Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

[Hobie]

View attachment 26844

I think many will vote for Pocahontas.

Well, it appears that the news media is pushing a Harris/Warren ticket...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-harris-warren-black-women-20190715-story.html

 

[Hobie]

How would Harris be worse than Warren?

Also, how would either be better than Trump, or better than some other GOP nominee?

That is, what if something happens to Trump before the election, and the GOP has to replace him as nominee?

Does the GOP have anyone in the wings who can take on the Dem candidate? Or, does the GOP have all of its eggs in one basket?

Remarkably, the Dems currently have five different candidates who all can either beat or match Trump in one-on-one polls.

But who does the GOP have (besides Trump) who can overcome any of the Dem candidates?

For, imagine (God forbid) if something were to happen to Trump before the election. The GOP would then have to watch in horror as a hapless Pence is eaten alive by Harris the tigress, by Harris the predator.

Unless Christie is allowed somehow to step in as the GOP nominee. For he could swallow Harris whole.

Well when it comes to Harris, not only do you have the divisive attacks of prejudice against woman, but then add to that racism.

 

[bibleverse2]

Well when it comes to Harris, not only do you have the divisive attacks of prejudice against woman, but then add to that racism.

Great point. She's a "two-fer" for Dem identity politics, and for false attacks against Repubs for simply opposing her policies.

Think of it: the first Black Woman President of the United States. Who could be against that?

Only racists and misogynists, clearly, in the minds of Dems.

But like with the Squad kerfuffle, this ignores the whole question of policy, of what people (regardless of their gender or race) want to do to the U.S.

MLK famously said that he hoped the day would come when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Identity politics turns this on its head. And MLK is turning in his grave.

For now the color of one's skin matters more than the content of one's character.

But not to God, and not to the GOP. For the natural color of one's skin matters no more to God than the natural color of one's eyes. For He has made all humans of one blood (Acts 17:26-28). And God saves people of every nationality (Revelation 5:9b).

The Dems are fixated on pinning a charge of racism on Trump, which is desperate on their part, and completely false, just as it is false for his followers. For they wanted her "sent back" not for the color of her skin, but for her hatred for the U.S., for her radical leftist policies which would destroy it.

Similarly, Harris will destroy the U.S. as we know it, if she is elected, not because of her race or gender, but because of her politics.

It's that simple.

But the Dems cannot accept this charge, and so will put up an endless smokescreen of racism and misogyny charges in order to hide the mortal danger which Harris poses to the U.S.

 

[ok doser]

Wait what?

Harris is a negro?

I thought she was a white woman who claimed to be an American Indian when it benefited her


I'm so confused

 

[Right Divider]

Wait what?

Harris is a negro?

I thought she was a white woman who claimed to be an American Indian when it benefited her

I'm so confused

You're thinking of Warren.

 

[ok doser]

Oh, ok

Harris is the indian woman who identifies as negro for political benefit

And Warren is the white woman who identifies as Indian for political benefit


Its so hard to keep all of this straight

 

[Town Heretic]

MLK famously said that he hoped the day would come when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Identity politics turns this on its head. And MLK is turning in his grave.

Why is it that the only time I ever hear the right endorsing/using King is when it's aimed negatively at other people of color?

Just something I see a lot of. It would be great to hear a conservative use/quote him singularly in the affirmative.

The Dems are fixated on pinning a charge of racism on Trump

I don't know why you need to be fixated on noting the fluid nature of water. It's hard to miss, unless you've never really seen water.

, which is desperate on their part, and completely false

So...a nomad then.

just as it is false for his followers.

Waaaaaay too broad, given some of his endorsers. I'll come back to this in a moment.

For they wanted her "sent back" not for the color of her skin, but for her hatred for the U.S., for her radical leftist policies which would destroy it.

So why hasn't anyone ever chanted that at literally any white candidate? If someone on the left had tried that with Ted Cruz the laughter would still be ringing in the air. Because for anyone over thirty the linkage is hard to miss. Over fifty and you have to willfully turn a deaf ear to your own living memory.

I'm never going to say that only racists support the president. But I will note the comfort level of racists within the ranks of his supporters (see: Klan endorsement, among others) should be at least a little troubling to those who aren't.

Similarly, Harris will destroy the U.S. as we know it, if she is elected, not because of her race or gender, but because of her politics.

No one party or person will do that. It didn't happen when Bush Jr owned the power structure, or Obama, or now Trump, with his short lived possession of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the Court. The country is bigger and stronger than any party or person. If it happens it will be because we did it, finally, uniting as a people with the one purpose in mind.

And I think there are too many people who would resist that.

It's that simple.

Simple, yes. Accurate? Not so much.

But the Dems cannot accept this charge, and so will put up an endless smokescreen of racism and misogyny charges in order to hide the mortal danger which Harris poses to the U.S.

I'm still sore about Huntsman. Jon needs to be recalled as ambassador and endorsed by conservators who aren't looters in disguise. I'd vote for him.

 

[bibleverse2]

Why is it that the only time I ever hear the right endorsing/using King is when it's aimed negatively at other people of color?

Note that nothing was aimed negatively at people of color.

Instead, what was aimed negatively at was identity politics, which is held as sacred by more white people than black people.

You have fallen into the Dem error of claiming that anything said against leftist ideology is racist.

It is not.

For example, if the Squad had been from Finland, Trump and his followers would have still wanted them to be "sent back" there. Not because they were white, but because their comments are so hateful toward America. For example, calling it "garbage".

It would be great to hear a conservative use/quote him singularly in the affirmative.

Note that MLK was quoted in the affirmative. For he was a genius who knew what was truly best for all people, whether black or white.

But identity politics drives a stake through what he taught.

I don't know why you need to be fixated on noting the fluid nature of water. It's hard to miss, unless you've never really seen water.

Note that while water can be proven to be a fluid, no one has ever proven that Trump or his followers are racist. For they have never gone against anyone because of the color of their skin, but because of their politics.

Otherwise, Trump would not have a black man in his cabinet, for example, a man whom he highly respects.

And there would be no black people allowed at Trump rallies.

Instead, you see black people welcomed and cheering at his rallies. For they know that he has their best interests at heart, instead of Dems, whose policies have destroyed blacks ever since Johnson.

This is what Trump is trying to get at with regard to Cummings. The worst cities for blacks have all been run by Dems for decades.

Their policies are complete failures.

So why hasn't anyone ever chanted that at literally any white candidate?

You're forgetting, for example, the chants of "Lock her up!".

If Hillary had been black, the Left would have claimed this to be "racist", part of the Right trying to incarcerate all black people under an unjust legal system.

The Left is desperate.

 

[Town Heretic]

Note that nothing was aimed negatively at people of color.

Who is using identity politics and to what end? And if race is unrelated on the point then why bring King into it?

You have fallen into the Dem error of claiming that anything said against leftist ideology is racist.

No, I believe when you place identity politics and MLK, Jr. in close proximity you're either talking about race or you're confusing your point.

For example, if the Squad had been from Finland, Trump and his followers would have still wanted them to be "sent back" there. Not because they were white, but because their comments are so hateful toward America. For example, calling it "garbage".

But only one of the "squad" came from somewhere else. Why, oh why did our senior citizen president lump them as though they all were...it's a puzzler all right. Or maybe alt right.

On racism...

Note that while water can be proven to be a fluid, no one has ever proven that Trump or his followers are racist.

Rather, as we're not really dealing with an empirical claim, understand that there are people willing to look at the long record of rhetoric by the president and not fully understand it. Whether this is simply an incredible naivate, or willful ignorance is anyone's guess.

As for his followers, more particularly, I've never said that you had to be a racist to support Trump. I have, however, repeatedly noted the comfort level of racists and racist organizations in supporting him.

For they have never gone against anyone because of the color of their skin, but because of their politics.

I'm sure that's true of many, but of how many I'm less certain.

Otherwise, Trump would not have a black man in his cabinet, for example, a man whom he highly respects.

You really are a nomad then. Let me help, seriously. I had one grandfather who was a racist, if after Faulkner's fashion. What I mean is that he hated the race and loved the individual. So he would rail against the (insert N-word here) and oppose any measure that aided them, for one reason or another (communistic agitation, social upheaval, etc.) but I never met any black person that we knew that he wouldn't mark as an exception to the mental affliction he mistook as the rule.

That sort of thing can do a great deal of damage and it was prevalent in the South, which prompted Faulkner to comment on the point. It's much better here now, but there is a generation alive and well that was taught that sort of thinking. And they're not only in the South.

And there would be no black people allowed at Trump rallies.

To the contrary, people who wouldn't dream of having a black person in their restroom or at their dinner table would be and often are the first to desire a black presence in that sort of situation. It's politically expedient, and, more than a few would probably genuinely believe that they are allies in the conservative cause, while eschewing a more intimate connection, through meaningful friendship and/or a common church. Akin to the fellow who feels compelled to say, "Some of the best people I know are black," or that they work in close quarters and, with some pride, they will tell you how race has never been an issue.

Instead, you see black people welcomed and cheering at his rallies. For they know that he has their best interests at heart, instead of Dems, whose policies have destroyed blacks ever since Johnson.

There were blacks who fought for the Confederacy too. It doesn't mean that they were serving their own best interests though. And Johnson's war on poverty has been as failure riddled as the war on drugs...but as with the former, the causes were too often ignored as government rushed to address the symptoms.

This is what Trump is trying to get at with regard to Cummings. The worst cities for blacks have all been run by Dems for decades.

Citation to source?

Their policies are complete failures.

New York City is one of the safest cities in the nation. And it's doing pretty well. It's not alone. Chicago is on the other end of it. A lot of that has to do with poverty and opportunity. Many American cities are long on the former and light on the latter, and it has more to do with the combined efforts of both parties than the failure of any one.

You're forgetting, for example, the chants of "Lock her up!".

No, I actually mentioned that in a conversation with someone, how the "Send her back!" rhetoric was just another example of Trump's rhetorical aim being echoed, which is why he didn't try to dissuade the crowd.

But, to address the literal point: that's not chanting, "Send her back!" at a white woman. You'll never find it because the sentiment is grounded in race.

If Hillary had been black, the Left would have claimed this to be "racist", part of the Right trying to incarcerate all black people under an unjust legal system.

Were Hillary black the historic case for inequity before the law might compel the argument.

The Left is desperate.

Everyone is desperate these days. The question of moment is "For what?"

 

[bibleverse2]

Who is using identity politics and to what end?

The Left is using it, to try to shame white people into feeling that they are evil because of their "privilege", i.e. that thing that made a black man President of the entire United States, and for two terms.

Also, the Left is using identity politics to shame Biblical Christians into feeling that they are evil because they believe God's Word the Holy Bible, which says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

And if race is unrelated on the point then why bring King into it?

He didn't bring race into his Dream. Instead, he wanted people identified solely by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, or by their sexual sins.

I believe when you place identity politics and MLK, Jr. in close proximity you're either talking about race or you're confusing your point.

No, it is identity politics which inverts MLK's teachings.

But only one of the "squad" came from somewhere else.

That's right. And the where was irrelevant, just as the color of her skin was.

Rather, as we're not really dealing with an empirical claim, understand that there are people willing to look at the long record of rhetoric by the president and not fully understand it.

Note that nothing in Trump's long record of rhetoric has ever been proven to be racist.

I have, however, repeatedly noted the comfort level of racists and racist organizations in supporting him.

Because he is white?

So what? That is their problem, not his.

Also, what about the comfort level of Leftists with the violent thugs of Antifa? They are no different than the Nazi brownshirts were.

New York City is one of the safest cities in the nation.

What percent of its population is black?

And why isn't Baltimore one of the safest cities in the nation if Dem policies work?

A lot of that has to do with poverty and opportunity.

Which Dems fail to rectify and deliver, while Trump has lowered black unemployment to record levels.

But, to address the literal point: that's not chanting, "Send her back!" at a white woman. You'll never find it because the sentiment is grounded in race.

Not at all. It is grounded solely in politics. Just wait for a white, foreign-born member of Congress to speak horrible, hateful things against America.

But there has not been one yet.

Were Hillary black the historic case for inequity before the law might compel the argument.

But she wasn't, and there were still chants against her. Because race is irrelevant. All that matter for Trump and his followers is someone's politics.

Everyone is desperate these days. The question of moment is "For what?"

The GOP is not desperate. It does not play the race card against every opponent of its policies.

 

[ok doser]

The Left is desperate.

The left is insane

And retarded, to a large degree

It's a dangerous combination

 

[Town Heretic]

The Left is using it,

Are you to the left? Because you were using it.

to try to shame white people into feeling that they are evil because of their "privilege", i.e. that thing that made a black man President of the entire United States, and for two terms.

No, I'm pretty sure that white privilege refers to institutionalized preferences and advantages that being in the majority carried and to a great extent still carries today. Obama would be an example of what is possible when more Americans than not set that aside.

Also, the Left is using identity politics to shame Biblical Christians into feeling that they are evil because they believe God's Word the Holy Bible, which says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

Do you feel ashamed of your belief?

He didn't bring race into his Dream. Instead, he wanted people identified solely by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, or by their sexual sins.

The entire Civil Rights Movement was about race. About how when we value and devalue with it as a litmus horrible things happen.

No, it is identity politics which inverts MLK's teachings.

Not necessarily, if it's this: "The term identity politics in common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics"

That is, it could be but isn't necessarily that thing. And forming exclusive alliances in the moment can even be political necessity.

On the president's racially charged rhetoric

That's right. And the where was irrelevant, just as the color of her skin was.

No, you're being tone deaf. Trumps notion of sending them (the crowd was more singular because of his singular reference in the moment) "back" is rooted in a singular, racial history of usage. That he used it in Tweets as a rhetorical blunderbuss isn't accidental and is in keeping with what there is to know about his tendency to overgeneralize in a racial sense. I'll touch on this again in a moment.

And there's this example on the particular: "So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly....."

That's not one, but a pluralization. He looked at a few brown women with last names that weren't European and lept to the larger assumption. It speaks to at least a racially assumptive and negative perspective on the part of the president.

Note that nothing in Trump's long record of rhetoric has ever been proven to be racist.

Quite a lot has, actually, unless you're determined not to understand it or have been so insulated from it that you don't understand. He once said a judge of Latino extraction couldn't be trusted to be fair because of his heritage.

There's this from a Vox article:

• 1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interviewthat “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

The way he has tended to comment on and lump sum Mexicans and Muslims speaks to that same mindset and tendency. But it might be fairer to say Trump repeatedly presents a bigoted mindset, more so than a purely racist one.

On why the president finds support from the alt-right and openly racist groups

Because he is white?

No, they've left white people off their support list often enough. Because they feel they have an ally in him.

So what? That is their problem, not his.

They don't see it as a problem. And that should at least cause some pause and concern among those supporting Trump who don't share their racial views. Why do they feel this way about the president? I proffer it's largely because of his history and ongoing approach.

Also, what about the comfort level of Leftists with the violent thugs of Antifa? They are no different than the Nazi brownshirts were.

Antifa is advocating genocide? I missed that. Where and when?

On New York City's comparative safety from gun violence

What percent of its population is black?

According to the ACS, 24.32%

And why isn't Baltimore one of the safest cities in the nation if Dem policies work?

The ACS says that Baltimore is 62.8% black. So my guess would be, given the disproportionate amount of poverty you see in the black community, and understanding that poverty and crime are joined at the hip, Baltimore's problems are largely a concentrated poverty problem. And no party has really done well in the war on poverty.

On Trump's claims relating to black employment

Which Dems fail to rectify and deliver, while Trump has lowered black unemployment to record levels.

Actually, Trump rode a long established upward trend of employment among blacks. I'm including the FactCheck rebuttal to his claims that his policies are responsible here: link. In fact, the rate fell more slowly under Trump at the outset than it had in preceding years.

Worse news, the trend is going the other way now under Trump, according to a recent article in Forbes (link). And it's much rosier for whites than blacks: "Take current conditions. The overall unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low of 3.6% in April. The rate for whites is 3.1%. For black Americans, it’s 6.7%. Worse, that rate has been rising in opposition to the broader trend."

Back to the rhetoric of "Go back/send them back where you/they came from"

Not at all. It is grounded solely in politics.

Ignoring the historical use and the fact that you can't find a single instance of that phrase being used in reference to white politicians in order to declare what you want to believe isn't really a rebuttal...or even rational.

Just wait for a white, foreign-born member of Congress to speak horrible, hateful things against America.

There have been liberals leveling hard criticism about everything from race to immigration for a very long time. You can't will your way out from under this mistake you're making.

But she wasn't, and there were still chants against her. Because race is irrelevant. All that matter for Trump and his followers is someone's politics.

You completely miss it. The Americans who were called agitators in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, who were told to "Go back to Africa," or, less directly, where they came from, were unified by one thing, their race. That's what his use and the crowds chants are steeped in.

On the blinkers of partisanship

The GOP is not desperate.

I believe you believe that. But the guy they put in the white house, the ID laws they're trying to pass, the awareness among them that their numbers are thinning and the heavy reliance on the EC as a means to end run that speak to a different reality.

It does not play the race card against every opponent of its policies.

It's been playing it since Reagan. Where've you been?

 

[Hobie]

Why is it that the only time I ever hear the right endorsing/using King is when it's aimed negatively at other people of color?

Just something I see a lot of. It would be great to hear a conservative use/quote him singularly in the affirmative.


I don't know why you need to be fixated on noting the fluid nature of water. It's hard to miss, unless you've never really seen water.


So...a nomad then.


Waaaaaay too broad, given some of his endorsers. I'll come back to this in a moment.


So why hasn't anyone ever chanted that at literally any white candidate? If someone on the left had tried that with Ted Cruz the laughter would still be ringing in the air. Because for anyone over thirty the linkage is hard to miss. Over fifty and you have to willfully turn a deaf ear to your own living memory.

I'm never going to say that only racists support the president. But I will note the comfort level of racists within the ranks of his supporters (see: Klan endorsement, among others) should be at least a little troubling to those who aren't.


No one party or person will do that. It didn't happen when Bush Jr owned the power structure, or Obama, or now Trump, with his short lived possession of both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the Court. The country is bigger and stronger than any party or person. If it happens it will be because we did it, finally, uniting as a people with the one purpose in mind.

And I think there are too many people who would resist that.


Simple, yes. Accurate? Not so much.


I'm still sore about Huntsman. Jon needs to be recalled as ambassador and endorsed by conservators who aren't looters in disguise. I'd vote for him.

This Huntsman?...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman_Jr.

 

[Town Heretic]

This Huntsman?...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman_Jr.

That's him, warts and all. He has demonstrated a bipartisan spirit that's hard to find among the right these days. Very interesting fellow who grows and allows information to impact his position. I really liked him, but he didn't know anything about running a national campaign and I think too many people confused Romney with Reagan early enough to push Huntsman out of contention. Then Romne turned out to be far less than met the eye, but too late to do Jon any good. And now we have this factional populist, God save us.

 

[Stripe]

 

[Town Heretic]

Who will face Trump? Bide still looks like the safest bet. I think Harris hurt herself with the Biden dust up. It looked contrived to many and calculated.


Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...

View attachment 26870

 

[Rusha]

Who will face Trump? Bide still looks like the safest bet. I think Harris hurt herself with the Biden dust up. It looked contrived to many and calculated.


Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...

View attachment 26870

Agreed. I am still with Biden ... though any Dem will do.

 

[The Barbarian]

The assumption is that Trump will be the republican nominee. But now California has a law requiring any person in the California primary to post five years of tax returns.

Shouldn't be a problem; no presidential candidate refuses to show his tax returns.

Except one.

A few democrats are going to have to release a little more information as well. Biden only released three years, for example.

 

[annabenedetti]

Who will face Trump? Bide still looks like the safest bet. I think Harris hurt herself with the Biden dust up. It looked contrived to many and calculated.

She's still my choice because she's got what it takes to beat Trump. This is no time to be a purist, to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle...

View attachment 26870

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

She's still my choice because she's got what it takes to beat Trump. This is no time to be a purist, to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

She's certainly promising the most free stuff...