• 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.
Donald H said:
The biggest question on Trump attempting to become a fascist dictator is on whether any wannable fascist leader could be so outright honest on his ambition? And now we even see his admitted attempt to destroy the USPS to prevent ballots from being counted!

Oh, and to his dubious credit, he's started the racist birtherism thing on Kamala this time.

Hey Don can you provided a link for the USPS?

No, he didn't start the birtherism thing on Harris. Yes, CNN is promoting it but it is false.

From The Right Scoop
https://therightscoop.com/trump-now-being-falsely-accused-of-promoting-a-birther-conspiracy-on-kamala-harris-video/

“Trump promotes another birther lie, this time about Kamala Harris” is what CNN breathlessly tweets. But the problem is he never promoted it. Instead he was simply asked about it by a reporter in the press conference yesterday (cued up to 38:39):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2319&v=rmL0J_rfXjo&feature=emb_logo

Here’s a transcript of the exchange:

Q There are claims circulating on social media that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be — to run for Vice President because she was an “anchor baby,” I quote. Do you or can you definitively say whether or not Kamala Harris is eligible — legal — and meets the legal requirements to run as Vice President?

THE PRESIDENT: So, I just heard that. I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements. And, by the way, the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer. I have no idea if that’s right. I would’ve — I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for Vice President.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: But that’s a very serious — you’re saying that — they’re saying that she doesn’t qualify because she wasn’t born in this country?

Q No, she was born in this country, but her parents did not — the claims say that her parents did not receive their permanent residence at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I don’t know about it. I just heard about it. I’ll take a look.


[H]e says twice that he doesn’t know if it’s even true, suggesting that the Democrats would have likely made sure she was qualified before choosing her to run for VP.





 
I watched the presser where he offered to support funds for the USPS. With Congress out of town evwerything is on hold including funds for $3400 per family. As for Senator Harris being a US citizen has yet to be determined. Her parents were not citizens at the time of birth but it has been past practice giving citizenship to babies born on US soil so the lawyers may get involved.  ;D
 
QV said:
The Republicans (and Trump) want voter ID and in person voting.  The Dems want mass mail in voting and no voter ID. 

What could possibly go right or wrong with either of those two scenarios? 

Both systems are open to abuse.
 
ModlrMike said:
I thought Trump was an antisemite and islamiphobe. 

Maybe he will do better with Jewish voters in 2020 than he did in 2018?

How religious groups voted in the midterm elections

79% of Jewish voters voted Democrat. 17% voted Republican.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/



 
shawn5o said:
Hey Don can you provided a link for the USPS?

I would sooner not Shawn; there are lots of them readily available on the web and there's always a way for Trump and his supporters to deny the charges. So I'll just leave it as my opinion.

No, he didn't start the birtherism thing on Harris. Yes, CNN is promoting it but it is false.

As somebody already suggested, Trump played into the birtherism idea. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the question was purposely arranged for Trump. And again, I'm not into debating the issue with you, it will just will go down as my opinion.
 
tomahawk6 said:
I watched the presser where he offered to support funds for the USPS. With Congress out of town evwerything is on hold including funds for $3400 per family. As for Senator Harris being a US citizen has yet to be determined. Her parents were not citizens at the time of birth but it has been past practice giving citizenship to babies born on US soil so the lawyers may get involved.  ;D

Good article that argues that yes, Harris, is an American citizen:

Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible to Be Vice President

EUGENE VOLOKH , PROFESSOR, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW
ON 8/13/20 AT 1:12 PM EDT

Some people have argued that Kamala Harris is ineligible to be vice president of the United States. The Constitution requires presidents and vice presidents to be "natural-born citizens"; Harris was born in the U.S., but her parents (who had come to the U.S. to study) weren't U.S. citizens at the time. Does "natural-born citizen" include Harris, and others like her?

It does. "Natural-born citizen" was a familiar legal phrase to the Framers—an adaptation of the English term "natural-born subject." Sir William Blackstone, an English treatise writer who (in Justice Scalia's words) was "the Framers' accepted authority on English law and the English Constitution," explained:

Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king. ...The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

English law defined "natural-born" based on birth (with some narrow exceptions), not on the parents' citizenship. Likewise, William Rawle's 1825 treatise on the Constitution said that "every person born within the United States, ...whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen." (Rawle was a lawyer at the time the Constitution was written, and served as the federal prosecutor in Pennsylvania during the Washington and Adams administrations.)

The Framers did generally shift from talking about "subjects" to "citizens," but that stemmed from a change from monarchy to republic, and not a redefinition of the concept of "natural-born." Indeed, the post-Independence Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 and the Vermont Constitution of 1777 expressly used Blackstone's "natural-born subject" phrase in explaining that naturalized citizens were "entitled to all the rights of a natural-born subject of this state."

It's possible that "natural-born citizen" has since been broadened to include children of U.S. citizens born overseas (a 1790 Act of Congress specified that, "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens"). But it hasn't been narrowed, and in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court interpreted the 14th Amendment as reaffirming that people born in the U.S. are indeed natural-born citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship.

The 14th Amendment does have a narrow exception for people who were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. at birth, but the Court made clear that this was a narrow exception for "children of members of the Indian tribes," who were at the time not citizens, "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation" and "children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State." Children born to noncitizens living here are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of American courts—no one thinks, for instance, that they are immune from criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits. They are likewise "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship purposes.

Now, this view had not been universal. For instance, the 1797 edition of the English translation of Emer Vattel's treatise on The Law of Nations (a book that had some influence on the Framers), did say that, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." But that was describing the European civil law rule, not the English common law rule; and in any event, the earlier editions that the Framers would have read didn't use here the phrase "natural-born citizens," but instead spoke of "indigenes" (borrowed directly from the French original "Les Naturels, ou Indigènes"). The Framers, when they were writing the Constitution, likely mentally linked the "natural-born citizens" phrase to the "natural-born subject" in Blackstone's very familiar explanation of the common law, rather than to "natives, or indigenes" in Vattel's somewhat less familiar discussion of the civil law.

My friend and fellow law professor John Eastman also points to some late 1800s cases that read the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship as excluding children born in the U.S. to foreigners, such as: "The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." But this phrase came in an 1873 case that dealt with the subject only in passing, since it had nothing to do with foreigners; and an 1875 case made clear that the matter remained unresolved in the justices' eyes.

It was Wong Kim Ark, in 1898, that considered the question directly, and expressly concluded that the children of foreign citizens (there, citizens of China) were American citizens. And though the parents there were permanent residents—albeit ones who returned to China when Wong Kim Ark was 17—rather than students, the logic of the case would apply to people living here on student visas, as well. And that logic is entirely consistent with Blackstone's explanation of late 1700s English law, to which the Framers were likely referring.

Some have argued, I think quite wrongly, that such attention to Harris' qualifications is connected to her race. But there are people of all races who are indubitably natural-born citizens of the U.S., and people of all races who are indubitably not. (I'm white, for instance, but I'm certainly disqualified from the presidency, because I was born in what was then the USSR, and is now the Ukraine.)

The attention does have to do with her parents' immigration status, and may thus be said to be in a sense skeptical of immigration. But the Constitution itself was to a limited degree skeptical of immigration, in limiting the presidency and vice presidency to "natural-born citizens" and excluding naturalized ones. The Framers were concerned that foreigners who immigrated into the U.S. might have enough allegiance to their former countries that they should not be trusted with the highest office in the land. It is perfectly proper to enforce this constitutional rule, whatever we think of the policy behind it.

But the Framers embodied this policy in a clear set of qualifications: The president must be "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"; must have "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" (another way of screening out people who might be too foreign); and must "have attained to the Age of thirty five Years." Someone who is, say, married to a foreign citizen or has children with foreign citizenship, or is even related by blood to a foreign royal house (a matter that may have been of some concern when the U.S. was still young and relatively weak), was not disqualified. It was up to the political process to decide whether to elect such a person—it was not a matter of constitutional disqualification.

The same is true for people born in the U.S. whose parents were foreign citizens. They were "natural-born subjects" under English law, and thus "natural-born citizens" to the Framers. Kamala Harris easily fits within that category.

Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz distinguished professor of law at UCLA School of Law.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Link. Original article has further links to additional materail.
 
It’s official. The Republicans are no longer a serious party. RIP.

https://thebulwark.com/qwazy-for-qanon/

Qwazy for QAnon

No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the conspiracy.
by MONA CHAREN  AUGUST 13, 2020

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

–Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, Dr. Strangelove

In the 1964 Stanley Kubrick classic black comedy Dr. Strangelove, the above words are spoken by a general who is about to start World War III. His theory about the contamination of “precious bodily fluids” is the tipoff for poor Group Captain Lionel Mandrake that the general has gone certifiably cuckoo.

This week, Republican voters in Georgia’s 14th congressional district nominated Marjorie Taylor Greene for the seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Graves. She won a run-off against a fellow Republican, Dr. John Cowan. Like Greene, Cowan is a gun-rights-supporting, anti-abortion Trump loyalist. Unlike Greene, he does not endorse the QAnon conspiracy. That’s right. Greene is (or claims to be) a Q believer.

You might think that once voters were alerted to this, they’d shrink from Greene as Mandrake did from Ripper, asking her to go nicely with the men in white coats who are here to help her. Cowan clearly thought his opponent’s Q talk was toxic. He ran ads saying “All of the conservative. None of the embarrassment.” And he told Politico, “She is not conservative—she’s crazy. . . . She deserves a YouTube channel, not a seat in Congress. She’s a circus act.” The voters were not convinced. Greene trounced Cowan by 14 points (as of this writing).

Georgia 14 is a comfortably Republican district, going for Romney in 2012 by 73 percent, Trump in 2016 by 75 percent, and Brian Kemp for governor by 75 percent. Greene correctly perceived that being conservative in a district like this is the bare minimum. And so she provided more. Responding to the election of Ilhan Omar, Greene said in a Facebook video that there was a “Muslim invasion into our government offices.” Attempting to prove that she wasn’t a racist, she told viewers, “It’s not about skin color. . . . I know a ton of white people who are as lazy and sorry as black people I know.” Repeating a smear that circulates perennially online, she called Hungarian financier George Soros, who is Jewish, a “Nazi.”

But the money quote is this one: Referring to Q, the anonymous leader of the QAnon conspiracy, she said Q is a “patriot.” “I think it’s something worth listening to and paying attention to, and the reason why is because many of the things he has given clues about and talked about on 4chan and other forums have really proven to be true.”

Q refers to an Energy Department classification level of top secret. The person styling himself Q in cryptic online messages is anonymous, thus QAnon. To describe what followers of Q believe is to enter a hall of mirrors. As one of my relatives (who, full disclosure, is on the left) put it to me, “At least the 9/11 truthers, as illogical as they were, had some nutty thread of plausibility to their theory. Inside jobs do happen. False flags are a thing. But the Qanon theory is beyond imagination.”

Remember the fellow who, a month after the 2016 election, drove from North Carolina to D.C., barging into a pizza place and firing off a shotgun? Why would a religious, previously law-abiding father of two do such a thing? Well, he was looking for the child sex slaves he’d been led to believe were chained in the back, at the behest of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton. He “knew” this because “Pizzagate” was circulating among right-wing websites and email lists, heavily promoted by Jack Posobiec (who went on to be honored with a Lincoln fellowship by the formerly respectable Claremont Institute).

Pizzagate morphed into the QAnon conspiracy in which Q followers wait for signals from their leader that a vast conspiracy of Satanic child abusers, run by the “deep state,” George Soros, the Supreme Court, and God knows who else is about to be unmasked. Did I mention that they think Beyoncé is only pretending to be black? It’s a hydra-headed thing, this conspiracy, and contains multitudes. But the one common thread is this: The great deliverer will be Donald J. Trump.

The internet age has birthed a crisis of information. Flooded by claims and counterclaims, people don’t know whom to trust. And in this welter of confusion, many seize upon stories they’d like to be true, rather than those that seem plausible. I guess it’s more comforting for some to believe that Trump’s erratic and incompetent behavior is actually cover for a massive plan to save the world from Satan-worshipping child molesters than to accept that he is what he seems.

People carrying Q signs began showing up at Trump rallies in 2018. The phrases “Calm Before the Storm” and “Where We Go One, We Go All” have become talismanic. Trump has done nothing to discourage the cult. On the contrary, he posed in the Oval Office with Michael Lebron, a Q promoter. Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, believed to be the eponymous Q by a number of adherents, has signaled to Q followers in a video release. He follows a recitation of the oath of office for federal officials with the line “Where We Go One, We Go All.” (My guess is that Flynn is in it for the cash.)

No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the QAnon conspiracy. One of them, Jo Rae Perkins, got the Republican nomination for Senate in Oregon. And now Marjorie Taylor Greene seems almost certain to be going to Congress.

Greene claimed that the Republican “establishment” was against her. But alas, that’s not true. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney did condemn her remarks. But Greene received backing from the House Freedom Fund, an arm of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Rep. Mark Meadows, now Trump’s chief of staff, also backed Greene. And, naturally, the Republican Party’s leader had this to say:

“ Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up - a real WINNER!”

Against the furnace blast of crazy that Trump puts out daily, green shoots of sanity are harder and harder to find. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, has often provided them. Regarding this bit of nutbaggery, he said:

“Qanon is a fabrication.  This “insider” has predicted so much incorrectly (but people don’t remember PAST predictions) so now has switched to vague generalities.  Could be Russian propaganda or a basement dweller.  Regardless, no place in Congress for these conspiracies.”

Normal, right? The world seems to be on its axis. But no, the Trump campaign smashed back at Kinzinger:

“ When will @RepKinzinger condemn the Steele Dossier fabrications and conspiracy theories pushed by Democrats? That actually WAS Russian propaganda.”

Most Americans have not yet heard of QAnon. But the paranoid conspiracy has gathered momentum at the Republican grassroots. The taste for crazy seems peculiarly partisan. When Democrats go off the deep end, it tends to be for Marxism or Maoism. Those are among the most dangerous political ideas in the world and have led directly to the deaths of scores of millions of people. But they’re not nuts.

It’s odd that Republicans, who pride themselves on their practical understanding of life—incentives matter, money doesn’t grow on trees, personal responsibility is essential to a well-ordered society—should display such a marked weakness for utter lunacy. I don’t offer an explanation, just a warning. This disordered thinking is no longer just a fringe phenomenon. Unlike Group Captain Mandrake, a lot of Republicans out there don’t recognize crazy when they see it.

 
RangerRay said:
It’s official. The Republicans are no longer a serious party. RIP.

https://thebulwark.com/qwazy-for-qanon/

Qwazy for QAnon

No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the conspiracy.
by MONA CHAREN  AUGUST 13, 2020

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

–Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, Dr. Strangelove

In the 1964 Stanley Kubrick classic black comedy Dr. Strangelove, the above words are spoken by a general who is about to start World War III. His theory about the contamination of “precious bodily fluids” is the tipoff for poor Group Captain Lionel Mandrake that the general has gone certifiably cuckoo.

This week, Republican voters in Georgia’s 14th congressional district nominated Marjorie Taylor Greene for the seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Graves. She won a run-off against a fellow Republican, Dr. John Cowan. Like Greene, Cowan is a gun-rights-supporting, anti-abortion Trump loyalist. Unlike Greene, he does not endorse the QAnon conspiracy. That’s right. Greene is (or claims to be) a Q believer.

You might think that once voters were alerted to this, they’d shrink from Greene as Mandrake did from Ripper, asking her to go nicely with the men in white coats who are here to help her. Cowan clearly thought his opponent’s Q talk was toxic. He ran ads saying “All of the conservative. None of the embarrassment.” And he told Politico, “She is not conservative—she’s crazy. . . . She deserves a YouTube channel, not a seat in Congress. She’s a circus act.” The voters were not convinced. Greene trounced Cowan by 14 points (as of this writing).

Georgia 14 is a comfortably Republican district, going for Romney in 2012 by 73 percent, Trump in 2016 by 75 percent, and Brian Kemp for governor by 75 percent. Greene correctly perceived that being conservative in a district like this is the bare minimum. And so she provided more. Responding to the election of Ilhan Omar, Greene said in a Facebook video that there was a “Muslim invasion into our government offices.” Attempting to prove that she wasn’t a racist, she told viewers, “It’s not about skin color. . . . I know a ton of white people who are as lazy and sorry as black people I know.” Repeating a smear that circulates perennially online, she called Hungarian financier George Soros, who is Jewish, a “Nazi.”

But the money quote is this one: Referring to Q, the anonymous leader of the QAnon conspiracy, she said Q is a “patriot.” “I think it’s something worth listening to and paying attention to, and the reason why is because many of the things he has given clues about and talked about on 4chan and other forums have really proven to be true.”

Q refers to an Energy Department classification level of top secret. The person styling himself Q in cryptic online messages is anonymous, thus QAnon. To describe what followers of Q believe is to enter a hall of mirrors. As one of my relatives (who, full disclosure, is on the left) put it to me, “At least the 9/11 truthers, as illogical as they were, had some nutty thread of plausibility to their theory. Inside jobs do happen. False flags are a thing. But the Qanon theory is beyond imagination.”

Remember the fellow who, a month after the 2016 election, drove from North Carolina to D.C., barging into a pizza place and firing off a shotgun? Why would a religious, previously law-abiding father of two do such a thing? Well, he was looking for the child sex slaves he’d been led to believe were chained in the back, at the behest of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton. He “knew” this because “Pizzagate” was circulating among right-wing websites and email lists, heavily promoted by Jack Posobiec (who went on to be honored with a Lincoln fellowship by the formerly respectable Claremont Institute).

Pizzagate morphed into the QAnon conspiracy in which Q followers wait for signals from their leader that a vast conspiracy of Satanic child abusers, run by the “deep state,” George Soros, the Supreme Court, and God knows who else is about to be unmasked. Did I mention that they think Beyoncé is only pretending to be black? It’s a hydra-headed thing, this conspiracy, and contains multitudes. But the one common thread is this: The great deliverer will be Donald J. Trump.

The internet age has birthed a crisis of information. Flooded by claims and counterclaims, people don’t know whom to trust. And in this welter of confusion, many seize upon stories they’d like to be true, rather than those that seem plausible. I guess it’s more comforting for some to believe that Trump’s erratic and incompetent behavior is actually cover for a massive plan to save the world from Satan-worshipping child molesters than to accept that he is what he seems.

People carrying Q signs began showing up at Trump rallies in 2018. The phrases “Calm Before the Storm” and “Where We Go One, We Go All” have become talismanic. Trump has done nothing to discourage the cult. On the contrary, he posed in the Oval Office with Michael Lebron, a Q promoter. Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, believed to be the eponymous Q by a number of adherents, has signaled to Q followers in a video release. He follows a recitation of the oath of office for federal officials with the line “Where We Go One, We Go All.” (My guess is that Flynn is in it for the cash.)

No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the QAnon conspiracy. One of them, Jo Rae Perkins, got the Republican nomination for Senate in Oregon. And now Marjorie Taylor Greene seems almost certain to be going to Congress.

Greene claimed that the Republican “establishment” was against her. But alas, that’s not true. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney did condemn her remarks. But Greene received backing from the House Freedom Fund, an arm of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Rep. Mark Meadows, now Trump’s chief of staff, also backed Greene. And, naturally, the Republican Party’s leader had this to say:

“ Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up - a real WINNER!”

Against the furnace blast of crazy that Trump puts out daily, green shoots of sanity are harder and harder to find. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, has often provided them. Regarding this bit of nutbaggery, he said:

“Qanon is a fabrication.  This “insider” has predicted so much incorrectly (but people don’t remember PAST predictions) so now has switched to vague generalities.  Could be Russian propaganda or a basement dweller.  Regardless, no place in Congress for these conspiracies.”

Normal, right? The world seems to be on its axis. But no, the Trump campaign smashed back at Kinzinger:

“ When will @RepKinzinger condemn the Steele Dossier fabrications and conspiracy theories pushed by Democrats? That actually WAS Russian propaganda.”

Most Americans have not yet heard of QAnon. But the paranoid conspiracy has gathered momentum at the Republican grassroots. The taste for crazy seems peculiarly partisan. When Democrats go off the deep end, it tends to be for Marxism or Maoism. Those are among the most dangerous political ideas in the world and have led directly to the deaths of scores of millions of people. But they’re not nuts.

It’s odd that Republicans, who pride themselves on their practical understanding of life—incentives matter, money doesn’t grow on trees, personal responsibility is essential to a well-ordered society—should display such a marked weakness for utter lunacy. I don’t offer an explanation, just a warning. This disordered thinking is no longer just a fringe phenomenon. Unlike Group Captain Mandrake, a lot of Republicans out there don’t recognize crazy when they see it.

Thanks RR

i finally know what this QAnon is.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Again: Association Fallacy.

I see that the neocons have created a new home for themselves at the Bulwark, in that valley between the Democrats and Republicans.

Didn't you mean that the neocons have created a new home for themselves at Qanon Brad? The Bulwark is convincingly firm leftist and hardly in any valley.
 
Donald H said:
I would sooner not Shawn; there are lots of them readily available on the web and there's always a way for Trump and his supporters to deny the charges. So I'll just leave it as my opinion.

As somebody already suggested, Trump played into the birtherism idea. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the question was purposely arranged for Trump. And again, I'm not into debating the issue with you, it will just will go down as my opinion.

Fair enough Don

That's a good point ref purposely arranged
 
Trump's troubles?

Trump Agonistes

https://mises.org/wire/trump-agonistes?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=65e1b15386-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_14_02_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-65e1b15386-228810079

08/14/2020Jeff Deist

Can Donald Trump, against all odds, still win in November?

It would be a remarkable political feat, on par with his stunning upset in 2016. A global pandemic (however statistically dubious) ravages the country, while riots ravage major US cities. The US economy produces a third less than it did a year ago, 40 million people are out of work and dependent on federal benefits, and 60 percent of all restaurants may go under. Millions of Americans will not pay rent, mortgages, or credit card bills for the foreseeable future. Millions of their kids will not go to school at all, or will simply stare at their teachers on Zoom. Others wear face shields and sit behind plastic screens at their desks. College football, a religion in America, may well be canceled altogether. Trump's own Manhattan is a ghost town. And the media is intensely aligned against him.

Yet amid all this mayhem Trump's poll numbers are no worse, and perhaps better, than they were heading into his contest with Hillary Clinton.

Is Trump feeling it? Since holding a series of desultory afternoon press conferences concerning covid earlier this spring, accompanied by the awful (and inexplicably still employed) Dr. Anthony Fauci, he has shrunk from the public eye. He surfaced in South Dakota over the Fourth of July for a rally in front of Mount Rushmore, and continues to spar with reporters, but his political buoyancy is not the same. America is exhausted, and the Trump Show lacks new scripts. Those scripts now issue from Fox News host Tucker Carlson: with 4.3 million viewers and searing monologues every night, he is the de facto populist voice Trump once was.

Surrounded by bad advisers and hamstrung by his own administration working at cross purposes, Trump is less than ninety days from the election with no clear message or direction. He appears particularly unfocused and seeking flattery from unaccountable insiders like Jared Kushner instead of serious counsel. Many people, including Donald Trump himself, seem to forget how and why he won the 2016 election.

His mandate, such as it was and thin as it was, looked something like this:

First, drain the Swamp. Injure the vested interests that dominate and leech off Beltway tax largesse; deny them their permanent sinecure. More than anything, his campaign represented a rebuke to the Uniparty, and a stark expression of populist contempt for technocratic elites. That contempt was and is entirely justified: the political class in America spent the last many decades screwing up education, medicine, foreign policy, diplomacy, money, banking, the US dollar, the federal budget, families, and social cohesion generally. The Bush/Clinton/Obama axis represented the worst profligacies of the managerial state, every bit as illiberal as Trump could ever pretend to be. That axis needed to be repudiated. It was never about Trump or his advisors or his policies; it was about an opportunity for 60 million Americans to go off-script and vote against the coronation of Clinton Part II.

That opportunity appears squandered. Forget Fauci and Kushner; what about Bolton, Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, Scaramucci, McMaster, Haley, and all the rest? What Trump policy, however much bluster accompanies it, is qualitatively different than those of his predecessors? What federal department or agency is less powerful today than he found it? Where are the budget cuts to accompany what amount only to cuts in the growth rates of regulations? Single-year deficits are in the trillions. And what has he done to bring the damnable Federal Reserve Bank to heel, the one institution more responsible for government bloat and war finance than all others? Trump does not appear to have answers.

Second, pursue a meaningful America First foreign policy. This meant, in the eyes of voters, nothing less than the significant withdrawal of US troops from intractable and horrifically expensive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The trillions of dollars spent in the post-9-11 period, the lives lost, the limbs severed and maimed, the PTSD, the suicides, none of it made sense anymore to the America public. How much will we spend on VA care over the coming decades, given the sheer number of damaged US soldiers, broken down by endless deployments? We blew up Iraq, really three countries held together by a thread, and don't know how to fix it. We got bogged down in Afghanistan, learning nothing from the British or Soviet experiences. America wants and needs to get out of the Middle East.

The sheer futility of post–Cold War US foreign policy is tailor-made for Trump's messaging, and not deeply partisan. He capitalized on this sentiment skillfully during his campaign, but has failed to produce significant troop withdrawals anywhere or touch a penny of "defense" spending. Worse, he has allowed the Bolton wing of the Uniparty ready access to the White House, and has been willing to entertain bellicose nonsense about Iran and China. Trump deserves credit for not taking the neoconservative bait to appear tough on Putin in an effort to deflect from the ludicrous Russiagate. But beyond that he has failed to fundamentally change even the rhetoric surrounding foreign policy, which remains hegemonic in tenor. A populist foreign policy requires humility, not hubris.

Third, act as a bodyguard for Middle America against the worst excesses of the American left. Some Americans just wanted a bodyguard against left academia, left media, and the secularist rout. They didn't care if that bodyguard came with a graceless demeanor and rap sheet; in fact, they preferred it. Cultural and social issues were a mainstay of Trump's 2016 coalition, but not in the sense they were for Pat Buchanan in 1996 or for social conservatives generally. Trump is not animated by religion or abortion; he is comfortable in cosmopolitan and diverse New York circles, and has little interest in relitigating gay marriage or similar battles. But he did promise to stand against campus radicalism, cancel culture, and the general perception of hostility toward flyover country emanating from the Left, particularly the media. Yet all of these things have become worse, not better, since Trump took office. In fact, the reaction to Trump has emboldened open socialists and Marxists to abandon incrementalism and demand wholesale revolution in America, right here and now. Antifa and Black Lives Matter, with open support from media, politicians, and corporate America, condone if not engineer riots and looting in cities. In sum, Christian Middle America feels less secure after four years of Trump, not more. All of this has happened under Trump's watch.

What about the vaunted "alt-right," supposedly the populist shock troops of the Trump movement? It was, and is, mostly a media creation. It needed to be created as an explanation for the rise of Trump in the first place. Journalists wanted to believe, fiercely, that a racist and fascist right was the only explanation for Trump, and especially for Clinton's loss. So they defined a mass of people who (i) were not on the left and (ii) did not think Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich represented vital opposition to the Clinton dynasty as the alt-right. In fact, the moniker never applied to more than a few thousand angry outsized voices loosely connected on social media. They had no money, no political power or party, no platforms or donors. The alt-right certainly did not elect Donald Trump in 2016: the red states voted red, the blue states voted blue, and a few hundred thousand unhappy Baby Boomers in six swing states—many of whom voted for Barack Obama—gave Trump razor-thin margins.

Those margins, and whether a real "silent majority" exists—as opposed to a mythical alt-right—will decide 2020.

So can Trump win in November? Certainly. He recently issued dubious executive orders which are sure to be popular, including an extension of $400 weekly federal unemployment benefits and a continued moratorium on evictions for federally subsidized housing. Biden and Harris are an uninspiring duo, and not likely to drive or inspire new voter turnout not already energized by standard Trump hatred. And sustained street violence continues to plague American cities, even smaller cities like Portland (Oregon) and Richmond, Virginia. Trump is not Nixon, and has not been able to project a "law and order" image onto his campaign like Nixon did in 1968. Still, the Left's silence on riots—if not outright support—plays in Trump's favor. Things may be bad in America, but pointing to scenes of burning and looting merely to say "I'm against that" is an opening even the most inept campaign can exploit. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler finally said as much recently, lamenting how rioters were creating "B-roll film" for Trump ads.

But populists need a status quo to oppose, and Trump now faces a new normal of incumbency.

Average voters do not blame him for covid; it would be preposterous to think the Left would not attack him equally had he ordered some kind of draconian (and unconstitutional) federal mandates and quarantines. He showed decent instincts with respect to the pandemic, preferring to leave matters largely up to states. This was good policy and good politics; top-down approaches to public health generally produce worse outcomes. And a less biased media would have savaged rather than lionized Trump critic Andrew Cuomo for his horrific bungling of nursing homes. But Trump has not articulated a strong alternative approach to dealing with covid, instead allowing Fauci to ramble publicly about far-off vaccines.

Similarly, average voters do not blame him for the George Floyd murder, nor do they blame him for the Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots. Police malfeasance is a local matter, and the optics of progressive blue cities burning plays to Trump's advantage to an extent. But this advantage vanishes if the country still feels deeply unsettled come November. We are nearly three months removed from the George Floyd killing, and still the unrest in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and even smaller cities like Richmond continue. Outrage benefits Trump, but fatigue does not.

Similarly, blue state covid lockdowns and mask mandates advantage Trump if in fact deaths and hospitalizations from the virus plummet before election day. If covid ebbs, his exhortations to reopen businesses, go back to school, and play college football as usual will look bold in hindsight—somewhat shielding him from voter wrath over the economic depression precipitated if not caused by the virus response. But the Chinese water torture style of media reporting on covid is designed to make the virus seem worse than it is.

These steep conditions—that covid is under control, that he is seen as the law-and-order candidate, and that anger over the economy focuses on lockdown governors rather than him—matter more to the president's reelection chances than anything the Democratic ticket says or does. Yet he appears poised to adopt the Biden strategy of running out the clock, imagining himself the front-runner.


Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Again: Association Fallacy.

I see that the neocons have created a new home for themselves at the Bulwark, in that valley between the Democrats and Republicans.

It is absolutely about guilt by association. Once upon a time, one of political parties’ main functions was to weed out the wingnuts and fruitcakes. If they were nominated locally, they would not give any support to those with embarrassing views. The fact that the Republicans are now embracing these fringe candidates does not look good on them.
 
Donald H said:
Didn't you mean that the neocons have created a new home for themselves at Qanon Brad? The Bulwark is convincingly firm leftist and hardly in any valley.

Have you any idea who is behind The Bulwark?  They are firmly centre/centre-right and anti-Trump. Look up the bios of the founders and writers.
 
Ray and mariomike, the bulwark is composed of rightists that have become leftists who oppose Trump Steve Schmitt has proclaimed that he will vote Biden. The rest likely will too.
So that is considering that the US political spectrum is completely right of center, there must be a left created somewhere?

or

The right supports Trump and the Bulwark are considered a bunch of commies by Trump supporters. These people are in no valley. They're unanimourly opposed to Trump leading the country toward a fascist regime. All opposition to Trump will be considered to be commies by Trump's supporters.

Agreed?

Fwiw, I'm a Canadian who would be considered left of center on a Canadian political spectrum, and I remain unconvinced on whether Trump or Biden is the best choice from a Canadian POV.
 
I'll drag out the Political Polarization, 1994-2015 from Pew Research again, to illustrate my point.  Try the "Animate data from 1994-2015" link.  Also, look at the snapshots from 1999 and 2004.  (The Bush 43 administration was the high water mark for the neocons' moment in power.)  Finally, compare results using the "General Population" and "Politically Engaged" links.

The handful of surveys that make up the chart don't "prove" anything, but are evidence of how views among Democrats and Republicans have evolved.

A few things I take away:

1. The "Median Democrat" and "Median Republican" were at one time fairly close in "views" (whatever questions the surveys asked), and the political centre was therefore well-populated.

2. Towards the mid-point of the Obama administration's time, Republican views started shifting back to where they had been earlier.

3. By 2015, there is clearly a trough over views described as "Mixed" (which I take as a proxy for "centrist").  (I doubt views have moved closer together again since then.)

4. Secondarily, the perception that Republicans became more extreme is incorrect; Democratic views shifted much more than Republican views.

The neocons have been abandoned by most Republicans, and Democratic views have shifted even further away; neocons can not return to their old home.  From the tone of their writing they are quite bitter about no longer having much power.
 
Donald H said:
Ray and mariomike, the bulwark is composed of rightists that have become leftists who oppose Trump Steve Schmitt has proclaimed that he will vote Biden. The rest likely will too.
So that is considering that the US political spectrum is completely right of center, there must be a left created somewhere?

or

The right supports Trump and the Bulwark are considered a bunch of commies by Trump supporters. These people are in no valley. They're unanimourly opposed to Trump leading the country toward a fascist regime. All opposition to Trump will be considered to be commies by Trump's supporters.

Agreed?

Fwiw, I'm a Canadian who would be considered left of center on a Canadian political spectrum, and I remain unconvinced on whether Trump or Biden is the best choice from a Canadian POV.

If you bothered to read anything there or listen to their podcast (Charlie Sykes is a firmer conservative talk radio host from Wisconsin), you would  hear clearly conservative view points that most Democrats would find disagreeable. Their support for Biden would be like if I ever supported the NDP: a temporary  move to remove an illiberal existential threat to the Constitution and the Republic, as they see it. Some “Never Trumpers” have rejected their previous conservative views. Many haven’t.

In short, support for Biden doesn’t make one leftist, no matter how much Cult 45 howls.
 
Close account of Trump's behaviour:

Former Trump administration official calls his presidency "terrifying"

...

"A lot of the time, the things he wanted to do not only were impossible, but in many cases illegal. He didn't want us to tell them it was illegal anymore because he knew that there were, and these were his words, he knew that he had magical authorities," Taylor continued. He called Mr. Trump "unfocused" and "undisciplined."

"I came away completely convinced, based on firsthand experience, that the president was ill equipped and wouldn't become equipped to do his job effectively. And what's worse was actively doing damage to our security," he said.

...


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miles-taylor-homeland-security-chief-trump-biden-endorsement/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-dhs-official-backing-biden-warns-trump-speak/story?id=72440281

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-security/ex-trump-official-says-u-s-less-secure-due-to-presidents-actions-endorses-biden-idUSKCN25D2JN

And 73 former Republican national security officials support Biden:

73 former Republican national security officials endorse Joe Biden

A group of more than 70 former national security officials spanning the last four Republican administrations endorsed presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden, arguing that President Trump is 'dangerously unfit' to serve another term.

Among the group's members include former National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Director Gen. Michael Hayden, former Deputy Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence Amb. John Negroponte, and former CIA and FBI Director William Webster.

Four former Trump administration officials also signed the statement including former Department of Homeland Security Chief of Staff Miles Taylor, former DHS Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Neumann, former General Counsel of the Peace Corps Robert Shanks and former General Counsel of DHS John Mitnick.

...


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/20/73-former-republican-national-security-officials-e/
 
Frankly I am more worried about what happens if Trump wins, there will be a large number in the left that will become completely unhinged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top