• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
20
Points
480
Remius said:
That might actually force him to renounce his Canadian citizenship though. So still a win for us. You have to look for the silver linings George.

YES!!!!!!  Please Please Please make it so!
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
milnews.ca said:
The cynic in me thinks even over that timeframe, she may not have shaken the "Hillary stink" off her  >:D

Well there is that cross to bear, true.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
585
Points
1,260
:)
 

Attachments

  • trump.jpg
    trump.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 190

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
Can we just take a breather for a bit? Do we really need a four year thread?

The democrats are going to tear themselves apart and won't have a viable candidate for almost a couple of years.

Instead of 'US Election 2020' how about Donald Trump - POTUS, because that's all this thread is going to be about for a long time.

And on that note, how about we just give him a chance instead of the gotcha media approach (which didn't work for the media anyway).

Unlike Potato Head, Trump knows how to surround himself with professionals and experts. It's what business people do to succeed.

Go have a beer, or two, and forget about the US election for a bit.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,858
Points
1,360
recceguy said:
And on that note, how about we just give him a chance instead of the gotcha media approach (which didn't work for the media anyway).


[critical thought]

Like this forum did for PMJT?  (serious question)

[/critical thought]



recceguy said:
Can we just take a breather for a bit? Do we really need a four year thread?

"Word Association (just for fun)" has been going for seven years but it hasn't been shut down (yet).  ;)
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Good2Golf said:
[critical thought]

Like this forum did for PMJT?  (serious question)

[/critical thought]
But here it is a year later and nothings really been done, it's back to business as usual from the classic Lieberal playbook.  All the Sunny Ways BS has been just that, BS (in my personal view, which I accept won't be universally held).  So, was PMJT fairly ridiculed or unjustinly pilloried?  (serious question too)
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
J Christian Adams puts some perspective behind the "why"? of the election. Judging from news shows *they* still don't get it:

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/11/09/trump-destroys-elite-assumptions-autopsy-of-the-gop-autopsy/?singlepage=true

[qyote]
Trump Destroys Elites' Assumptions: Autopsy of the 2012 'GOP Autopsy'
BY J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS NOVEMBER 9, 2016 CHAT 132 COMMENTS

We learned last night that the punditry's "GOP autopsy" after the 2012 Mitt Romney loss was dead wrong.

Also called the "Growth and Opportunity Project," the autopsy scolded the party, insisting that new immigration policies and racial pandering were necessary to win future elections. Naturally, such policies would have been a growth and opportunity project for the consultants who would be paid to create them.

Had Jeb Bush been on the ballot yesterday, and had he followed the autopsy recommendations, Hillary Clinton would be president.

Any candidate following the autopsy's recommendations of pandering to racial identity politics would have lost precisely in the states that gave Trump his win: Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The autopsy suggested that Republicans adopt immigration policies such as amnesty and amnesty-lite to appease Hispanic voters. It suggested other ventures into racial identity politics, expressly claiming that Republicans could never win again if they didn't sound a lot more like Democrats.

Instead, Trump marched along a path to the White House Republicans can implement for another generation: fight for existential cultural issues that appeal in working-class areas like Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, and Macomb County, Michigan. There weren't Latino votes to be had in the counties that gave Trump the White House. Racial identity politics aren't necessary for Republicans to win anything. But appeal to blue-collar voters in rural counties who feel alienated by damage the institutional Left unleashed on the America they grew up in, and you win the White House.

Trump's winning path rejected the Black Lives Matter movement. It did not treat it as credible.

The GOP autopsy report recommended exactly the opposite.

Naturally, it had been written largely through rose-colored Jeb! glasses. Sally Bradshaw, one of the five authors of the autopsy, was so offended by Trump's approach that she promised to vote for Hillary Clinton. She probably assumed she'd be voting for the winner -- she assumed her autopsy was right.

Thankfully, we learned last night the autopsy was wrong, dead wrong. That cannot be repeated enough today.

We also learned other things last night.

We learned that the reactionary and rabid "Never Trump" movement might have been morally defensible in some hearts, but was an enormous strategic blunder.

Nobody looks sillier this morning than the turncoats who claimed to care about the federal judiciary and about reversing the damage and lawlessness the Left has caused, yet refused to vote for Trump. Except maybe Sally Bradshaw.

The other winner last night was conservative New Media.

Never again should anyone in the Republican party take the New York Times seriously.

Trump gave them the finger -- and won. Compare this with four years ago, when Mitt Romney wouldn't even appear on conservative talk radio.

Victory comes with an energized and polarized base, not by appealing to the legacy dead-tree media.

Steve Bannon: How delicious it was to see him on stage last night, needing a shave. I can remember the preposterous wailing about Bannon being appointed to the Trump campaign over the summer. In nearly every corner it was portrayed as a catastrophe. I knew it was masterful.  Lots of Trump staff contributed to this win, but Bannon brought an understanding of the new media environment, the modern media cycle, and the power of a slicing story to a messaging campaign. Bannon and others in the New Media have vowed to replace the importance of outlets like the New York Times.

As Andrew Brietbart told me, he sought to destroy them. Last night was a giant leap toward their irrelevance, especially in Republican politics.

The elites look especially foolish this morning. I mean that out-of-touch crowd on the coasts, highly educated and highly annoying. Yesterday, reading Ron Radosh's piece "Whither the Republican Party After the Election" was grating. Today it is hilarious, like reading a Popular Mechanics article from 1953 talking about the coming flying cars and ovens that will make food from sawdust: "Hence, if Clinton’s victory is by a relatively small margin, I would not be surprised if the Trump campaign refuses to acknowledge the results."

Oh yes, that prediction almost came true -- but in reverse:

Will Trump be able to be magnanimous in accepting the election’s results and his defeat, like Richard Nixon did when JFK won, and Al Gore did after George W. Bush won the recount? After all, the worst epithet in Trump’s book is that someone is a loser. Thus, it may be very hard for Trump to accept that he actually is one. To avoid it, he will most likely double down on the narrative that he had actually won, but the election was stolen from him.

Ron, call your office -- Rachel Maddow has snatched your body.

The elites don't understand that voters vote based largely on emotions -- and there is nothing wrong with that.

Do they like the candidate? Do they feel the candidate fights for their values? Are they alienated by the direction of the country? In all three instances, voters in places like Saginaw, Altoona, and Oshkosh said yes to all three questions.

Meanwhile, elites in Manhattan and Palo Alto were screaming "no."

Finally, Trump might have also won the popular vote but for two things -- voter fraud and rational voting. A good lawyer friend in California voted for Gary Johnson because his vote didn't matter. Had he been in Virginia, he would have voted for Trump.

Trump also lost the noncitizen vote by a wide margin -- and yes, it exists.

The incoming Trump Justice Department must prioritize voter fraud prosecutions of the crimes that occurred yesterday and in early voting. It will shut up a lot of voter fraud deniers, and ensure that the behavior is deterred in his reelection.
[/quote]
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,858
Points
1,360
jollyjacktar said:
But here it is a year later and nothings really been done, it's back to business as usual from the classic Lieberal playbook.  All the Sunny Ways BS has been just that, BS (in my personal view, which I accept won't be universally held).  So, was PMJT fairly ridiculed or unjustinly pilloried?  (serious question too)

The question wasn't about the results as perceived or delivered, but about the question as to how long does one have before being called upon to deliver upon promises.  A 365-day long 'no questions' period?

Regards
G2G
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Good2Golf said:
The question wasn't about the results as perceived or delivered, but about the question as to how long does one have before being called upon to deliver upon promises.  A 365-day long 'no questions' period?

Regards
G2G

Fair enough.  AFAIK, no.  You promise to get shit done, then get shit done.  Period.  All the present crowd has managed to do so far is to launch a flawed pay system conceived by the previous administration and miss every self imposed deadline to get it right since then.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
Good2Golf said:
[critical thought]

Like this forum did for PMJT?  (serious question)

[/critical thought]

"Word Association (just for fun)" has been going for seven years but it hasn't been shut down (yet).  ;)

1. No idea. I don't think I've been in those threads much lately, but I concede the point you're trying to make.

2. Quite a different subject for one and the fact that it's hard to argue about a single word being used in the world's largest run on sentence. ;)
 

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
Oh good, now I can just come here to stay informed about the 2020 election :)

Go Farrell 2020!
 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Damn you MM. Damn you to hell.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0327.JPG
    IMG_0327.JPG
    51.9 KB · Views: 219

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hamish Seggie said:
Maybe the candidates need to fight it out UFC style.

Better still, make it a Jeopardy Tournament of Presidential Candidates. Lasts 2 weeks, 1/2 hour each day weekend off in between.

I'll have Political Scandals for $2000 Alex.

;D
 

AbdullahD

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
13
Points
210
cupper said:
Better still, make it a Jeopardy Tournament of Presidential Candidates. Lasts 2 weeks, 1/2 hour each day weekend off in between.

I'll have Political Scandals for $2000 Alex.

;D

This seems to be going down the road to Idiocracy.

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
 

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think that we should all sit back and relax, chillin' out to Bob Ross.

https://youtu.be/pw5ETGiiBRg
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
6,858
Points
1,360
cupper said:
I think that we should all sit back and relax, chillin' out to Bob Ross.

https://youtu.be/pw5ETGiiBRg


Ahhh....Van Dyke Brown...what an awesome colour!
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
cupper said:
I think that we should all sit back and relax, chillin' out to Bob Ross.

https://youtu.be/pw5ETGiiBRg
He is so soothing and calming to watch.  Like a visual/audio split, mellowing you out.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Of course, there are many people who are thinking ahead, foremost among them the President Elect himself:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/10/how-trump-can-build-a-powerful-political-machine/

How Trump Can Build a Powerful Political Machine
HARRY ZIEVE COHEN
Trump’s infrastructure ambitions can help him build the most powerful political machine America has seen in decades.

Donald Trump, who has been underestimated by his opponents for the past 18 months, has a strategy to build the most powerful political machine America has seen in decades while gaining popularity with voters. His critics could be blindsided again.

The strategy depends on the construction and repair of $1 trillion worth of infrastructure. To understand how Trump plans to accomplish such an ambitious task, look no further than the new LaGuardia Airport, which Governing magazine reports could be a model project for Trump’s administration:

All of the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the new terminal will be carried out by private companies that have formed LaGuardia Gateway Partners. The group is putting up $2.6 billion of the cost and will run the terminal through 2050.

The public-private partnership reduces the risk of cost overruns, delays and poor construction, says Johan Henriksson, a top official with the construction firm Skanska, one of the companies in the consortium. The partnership has a vested interest in providing amenities customers want because it will be operating the terminal and collecting rents for decades to come.

But the biggest benefit might be how quickly the private companies can start to turn things around. “This discussion about LaGuardia not being up to par has been a discussion that’s been going on for a long time,” Henriksson says. “But now it is finally getting off the ground. Without the P3 structure, it would be hard to do that.”

The approach has impressed Biden, who returned to LaGuardia this summer to help break ground for the renovations. “Best of all, it’s not a plan,” the vice president said. “It’s not a sketch, it’s not a dream, it’s not a vision. It is actually happening.”

Trump’s plans, from what we know, will rely on this kind of public-private partnership (called a P3). It’s not a new idea. In Europe—hardly a bastion of laissez-faire governance—many major infrastructure assets are owned and operated by private firms, including mass transit, high-speed rail, and airports. America’s preference for government-owned and operated infrastructure is in fact rather exceptional, driven more by ideology (and special interests like unions and consultants) than rigorous policy analysis. An asset like LaGuardia Airport, which is run by the notoriously corrupt and inefficient Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, will almost certainly be more efficiently rebuilt by a private company that can’t afford to take a loss.

P3s are becoming more popular in America amidst high labor costs, dense webs of red tape, and constrained budgets. In an illustrative case from 2012, a private company received a concession to operate the Ohio State University’s parking system for 50 years. The university was paid roughly $480 million in exchange for the lease, and the private company now has the rights to charge for parking spots. The company also has to pay for maintenance over the 50-year duration. Critics allege that by turning a public good into a profitable asset, teachers and students will have to pay more for services. Proponents say that the deal was a favorable one for the school, which was handed nearly a half-billion dollars in much-needed cash and now doesn’t have to worry about taking care of its parking lots for a half century.

In theory, privatizing infrastructure shouldn’t save money: Either way, residents are paying for the same services. But private firms aren’t subject to the same burdensome regulations and hierarchies that bloated government agencies must work through. It’s easier to hand off a project to a private company than to reform the bureaucracy. In addition, P3 contracts typically specify maintenance expectations up front, whereas politicians kick those costs down the road. Deferring maintenance often means repairs, when they finally happen, are even more expensive. Moreover, privatizing, say, a bridge with a multi-decade concession means the crossing won’t be constantly subject to changing political fortunes. So, in practice, privatization can be a great way to save money and still deliver essential goods.

Still, over the past few weeks, leftwing critics like Senator Bernie Sanders and Vice President Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain, have been very critical of Trump’s infrastructure plans precisely because they rely so much on privatization. Instead of jobs and safer bridges, they see billions of dollars in corruption and corporate welfare. As Klain wrote a few weeks ago in the Washington Post:

The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.

Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors — municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls — get no help from Trump’s plan. And contractors? Well, they get a “10 percent pretax profit margin,” according to the plan. Combined with Trump’s sweeping business tax break, this would represent a stunning $85 billion after-tax profit for contractors — underwritten by the taxpayers.

It’s true that Trump’s plan apparently relies not only on concessions for profitable assets, but also on less well tested mechanisms to encourage private investors to build and fix America’s roads and bridges. One can easily imagine a P3 concession for a toll road, but what about for, say, a city avenue? If the asset is free to use, it’s harder to incentivize a private company to build and operate it. But it’s not impossible. In Pennsylvania, hundreds of toll-free bridges are being repaired by private companies and will be maintained for decades under a complicated financing arrangement that involves the sale of tax-free state bonds.

To be sure, the critics have a point: Privatization may be very enticing, but it creates opportunities for high-stakes backroom deals. Direct infrastructure spending by the government is hardly honest business, but it is one thing to have some unions and construction firms getting sweet short-term deals from friendly politicians and it’s another to hand off a major highway to a political supporter for fifty years. If politicians are reckless, American taxpayers could lose control over the roads and bridges they rely on every day.

Now, because these assets are still government-owned under a P3, the taxpayers can always take them back if things don’t go as planned. But, if a government does get in the habit of seizing assets, it will be much harder to obtain private investment in the future. Furthermore, courts will force the government to compensate the private entity, and the government may not have the money in hand to do that.

From President-elect Trump’s perspective, however, these apparent bugs look more like features. One trillion dollars in handouts to private companies is a huge opportunity for a politician who has only a rudimentary political machine in place. When it comes time for reelection, Trump will need a base of well-heeled and influential supporters. Traditional Republicans have energy and other business interests.

Democrats have Silicon Valley, unions, and Hollywood. Trump has almost no one, and privatizing America’s infrastructure gives him a chance to build a coalition of private construction companies, lawyers, consultants, financiers, and others. This is a business he knows well, a world in which he already has plenty of contacts.

So critics should be aware that what they see as fatal flaws in the plan may, from Trump’s point of view, be huge advantages. Meanwhile, they should know that the America’s and Europe’s experiences with privatization suggest it could work very well. The way America currently builds infrastructure is hugely inefficient and costs can be multiples of what they would be in similar European contexts. There’s a ton of room for improvement. Trump’s infrastructure plan may ultimately appear relatively inexpensive and efficient to taxpayers while simultaneously building him a powerful and durable political machine that is financially dependent on his reelection. Four years is a small window, and shovel-ready projects are hard to find, but if Trump can make some high-profile improvements, he’ll build a lot of political capital. Meanwhile, he’ll have thousands of businesses indebted to him, and very keen on the prospect of him staying in power.

Building roads is a time-tested way to win voters’ hearts. Infrastructure investment may also turn out to be Trump’s master strategy for constructing a formidable political machine.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
585
Points
1,260
Today in Florida
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+2020&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F18%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F19%2F2017&tbm=

Remius said:
Man, really, this soon?

Yes, really. :)

‘Blacks for Trump’ signs at the rally,
https://usuncut.com/politics/blacks-for-trump-conspiracy-theorist/

Guess he wants to improve on the 8% of the African-American vote he got in 2016,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=95%25+of+the+african-American+vote&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=3CmpWIuBEOmM8QfchpTADA&gws_rd=ssl#q=I+guarantee+you+that+I+will+get+over+95+percent+of+the+African-American+vote

What he told his fans about Sweden,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+sweden&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F18%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F19%2F2017&tbm=
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top