the political systems of every country in the world, especially in 1914 where I'm sure the internet could have told Mr. Borges all about it.  After all Switzerland was only on a completely different continent.

 

[DanteEstonia]

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It must be nice to be an expert on the political systems of every country in the world, especially in 1914 where I'm sure the internet could have told Mr. Borges all about it.  After all Switzerland was only on a completely different continent.

 

He could have read up on Switzerland before he moved there. There were books about the Swiss government in Argentina before 1914.

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

There were books about the Swiss government in Argentina before 1914.

Prove it.  🙂

 

 

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

This quote shows how clueless Borges was about Swiss politics. No one knew the president’s name because Switzerland has no President.

The only reason anyone is even remotely interested in his political prowess is because he was a guest at the White House and said something favorable about the President........Now he is a point of political division in the US......forgetting the fact that he was once an immigrant and has made something of himself in this country and happens to love the USA.......4 years ago had he said the same thing about the POTUS in office then, he would have been heralded as a hero by the left and even admired by many on the right because of his record.........

[swordfish]

On 7/17/2020 at 11:16 AM, swordfish said:

The only reason anyone is even remotely interested in his political prowess is because he was a guest at the White House and said something favorable about the President........Now he is a point of political division in the US......forgetting the fact that he was once an immigrant and has made something of himself in this country and happens to love the USA.......4 years ago had he said the same thing about the POTUS in office then, he would have been heralded as a hero by the left and even admired by many on the right because of his record.........

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/19/goya_boycott_doesnt_bode_well_for_civil_society_143751.html?fbclid=IwAR2B73bYGnUCm_9UlJ8iqCnOy9WI_Nl0g3qKgqFmQgOwd7lus1YeIR8dIzY

WASHINGTON -- There must be no real outrages left in America if so-called progressives have nothing better to do than turn their collective rage on Goya, because the ubiquitous food company's president went to the White House where he announced he was giving 1 million cans of chickpeas and another million pounds of food to American food banks.

The brute, Goya President Bob Unanue, had the cheek to praise America's chief executive during a round-table with Hispanic leaders. Unanue said America was "blessed" to have a leader like President Trump who is "an incredible builder." He added: "And we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president, and we pray for our country, that we will continue to prosper and grow."

For the crime of having good manners and holding the White House in esteem, Democrats and activists started a Twitter campaign #Goyaaway to boycott Goya products.

"Oh look, it's the sound of me Googling 'how to make your own Adobo'," responded Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Twitter.

Former San Antonio mayor and failed 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Julian Castro tweeted: "Free speech works both ways. As long as he props up a man like Trump, many consumers will tell the company to #Goyaway."

Former Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., took a video of himself in his Goya-stocked pantry and railed, "I say to the owners of Goya, you came as conquistadores, you wiped out our indigenous population in Puerto Rico, you exploited the Puerto Ricans for centuries under your colonialism, and now you wish to bring about more of Donald Trump, who hates us, despises us."

In this boycott, however, colonialism isn't the target -- civility is. Absent an election, the left can't remove Trump from the Oval Office, so the goal is to isolate him by flogging potential friendlies into submission.

To his credit, Unanue is the rare American CEO who did not cave to the social-media mob.

During the McCarthy era, Washington blacklisted screenwriters and actors who had been associated with the communist party making it impossible for them to get work in Hollywood.

Is it progress then when the left threatens the livelihood of 4,000 employees because their president showed up at a Republican White House?

The theme here is: guilt by association.

Some Twitter users accused Unanue of promoting "hate," while others accused him of supporting "children in cages" with photos of children apprehended crossing the border seen behind a chain-link fence.

It's ironic because the left used Associated Press photos of children behind metal fences to excoriate Trump's family separation policy -- unaware that these children were incarcerated in 2014 when President Barack Obama was in the Oval Office. Because he was enforcing federal immigration law.

Be it noted that the left did not attack Unanue for visiting the Obama White House for supporting "hate" and caging children.

As for Trump, he keeps kicking the hornets' nest because he believes the left's constant intolerance will keep his base ginned up and give them something to do -- buy beans.

Wednesday, as the food frenzy was abating, Trump tweeted, "@GoyaFoods is doing GREAT. The Radical Left smear machine backfired, people are buying like crazy!" Staff posted a photo of Trump smiling and giving a thumbs up with Goya products strategically placed before him on the Resolute Desk.

On Tuesday, daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump tweeted a photo of herself showing off a can of Goya black beans. Ethicists charged that Trump's elder daughter had violated federal ethics rules. But to this White House, the flap meant one thing -- free publicity.

Everything is turning into a referendum on Trump: Hydroxychloroquine, masks, opening schools, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the police, you name it.

In the age of social media, the zealots on both sides effectively have drawn a line through every public square and told people they have to choose a side. The more inconsequential the issue, the more rabid their rhetoric.

And the younger they are, they happier they are to try to destroy a philanthropist, a family business and its workers simply because the guy in charge may not agree with them. Sure they have a right to boycott, but that doesn't mean they should try to marginalize everyone who doesn't hate with their intensity.

They have no concept of what it takes to maintain a civil society.

"Lets bite the hand that is feeding some of our poorest"

 

 

[Guest]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:40 PM, TheStatGuy said:

RCP average on July 15, 2016
Clinton: 43.1%
Trump: 40.4%

RCP average on July 15 2020. 
Biden: 48.3%
Trump: 40.2%

 

The FiveThirtyEight national polling average with 110 days until E-Day:

2020: Biden+9.1
2016: Clinton+1.1.
2012: Obama+0.9...
2008: Obama+4.2...
2004: Kerry+1.9... 
2000: Bush+6.4....
1996: Clinton+15.2
1992: Clinton+13.7
1988: Dukakis+4.0
1984: Reagan+12.1
1980: Reagan+11.3
1976: Carter+7.0

1988, 2004 and 2016 were wrong but all three were in the margin of error. 

The polls were pretty good in 2018 and 2019. 

I think Biden either wins in a route or Trump squeaks by again. 

Are you also on pins and needles and living and dying with every play during NFL preseason games?

Because that’s all this is right now.

Your final sentence is very telling.  You’re suddenly wiggling, huh?  Confidence waning?

[Muda69]

A Study in Self-Pity

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-study-in-self-pity/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third

Quote

Chris Wallace’s interview of President Trump, which aired on Sunday, is well worth watching if you’ve got a strong stomach.

The parts about the pandemic are as terrifying as you’ve heard—a veritable catalog of unfitness, incompetence, and willful ignorance that will leave you grateful for America’s system of federalism.

But I actually thought the most interesting and telling bit of the interview was at the very end, and wasn’t about the virus. Here’s the final question and answer:

WALLACE: Whether it’s in 2021 or 2025, how will you regard your years as President of the United States?

TRUMP: I think I was very unfairly treated. From before I even won I was under investigation by a bunch of thieves, crooks. It was an illegal investigation.

WALLACE: But what about the good –

TRUMP: Russia, Russia, Russia.

WALLACE: But what about the good parts, sir?

TRUMP: No, no. I want to go this. I have done more than any president in history in the first three and a half years, and I’ve done it suffering through investigations where people have been – General Flynn, where people have been so unfairly treated.

The Russia hoax, it was all a hoax. The Mueller scam, it was all scam. It was all false. I made a bad decision on – one bad decision. Jeff Sessions, and now I feel good because he lost overwhelmingly in the great state of Alabama.

Here’s the bottom line. I’ve been very unfairly treated, and I don’t say that as paranoid. I’ve been very – everybody says it. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. But there was tremendous evidence right now as to how unfairly treated I was. President Obama and Biden spied on my campaign. It’s never happened in history. If it were the other way around, the people would be in jail for 50 years right now.

That would be Comey, that would be Brennan, that would be all of this – the two lovers, Strzok and Page, they would be in jail now for many, many years. They would be in jail, it would’ve started two years ago and they’d be there for 50 years. The fact is, they illegally spied on my campaign. Let’s see what happens. Despite that, I did more than any president in history in the first three and a half years.

WALLACE: Mr. President, thank you, thanks for talking with us.

TRUMP: Thank you, thank you very much.

Asked to reflect on his term so far as he seeks re-election, the president’s answer is that he was treated unfairly. Even when he is literally invited by his interviewer to say good things about himself, all he can reach for is resentment.

There is more to this than there might seem to be at first. The sense that he was being treated unfairly had a huge amount to do with why Donald Trump ran for president in the first place, and the sense that they were being treated unfairly had a lot to do with why his earliest supporters and voters found him appealing. Channeling resentment is near the source of his political prowess.

And of course, he’s not wrong. The sense of resentment he has channeled has been rooted in some important realities, and even his own sense that he has been treated unfairly by his opponents as president is not mistaken. Sure he has. But that this sense of resentment is chiefly what drives him, that he can’t see past it or point beyond it, has been a crucial factor in many of his biggest failures as an executive.

He has treated the world’s most powerful job as a stage from which to vent his frustrations with the world’s mistreatment of him, and this has often kept him from advancing durable aims, from capitalizing on opportunities, from learning from mistakes, and from leading. In reasonably good times, it meant that he turned our national politics into a reality-television performance—focused, as those often are, on the drama of bruised egos. But in a time of crisis, it has left him incapable of rising to the challenge of his job, and the consequences have been dire.

In other words, his answer seems right: Whether it’s in 2021 or 2025, the blinding power of self-pity and resentment may well end up being what stands out most when we regard Donald Trump’s years as President of the United States.

 

[TheStatGuy]

On 7/20/2020 at 10:35 AM, Temptation said:

Are you also on pins and needles and living and dying with every play during NFL preseason games?

Because that’s all this is right now.

Your final sentence is very telling.  You’re suddenly wiggling, huh?  Confidence waning?

That is an absolutely terrible analogy lol. 

If I were to use that trashy of analogy, id use we are in the middle of the super bowl. 

Still a terrible analogy.

9 of the 12 ended up being right, the 3 that weren't were in the margin of error ar the time. 

My confidence waning? Lol nope.I believe Joe Biden will win. 

On 7/20/2020 at 11:28 AM, Muda69 said:

A Study in Self-Pity

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-study-in-self-pity/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third

 

You can tell Trump had a terrible childhood and you can tell hes never had to take responsibility for his own actions. Its always someone elses fault and not his own.. When all his problems in his presidency are self inflected. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, TheStatGuy said:

That is an absolutely terrible analogy lol. 

If I were to use that trashy of analogy, id use we are in the middle of the super bowl. 

Still a terrible analogy.

9 of the 12 ended up being right, the 3 that weren't were in the margin of error ar the time. 

My confidence waning? Lol nope.I believe Joe Biden will win. 

You can tell Trump had a terrible childhood and you can tell hes never had to take responsibility for his own actions. Its always someone elses fault and not his own.. When all his problems in his presidency are self inflected. 

Nah, not really.  Plenty of teams have excelled in the preseason, had dominant regular seasons and won their “division“ but failed to come up with the big prize.

Wild card teams win in sports all of the time.

As long as you reach November in one piece, (which it appears Trump will as many folks are fed up with the one sided mainstream media and have figured it out) you’ve got a shot.

As I stated before, Trump folks WILL turn out.  I’m still not convinced that many Dems think that Biden is the answer.  
 

Early straw polls vs actually getting off of your ass and voting in November are two different things.  We’ll see if they translate in November.  I’m skeptical they will.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Temptation said:

Early straw polls vs actually getting off of your ass and voting in November are two different things.  We’ll see if they translate in November.  I’m skeptical they will.

Not voting for the POTUS because you are lazy and not voting for the POTUS because you believe their are no appropriate candidates running are two different things.

 

[Muda69]

As Trump Threatens Secret Police Deployment Nationwide, Democrats Debate Expanding Surveillance Powers And New Money For DHS:

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/21/fisa-surveillance-dragnet-warrants-dhs/

Quote

THE ROGUE DEPLOYMENT of secret federal police forces in Portland, Oregon, has added a new complication to negotiations over reauthorizing the Trump administration’s vast surveillance powers and appropriating new money for the Department of Homeland Security. In March, a sweeping set of government authorities to monitor people in the United States expired, and Congress continues to debate what limits should be put on such powers before reauthorizing them. And the House is debating its next DHS funding bill, with the Congressional Progressive Caucus pushing leadership not to bring it up for a vote given Trump’s abuse of power and DHS agents’ role in a Portland arrest. 

House Democratic leaders, however, are considering lumping in DHS funding with appropriations for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, making it more difficult for progressive Democrats to oppose. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said that the CPC is urging leadership either to not bring up the bill at all or to break it off from Labor-HHS and allow for a separate vote.

“What you’re seeing is this giant Trump administration machine deputize every arm of government to engage in their agenda at the expense of democracy and the Constitution, so there aren’t traditional boundaries anymore for any of those pieces of legislation,” Jayapal said. “Every argument is about, do you want to give more tools to the Trump administration to destroy our Constitution?”

But the debate over the government’s surveillance power is happening in a shroud of confusion, as lawmakers are unclear precisely what the intelligence community currently considers legal, given the classified nature of the operations. Leaked Republican talking points suggest the intelligence community is pushing for legal blessing of dragnet surveillance, and the ability to use the data caught up in those dragnets — not to buttress existing investigations with a warrant but to begin new ones.  

The GOP talking points, first obtained by Gizmodo and passed out by the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggest that investigators could use “Internet data as a starting point” in launching an investigation. That’s a radical departure from what is understood to be legal and would allow the Department of Homeland Security to collect data on, for instance, every person who visited a website sympathetic to protests in Portland, then begin to surveil each of those people, hunting for a crime that could justify an arrest — an arrest that could then be carried out by unidentified federal troops driving unmarked vans. 

The talking point most concerning to civil liberties advocates was built around a hypothetical case involving a bomb builder: “Without this other information to build a probable cause case, this amendment hamstrings the Government from pursuing the bomb-builder with the Internet data as a starting point.”

On Tuesday, Sens. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe demanding assurance that the government is no longer conducting surveillance under the expired authorities, and asking whether the government believes it has authority to conduct such surveillance absent the legislation. The letter includes a reference to an extra-legal mass data collection project Barr himself authorized within the Drug Enforcement Administration when he was serving as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush.

Because so much of the intelligence activity implicated by the legislation lies behind a veil of classification, lawmakers are left to rewrite the rules by piecing together clues. This leaked point is perhaps the most significant clue that the intelligence services are pursuing the ability to perform warrantless, dragnet searches — or are already doing so. Combined with the Trump administration’s willingness to deploy unmarked federal police forces against the will of state and local authorities, the push for expanded surveillance authority is alarming to civil liberties activists. “Secret surveillance cannot coexist with secret police in a free society. Both are inherently problematic and dangerous, but together the threat is immeasurable. It’s hard to escape that conclusion,” said Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel with the group Demand Progress, which is pushing to narrow the scope of the authorities. 

The debate has played out in public between Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and an ally of the intel community, and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, who is a critic of mass surveillance and the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 

In the Senate, Wyden pushed an amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., that would bar federal authorities from using a dragnet to collect search and browsing history. The amendment fell one vote short of the 60 needed to advance, but the fight for it isn’t over. Two senators who missed the vote, Patty Murray of Washington and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have said they’re supportive, and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., may also be gettable on a new vote, as he said he voted no on the measure because he was told by Democratic House leaders that the amendment effectively did away with FISA, which is not true.

In any event, a companion amendment was introduced in the House, led by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio. Ahead of a vote in the Judiciary Committee in May, Chair Jerry Nadler abruptly canceled the hearing, amid concerns among backers of the bill that Lofgren may have had the votes to pass her amendments.  

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered Schiff and Lofgren to negotiate a way forward, and they reached a short-lived compromise that would bar such dragnet searches “of U.S. persons.” Lofgren told the New York Times that such language barred dragnet searches, as it is impossible to guarantee that such a search won’t gather intelligence on Americans. Based on that interpretation, Wyden endorsed the measure. But then Schiff told the New York Times that he interpreted the language differently, saying that as long as agents didn’t intentionally target Americans, incidental collection was OK. Following Schiff’s statement, Wyden took the unusual step of withdrawing his support. “It is now clear that there is no agreement with the House Intelligence Committee to enact true protections for Americans’ rights against dragnet collection of online activity, which is why I must oppose this amendment, along with the underlying bill, and urge the House to vote on the original Wyden-Daines amendment,” Wyden said.

Critical to understanding the legislation is the definition of a “U.S. person.” The National Security Agency is clear that the term does not apply to all people in the United States, but only to citizens and “an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” Recipients of DACA — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — are not considered lawfully admitted, but rather are able to remain in the country with their deportation proceedings indefinitely deferred. Undocumented immigrants, too, would fall outside those protections, but that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones vulnerable. Intelligence agencies, under Schiff’s interpretation of the language, could legally target DACA recipients for warrantless dragnet surveillance, which would then make whatever data they also collected on American citizens the legal result of incidental collection. That secret data could be turned over to secret federal police, who could make arrests from unmarked vehicles. 

Instead of resolving the conflict, the House voted to go to a conference committee to negotiate with the Senate, but the Senate has yet to do the same, as reformers believe their leverage increases each day the authorities continue to be expired. 

On the funding side, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is pushing House leadership to vote on the DHS appropriations bill, having secured a reduction in the number of beds available for immigrant detention. But others in the caucus argued that the win is less than it appears, as authorities need fewer beds than before, having successfully deported so many from detention. The internal CHC vote was close and contentious, according to two members of Congress familiar with the drawn out deliberations, meaning that the caucus’ push for a vote is less than unified. 

Either way, Congress is nearly certain to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government rather than independent appropriations bills, so the debate over funding is largely symbolic. Jayapal said that approving new money now for DHS is “adding insult to injury for immigrants across the country but also peaceful protesters against white supremacy.”

 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Not voting for the POTUS because you are lazy and not voting for the POTUS because you believe their are no appropriate candidates running are two different things.

 

I disagree.  There is no such thing as the perfect candidate but if one does their homework, they can find someone they align with on a couple of issues that are important to them.

Not showing up and exercising your right is unacceptable...especially if you’ve spent the last three months telling everyone what they should think on social media.

Too many keyboard warriors that cop out every four years and then complain.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Guest

[Muda69]

4 minutes ago, Temptation said:

I disagree.  There is no such thing as the perfect candidate but if one does their homework, they can find someone they align with on a couple of issues that are important to them.

Possibly, but the horse race mentality of most individuals toward the presidential election kicks in and they think they have to vote for a uni-party candidate or not vote at all.  Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

When was the last time you voted for a non-uni party candidate for POTUS?

7 minutes ago, Temptation said:

Not showing up and exercising your right is unacceptable...especially if you’ve spent the last three months telling everyone what they should think on social media.

So you believe voting for POTUS should be mandatory?  And who has spent the last three months telling everyone what they should think on social media? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Possibly, but the horse race mentality of most individuals toward the presidential election kicks in and they think they have to vote for a uni-party candidate or not vote at all.  Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.

When was the last time you voted for a non-uni party candidate for POTUS?

So you believe voting for POTUS should be mandatory?  And who has spent the last three months telling everyone what they should think on social media? 

That’s their fault for not doing their homework.  I voted independent in 2016 actually, for similar reasons I’m leaning that way in 2020.

No, it should NOT be “mandatory” but you get ZERO credibility from me if you refuse to vote (regardless of reasoning) yet then want to complain or whine for 4 years while tearing others down for their beliefs.

Social media has become a deeper cesspool than ever in 2020.  EVERYONE has an opinion.  EVERYONE is a political expert, social justice expert and doctor and links absolute garbage articles with limited facts to support their stance.

I just hope they are that dedicated in 3 1/2 months.

[Irishman]

32 minutes ago, Temptation said:

Social media has become a deeper cesspool than ever in 2020.  EVERYONE has an opinion.  EVERYONE is a political expert, education expert, social justice expert and doctor and links absolute garbage articles with limited facts to support their stance.

FTFY

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Temptation said:

Social media has become a deeper cesspool than ever in 2020.  

Yep.  Which is why I stay well away from the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

 

[Guest]

Just now, Muda69 said:

Yep.  Which is why I stay well away from the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

 

I punted about 6 weeks ago.  Haven’t looked back.

[Coach Nowlin]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Yep.  Which is why I stay well away from the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

 

Unfortunately the Main Forum is beginning to turn into Facebook.....  vomit 

[TheStatGuy]

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Yep.  Which is why I stay well away from the likes of Facebook and Twitter.

 

I unfollow every single trump supporter on my facebook... Still have them as friends of course. 

[TheStatGuy]

15 hours ago, Temptation said:

Nah, not really.  Plenty of teams have excelled in the preseason, had dominant regular seasons and won their “division“ but failed to come up with the big prize.

Wild card teams win in sports all of the time.

As long as you reach November in one piece, (which it appears Trump will as many folks are fed up with the one sided mainstream media and have figured it out) you’ve got a shot.

As I stated before, Trump folks WILL turn out.  I’m still not convinced that many Dems think that Biden is the answer.  
 

Early straw polls vs actually getting off of your ass and voting in November are two different things.  We’ll see if they translate in November.  I’m skeptical they will.

First off.. Using your terrible analogy

The "pre season" and regular season was in 2019. That's when Harris, Bullock, Stesak, Messam, Beto, De Blasilo, Gillibrand, Moulton, Inslee, Hickenlooper and Swalwell all dropped out. 

The "playoffs" started in primary season and now the primaries are over basically for President. It's the "super bowl"

So yes, that analogy is pretty trashy because you didn't even use the analogy correctly. 

 

Trump in one piece? Oh.. The corona virus doesn't help, the shaky economy doesn't help and the fact hes less liked now in 2020 than he was in 2016.. He is a very beaten and damaged candidate. 

Yes. Trump voters will turn out but what gives me hope is. Biden is more popular than Clinton as a whole.. Which is why I think you'll see more moderate Republicans and independent's go to Biden. Biden is more popular with democrats than Clinton was... Which is why I think you'll see Dems who either voted for Trump or not vote.. Go to Biden. Biden is more popular with blacks than Clinton was..Which is why you'll probably see Miluwakee and Detroit vote normal numbers... I thInk you'll see Philadelphia have an even higher number of turn out (white vote was up in 2016, black vote down)

 

Yes.. Polls and getting up in voting are two different things... Republican voter turn out is usually the strongest in.. Mid term primaries, mid term elections and presidential primaries.. Democrats strong suit is usually the presidential election.. But as you saw in 2018 elections and 2019.. Democrat voter turn out was much stronger than Republicans... And in the 2020 presidential primary.. In total votes.. You saw Democrats combined out vote Trump in quite a few states. 

This isn't 2016

There are more stable leads for Biden, Trump is an incumbent thats not really popular running against a guy thats more popular.. than Trump is and is wayy more popular then what Clinton was.

Trump still has the rest of July, August and early September to make his case. Mail in voting starts in September. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by TheStatGuy