Trump's failed presidency is pushing the country further to the left

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Now there are a lot of nurses and teachers, I would say that those two professions make up nearly 40% total. My wife is a teacher.....and we own a minority share in a prominent LS club in Houston. Talk about a group of people that have a bunch of people that are prejudice against them.......

LS?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

LS?

Lifestyle is what it is called these days. If someone says they are in the LS they mean they are swingers. But Swinger has a 70's porn mustache connotation attached to it. LMAO.

[BobLouder 7]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:53 AM, TitanTiger said:

No he wasn't.

 

The only true thing in that entire yarn was "Trump can't help himself.  He is a moron."  The rest is just silliness.

Did he have a better chance before the pandemic and all the racial unrest?  Sure.  But those by themselves didn't damage his chances.  He's not being carried along by forces utterly beyond his control to manage.  It's his handling of the pandemic and the racial unrest that has hurt him.  The federal response to the pandemic has been bumbling.  He frequently says things that indicate he's far more concerned with what his PR looks like with regard to COVID-19 than he is actually trying to help us shepherd the country through it.  He's been (at best) tone deaf on racial matters the entire time, so his hamfisted remarks on it now only exacerbates the problem.

In a nutshell, to a significant portion of people, Trump is increasingly seen as incompetent in a crisis and they are not wrong.  But even then, he's less concerned about actually *being* competent than he is *appearing* competent.  

If he loses in November, it's not because of unforeseen circumstances that he had not way of overcoming.  It's because of his own words and actions (or inaction as the case may be).  As it has been since the beginning, he might be his own best marketer, but he's also his own worst enemy.  He's done far more to blow holes in his own ship than even the worst of the Democrats and complicit media could ever do.

 

I'm not an Always Trumper (tm).  You are only fooling yourself if you do not think he would have won easily without the Virus.  Most undecided voters decide based on how they fell around Sept and Oct of the election year.  Biden is a dufus winning by sitting in a home basement away from the media.  Trump has two chances left to win 1) the economy being better than we think it will be in Sept and Oct .... not likely 2) He beats the crap out of Joe B in the debates because Biden is such a weak candidate. As long as Trump does not go over the top, he will likely crush Biden in the debates.    Then the question becomes .... will it be enough versus the effects of the China Virus.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, BobLouder said:

I'm not an Always Trumper (tm).  You are only fooling yourself if you do not think he would have won easily without the Virus. 

He'd have had much better chance without the virus.  He would not have "won easily."  But even with the virus, it's not the virus itself that's torpedoing his prospects, it's his (mis)handling of it.

 

1 hour ago, BobLouder said:

Most undecided voters decide based on how they fell around Sept and Oct of the election year.  Biden is a dufus winning by sitting in a home basement away from the media.  Trump has two chances left to win 1) the economy being better than we think it will be in Sept and Oct .... not likely 2) He beats the crap out of Joe B in the debates because Biden is such a weak candidate. As long as Trump does not go over the top, he will likely crush Biden in the debates.    Then the question becomes .... will it be enough versus the effects of the China Virus.

Biden isn't a dufus.  He's a gaffe machine in the same way GW Bush mangled words.  Neither are stupid. 

I do agree that if the economy makes a big comeback it will improve Trump's chances greatly.  But you're dreaming if you think he's going to mop the floor with Biden in the debates.  If Paul Ryan couldn't do it, Mr. Can't Complete A Thought Out Loud won't do it either.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Biden isn't a dufus.  He's a gaffe machine in the same way GW Bush mangled words.  Neither are stupid. 

I do agree that if the economy makes a big comeback it will improve Trump's chances greatly.  But you're dreaming if you think he's going to mop the floor with Biden in the debates.  If Paul Ryan couldn't do it, Mr. Can't Complete A Thought Out Loud won't do it either.

Me thinks this guy is the type of voter who equates winning a debate to when Trump calls people derogatory nicknames.

[Mikey 16,648]

In more important news, this week President Trump's "failed" presidency placed its 200th federal judge into office. Can we get 200 more in the next 4&1/2 years? One can only hope!

[TitanTiger 20,499]

21 hours ago, Mikey said:

In more important news, this week President Trump's "failed" presidency placed its 200th federal judge into office. Can we get 200 more in the next 4&1/2 years? One can only hope!

Fat lot of good it does to get conservatives on the court when they vote against the desires of the conservatives who enabled their appointment on abortion (Kavanaugh) and issues surrounding transgenderism (Gorsuch).  I mean, is this the kind of 'winning' you were envisioning?

[Grumps 3,704]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Fat lot of good it does to get conservatives on the court when they vote against the desires of the conservatives who enabled their appointment on abortion (Kavanaugh) and issues surrounding transgenderism (Gorsuch).  I mean, is this the kind of 'winning' you were envisioning?

So are you defining "conservative" to mean someone who does what Trumps wants them to do? I think it does a lot of good to have Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the court. That certainly doesn't mean that I think their jobs are to rule the way Trump wants them to.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 6/22/2020 at 12:52 PM, DKW 86 said:

Really, I am asking here fior anyone that wants to try and take a stab at it. What does "Conservative" mean today?

1) Total commitment to profits by sacrificing all benefits of employees to the point where the Middle Class just dies out? 
2) The "Restraining of Govt Restraining the Manic Needs of the Few to become even more wealthy?"
3) Blindly and Mindlessly Spending even more $$$ for Weapons we wont use against an enemy we cant name?
4) Dont even get me started socially? What does Conservative mean Socially? it used to mean that people at least pretended to care about Morals, Intergrity, Character, and Ethics. Not any more. DJT makes a mockery of all that?
5) What does it mean w/r to Racial Relations?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, want to tell me what you think Conservativism means Today? I for one, have no clue. 

I don't think that there are any real conservatives any more, but I still think that the concept is still there:

Try to let decisions be made at the lowest possible level as opposed to being made at the federal level.

Focus on the economy since most of the ills of our society become less of a factor when the people who want to be employed have good jobs.

Make the government as small as possible as opposed to as big as possible.

Don't borrow money to give away.

Spend money as seldom and as wisely as possible.

Focus on individual freedoms more than the good of society at the expense of individual freedoms.

All people are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We should all have equal opportunity but not equal outcomes.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So are you defining "conservative" to mean someone who does what Trumps wants them to do? I think it does a lot of good to have Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the court. That certainly doesn't mean that I think their jobs are to rule the way Trump wants them to.

The entire point of getting conservatives on the court are to get reliably conservative rulings on things that matter to conservatives.  Trump or what he personally wants isn't relevant to this except to be the vehicle by which to get them on the court.  And if you asked most conservatives what the biggest issues that they want to see conservative justices rule their way on, you couldn't get much higher up the list that abortion and stuff surrounding LBGT issues and to what extent businesses, religious organizations and such have to accommodate them.  And they're already 0 for 2 with Trump's nominees being the swing vote both times.

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

The entire point of getting conservatives on the court are to get reliably conservative rulings on things that matter to conservatives.  Trump or what he personally wants isn't relevant to this except to be the vehicle by which to get them on the court.  And if you asked most conservatives what the biggest issues that they want to see conservative justices rule their way on, you couldn't get much higher up the list that abortion and stuff surrounding LBGT issues and to what extent businesses, religious organizations and such have to accommodate them.  And they're already 0 for 2 with Trump's nominees being the swing vote both times.

Much of the point of getting conservatives on the court are to keep liberal judges off the court. I believe that most true conservatives want for the court to rule in favor of the constitution more than for Trump or even their own personal beliefs. We obviously know different conservatives.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

14 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Much of the point of getting conservatives on the court are to keep liberal judges off the court. I believe that most true conservatives want for the court to rule in favor of the constitution more than for Trump or even their own personal beliefs. We obviously know different conservatives.

You're tap dancing around this to try and mitigate the damage.

Of course they wanted to keep liberal justices off the court and rule in favor of the constitution.  But the whole point is, they believe their positions on issues such as abortion and the fights surrounding LBGT issues mentioned above ARE the correct constitutional ones.  And they want to put justices on the courts who see things similarly.  But time and again, they aren't getting that payoff.

There's that old philosophical question of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"  I'll give you the political version:  "If a conservative justice is added to the Supreme Court, but he never rules on the biggest issues based on a conservative constitutional paradigm, did you really put a conservative justice on the court?"

[alexava 6,973]

On 6/26/2020 at 11:50 PM, Brad_ATX said:

Me thinks this guy is the type of voter who equates winning a debate to when Trump calls people derogatory nicknames.

Trump didn’t win a debate over Hillary. He made bullsheyet arguments void of facts and statistics that shitgibbons just wanted to hear. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't think that there are any real conservatives any more, but I still think that the concept is still there:

Try to let decisions be made at the lowest possible level as opposed to being made at the federal level.

Focus on the economy since most of the ills of our society become less of a factor when the people who want to be employed have good jobs.

Make the government as small as possible as opposed to as big as possible.

Don't borrow money to give away.

Spend money as seldom and as wisely as possible.

Focus on individual freedoms more than the good of society at the expense of individual freedoms.

All people are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We should all have equal opportunity but not equal outcomes.

Thank you for the reply.
I have to tell you that there are many people that will tell you they believe just that...And then day after the election will forget every word...

[Grumps 3,704]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Thank you for the reply.
I have to tell you that there are many people that will tell you they believe just that...And then day after the election will forget every word...

No doubt, but they pretty much don't even bother saying it any more.

[bootskii 264]

I say abolish all political parties. It seems all they do is cause stagnation within our government over who has power and looks better to the public. How many times do you see the breakdown of things getting done in Congress because they are too busy trying to topple or make the opposition look bad. It's ridiculous how all they do is bicker on twitter over he said she said garbage rather than doing your job which is why you were elected in the first place.  If I want to see children argue over twitter I would go look at my teenage nieces twitter page...

Also, this would cause people to actually vote for people on what a candidate stands for rather than what party he/she is affiliated with.  So many times I see people voting Democrat or Republican just because the are running on those tickets rather than seeing what a candidate stands for on issues. I think we would all be surprised how much we all want the same things basically if we just got past these barriers of political party identity.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, bootskii said:

I say abolish all political parties. It seems all they do is cause stagnation within our government over who has power and looks better to the public.

Honestly, I'd be down with this.  Ditch the primary system and the party set up.  Dump all the candidates into one big heap and let them go at it.  Do an initial voting round and narrow the field using some threshold of minimum support to move on.  If you have more than 2 left after that, do a runoff to decide the top two.  Those two proceed to the general election in November.

[homersapien 11,395]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Honestly, I'd be down with this.  Ditch the primary system and the party set up.  Dump all the candidates into one big heap and let them go at it.  Do an initial voting round and narrow the field using some threshold of minimum support to move on.  If you have more than 2 left after that, do a runoff to decide the top two.  Those two proceed to the general election in November.

With proportional voting.

[alexava 6,973]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Honestly, I'd be down with this.  Ditch the primary system and the party set up.  Dump all the candidates into one big heap and let them go at it.  Do an initial voting round and narrow the field using some threshold of minimum support to move on.  If you have more than 2 left after that, do a runoff to decide the top two.  Those two proceed to the general election in November.

If any candidate mentions abortion or guns they are disqualified. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

27 minutes ago, alexava said:

If any candidate mentions abortion or guns they are disqualified. 

Nah.  Let 'em say whatever they want.  The crazies won't be protected by a closed primary that caters to each party's extreme wings.