Law Hillary 2020? Trump better hope not. - Why Hillary Clinton would be well-positioned to win in a rematch

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema RG 448
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
On Oct. 16, 11 months after defeating her, President Trump tweeted another of his regular insults about his 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. Sandwiched between boasts about his presumed role in the stock market’s rise and his rally in South Carolina, Trump wrote: “I was recently asked if Crooked Hillary Clinton is going to run in 2020? My answer was, ‘I hope so!’”

Putting aside the reckless braggadocio — and blatant sexism — inherent in such a statement, the entire scenario seemed absurd. Most pundits (and most of the American public) discount the idea of Clinton running in 2020, doubtful she could win the Democratic nomination, let alone the election, after her stunning loss to Trump. Clinton herself has stated that her political career is over, that she is more interested in speaking out against Trump as a private citizen.

Nevertheless, Trump should be careful what he wishes for. Clinton might not be a potential candidate now, but the political winds can change quickly. Recent American history is rife with presidential contenders who lost the primary or general election and then went on to become a candidate in subsequent elections. Dissatisfied with the politics of the day, lured by name recognition and preexisting loyalties, the public gave each of these candidates multiple chances at the presidency and handed several the keys to the White House.

Add to that Trump’s abysmally low approval ratings and inability to deliver on signature campaign promises (building a border wall, ending NAFTA and repealing the Affordable Care Act, to name a few), and Clinton could once more emerge as a serious challenger.

Political comebacks — even seemingly impossible ones — are actually regular occurrences in modern American politics. Richard Nixon remains the most (in)famous example. Nixon narrowly lost to John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election — only about 110,000 votes nationwide separated them — then ran for governor of California in 1962, only to lose that election. Nixon told the press after his defeat in 1962 that he was done with politics. “You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” he proclaimed.

But when Lyndon Johnson trounced conservative Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 (LBJ won all but six states), Nixon recast himself as the person best able to unite the factions within the GOP. Nixon’s chances were bolstered by a widespread opposition to the Vietnam War that fueled voters’ desire for a change in the White House. Nixon also courted Southern whites — who traditionally voted Democrat — dismayed over civil rights legislation and urban riots in the 1960s. Nixon ran for president again in 1968, capturing the Republican nomination and then the presidency.

Ronald Reagan shifted the Republican Party back to the right in 1980, but it wasn’t his first bid for the presidency. Reagan vied with Nixon in 1968 during the presidential primaries and at the Republican convention, and then challenged Gerald Ford in 1976 for the Republican nomination, where Reagan won enough key states, including Texas and California, to ensure a contested Republican convention that summer. Ford won the nomination at the convention, but after he lost to Jimmy Carter, Reagan became the favorite among Republicans in 1980. Reagan might have lost in 1980, too, had it not been for “stagflation” and the fall of detente between the United States and Soviet Union. High unemployment, inflation rates and oil prices in the late 1970s convinced many Americans that Reagan was right: Government, or at least President Carter, was the problem.

The Democrats have also had their own share of political rebirths since the 1950s, although their experiences may serve more as a caution to Clinton than an inspiration. Adlai Stevenson was nominated for president twice, and almost a third time. His first chance for the presidency came in 1952 where he lost to Dwight Eisenhower — badly. Stevenson won only 89 electoral votes. His humiliating defeat did not deter Democrats from nominating him again in 1956, but the Korean War was over, the economy was booming and Republicans claimed responsibility for both. The result was Stevenson achieving an even more abysmal showing than he had in 1952 — winning only 73 electoral votes.

After his second loss to Eisenhower, Stevenson (like Clinton) announced publicly he would not run in 1960. His decision did not stop his closest supporters, including Eleanor Roosevelt, from creating a “Draft Stevenson” movement at the 1960 Democratic convention. Many Democrats still believed Stevenson was the sole progressive who appealed to both the left and right wings of the party — to the radicals on workers’ rights and civil rights, as well as to southern Democrats. Stevenson changed his mind, but it was too late. John Kennedy was already the clear favorite among Democratic delegates.

Another Democratic candidate in 1960, Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, was considered by members of his party to be “too liberal” for the presidency. Humphrey lost to the more moderate Kennedy in the 1960 primary, where he was outmatched by Kennedy’s money and political swagger. However, by 1968, now-Vice President Humphrey was the nominee.

Humphrey lost in 1968 for the same reason Nixon won: Vietnam. Voters viewed Humphrey as a patsy of Johnson and the war he (and Democrats) made. Humphrey went from the leading liberal to the liberals’ worst problem in eight short years. Humphrey ran again in 1972, but the 1968 election (and the chaos at the Democratic convention in Chicago that year) cast a pall over his liberal legacy, and the more left-wing George McGovern received the nomination

These are just a few examples from postwar American history. If Americans, including Trump, looked back further, they would find William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated three times for the Democratic ticket (1896, 1900 and 1908), or Democrat Al Smith, who lost the nomination in 1924 but won it in 1928 — and overcame white nationalist, anti-Catholic sentiments in the process. Not to mention Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912 after leaving politics in 1909.

Clinton could easily be counted among this distinguished group (in fact, she already is, having lost the Democratic nomination in 2008). Clinton still retains significant support within her party, and Democrats currently have no clear front-runner to replace her. Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have numerous financial backers willing to support her campaign, and the former nominee has a vibrant, large, motivated base of supporters angry at Trump, Russian interference in the election and former FBI director James B. Comey — in their minds, the collective robbers of Clinton’s presidency. Moreover, as Trump hates to be reminded, Clinton won the popular vote.

While Trump welcomes a Clinton challenge in 2020, he may find himself regretting it if voters come to believe they made a mistake and look to Clinton to rectify the wrong. Like Nixon and Reagan, Clinton can win the presidency in 2020 thanks to a combination of demographic and electoral shifts among voters and uncertainty about their futures. If Trump pulls Americans into a new economic recession or an unpopular war or fails to follow through on his rhetoric (which looks likely), Hillary Clinton’s time out of office might prove temporary.

It would not be the first time in American history.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.4f147f6475ab
 
I thought Trump was everything wrong in US politics.

Trump is merely a symptom of the decay of American politics. The American political establishment have been failing to represent the interests of ordinary people for decades now, and hence, the American public voted in a novelty candidate out of spite. That is the situation as it stands, and the problem isn't going to be made any better unless the voting public wise up and start seeking real solutions. Trump and his empty populism is a non-solution.

It's the sort of criticism where you go, why couldn't he have just been more like established politicians? Spouting a single narrative, saying nothing but some nice sounding buzzwords, and never straying from the script slightly, all behind a fake clenched frozen smile.

Where have I said anything of the sort? What I expect from a political leader is honesty, and a positive vision for the future. Trump embodies neither of these qualities.
 
Where have I said anything of the sort? What I expect from a political leader is honesty, and a positive vision for the future. Trump embodies neither of these qualities.

So curiously who would you say satisfies honesty and vision in your opinion? Because to be quite honest, I think Trump is probably the closest you are going to get to that for a long time. If the RNC and DNC have any future say in the matter.
 
America is fucked either way. Vast majority of current workers in US are pointless and jobs will go away. America is one of few remaining countries healthcare one must have job to have.

Lots of angry people over next 20 years will have to die off.

I look forward to fireworks.
 
I find it interesting how you people get so defensive over the suggestion that Trump is more prone to scandal than any other President.
Nobody is being defensive here. We're just tired of mainstream media screeching talking points being paraded as actual criticism of Donald Trump.
Would it really make any difference if I did put in the time to 'prove' it to you, or would you just find an excuse to dismiss the evidence as a conspiracy, as I suspect you would?
How does one dismiss evidence as a "conspiracy"? And if you have real, verifiable criticisms against Trump, I would be happy to see them.
The examples are already out there if you want to go and look for them: the Mueller investigation, the Michael Cohen revelations, the Comey dismissal, the rampant nepotism, the lack of transparency surrounding Trump's personal finances, the evidence that he has personally profited from political deals, etc. I'm not going to compile an exhaustive list here, because why should I? You could just dismiss it all at a moment's notice, which would mean that I completely wasted my time.
Those supposed "scandals" have all been either severely misrepresented or outright fabricated by the mainstream media. And considering that you consider the 2-year witch hunt nothingburger that is the Mueller investigation to be a credible scandal, you should consider yourself lucky to be given the time of day here.
Hillary was never President.
That isn't at all relevant to whether she had scandals or not.

Medicated has already refuted the remainder of your arguments, so I'm not bothering with them.
And go look up the posting history of It's HK-47. They might enlighten you.
Trump and his empty populism is a non-solution.
What the fuck is "empty populism"?
 
Donald Trump: *breathes*
Media: HOLY SHIT LOOK HOW SEXIST HE IS.

Hillary at this point resembles a propped up corpse. So Trump could be debating an actual dead corpse and the media would still spin it around to make Hillary the 'victor'. The DNC are getting desperate, I would not be surprised if any of this happened.
I smell the plot for a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's
 
Well this leftist hopes to god they don't re-run her. I'm probably one of a good many who wasn't so much as voting for Hilary as I was against Trump. I don't know if I found her all that corrupt -- at least not as much as her haters made her out to be. I just found her so freaking uninspired. If it had been someone other than Trump, quite frankly, I'd have stayed home.
 
I find it interesting how you people get so defensive over the suggestion that Trump is more prone to scandal than any other President. Would it really make any difference if I did put in the time to 'prove' it to you, or would you just find an excuse to dismiss the evidence as a conspiracy, as I suspect you would?

The examples are already out there if you want to go and look for them: the Mueller investigation, the Michael Cohen revelations, the Comey dismissal, the rampant nepotism, the lack of transparency surrounding Trump's personal finances, the evidence that he has personally profited from political deals, etc. I'm not going to compile an exhaustive list here, because why should I? You could just dismiss it all at a moment's notice, which would mean that I completely wasted my time.

So any accusation constitutes a scandal? People freaking out over things he did that Obama also did count as scandals for him, but not obama or any other president?

I mean.... the easiest argument in the world is "I have exhaustive evidence that what I say is true, but I bet you guys wouldn't even read it, so I'm not going to bother". It's also a worthless argument. Watch:

Hellbound Hellhound is a rapist and murderer. I have enough proof to completely prove it, but I won't bother to show it to you, since I'm sure you'll just say it's made up or doesn't exist. Go find it yourself, it's not my job to educate you.
 
So any accusation constitutes a scandal? People freaking out over things he did that Obama also did count as scandals for him, but not obama or any other president?

I mean.... the easiest argument in the world is "I have exhaustive evidence that what I say is true, but I bet you guys wouldn't even read it, so I'm not going to bother". It's also a worthless argument. Watch:

Hellbound Hellhound is a rapist and murderer. I have enough proof to completely prove it, but I won't bother to show it to you, since I'm sure you'll just say it's made up or doesn't exist. Go find it yourself, it's not my job to educate you.
Your tears say more than evidence ever could.
 
I bet ol' Blow blow Bill had to convert one of the rooms in his house into a mock Oval Office for Hilary to play pretend in so she'd shut the hell up.
 
So curiously who would you say satisfies honesty and vision in your opinion? Because to be quite honest, I think Trump is probably the closest you are going to get to that for a long time. If the RNC and DNC have any future say in the matter.

Nobody. The only candidate in the last election who came somewhat close to understanding and articulating the source of America's disaffection was Bernie Sanders, and he proved totally ineffective. The biggest problem with the US political system is the entrenched financial interests who now practically own both political parties, and they are the reason people like Hillary Clinton keep getting nominated for election.

The only reason Trump was able to bypass this behemoth was the fact that he was able to buy his way in, but that's not a positive appraisal for Trump, it's a negative indictment of the entire system that surrounds him. The only way things are going to start changing for real, is if the American people start organizing in an effort to bring down the corruption inherent in their government, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. People are too placated, lazy, and beguiled by trash culture and predatory corporate values to care, so for now, enjoy the decline.

How does one dismiss evidence as a "conspiracy"?

Probably like this:

Those supposed "scandals" have all been either severely misrepresented or outright fabricated by the mainstream media.

So it's all a conspiracy? The mainstream media is clearly out to get Trump, and so everything they report about him must be false? How convenient. Have you ever considered that perhaps the "mainstream media" does the lion's share of reporting about Trump because they have access to resources that you don't? After all, not many people have the capital to hire investigative reporters, nor the brand recognition or prestige to gain exclusive access to important leads, and this is before we even get to the issue of whether or not they are able to make a return on all that investment by subsequently selling the story to the public.

I would certainly never suggest that people should just blindly believe whatever they see or hear from the mainstream media, but I really do think that a lot of people nowadays lack a lot of understanding and respect about the realities of the journalistic profession. The blogosphere has cultivated this belief in a generation of people that journalism is all about one person spouting their opinion, while another group of people read it, but the reality is a lot more complicated than that. Quality journalism requires a lot of resources, people, and planning, and it seems that nowadays even the very best of reporting is met with convenient incredulity. It's really quite sad.

What the fuck is "empty populism"?

A message which appeals to the concerns of ordinary people, but one which isn't backed up by anything other than sentimentality.

Trump's promise to build a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, it's just going to enrich the contractors he hires to do it, while the illegals continue to come over by plane. Trump's economic agenda isn't going to make Middle America better off, by all metrics, they're going to be worse off, while the people at the very top continue to rake in more and more money. It's the same story with his promises to get 'tough' with China, cut taxes for the very richest, and repeal Obamacare.

Or do you disagree with any of that? I'd like to see you defend Trump's economic agenda on the grounds that it is going to improve the economic standing of ordinary Americans over the course of the next decade.

Hellbound Hellhound is a rapist and murderer. I have enough proof to completely prove it, but I won't bother to show it to you, since I'm sure you'll just say it's made up or doesn't exist. Go find it yourself, it's not my job to educate you.

The difference is, one is a totally spurious claim, made disingenuously; the other is backed up by months upon months of documentation. What you are essentially doing here is employing the kind of tactic commonly used by creationists and other conspiracy believers. First, you hold yourself to no standard by casually dismissing the view you happen to disagree with, then, you hold your opponent to an unreasonably high standard by asking them to take the time out of their day to compile a dossier for you, all while throwing in a ridiculous comparison for good measure.

Why should I take the time out of my day to find everything I have read about Trump over the course of the last 2 years which has informed my opinion of him? What evidence do you want me to present, anyway?
 
@Hellbound Hellhound I don't want to critique your style of argumentation or anything but sperging out over 5+ pages and then going with "what are you talking about? I'm not mad you're mad!" Usually isn't very effective.
 
Última edición:
Trump's promise to build a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, it's just going to enrich the contractors he hires to do it, while the illegals continue to come over by plane. Trump's economic agenda isn't going to make Middle America better off, by all metrics, they're going to be worse off, while the people at the very top continue to rake in more and more money. It's the same story with his promises to get 'tough' with China, cut taxes for the very richest, and repeal Obamacare.

Firstly, Obamacare was almost dead by the end of Obama's term. Health insurers had discovered that Obamacares government payments were not improving their stock prices and profit growth, so many had pulled out of the program. Resulting in states with only one provider that simply jacked up the prices anyway since they now had no competition. As for other things, they all seem like positive first steps towards helping middle Americas economic future.

Hopefully the contractors won't be hiring illegals to build the wall so it can help generate some US jobs. And you are saying that all the illegals that have so little money that they walk to the border from other countries will somehow have the money to charter a light plane into the US from people smugglers, and apparently these are stealth light planes because no ones going to get suspicious about them?

That's an awful lot of assumptions.
 
So it's all a conspiracy? The mainstream media is clearly out to get Trump, and so everything they report about him must be false? How convenient. Have you ever considered that perhaps the "mainstream media" does the lion's share of reporting about Trump because they have access to resources that you don't? After all, not many people have the capital to hire investigative reporters, nor the brand recognition or prestige to gain exclusive access to important leads, and this is before we even get to the issue of whether or not they are able to make a return on all that investment by subsequently selling the story to the public.

I would certainly never suggest that people should just blindly believe whatever they see or hear from the mainstream media, but I really do think that a lot of people nowadays lack a lot of understanding and respect about the realities of the journalistic profession. The blogosphere has cultivated this belief in a generation of people that journalism is all about one person spouting their opinion, while another group of people read it, but the reality is a lot more complicated than that. Quality journalism requires a lot of resources, people, and planning, and it seems that nowadays even the very best of reporting is met with convenient incredulity. It's really quite sad.
There is no barrier to entry in journalism after the smartphone boom. You just need a camera recording device somewhere on you, and describe what's happening, and that's it. Journalism is not special. Journalists are not special.

Journalism nowadays is not "quality", it's propaganda. Any propaganda network has resources that other people don't, can get the brand recognition or prestige to gain exclusive access to important leads, and can make good money (or at least with the right connections).

It doesn't make anything they say actually true, however. Remember, the USSR's Pravda had all of those things, but it didn't suddenly make anything they said factual.

There is clear evidence of DNC collusion with the media, which you can search here. The mainstream media (except for Fox and Breitbart) is basically in the DNC's pocket.
A message which appeals to the concerns of ordinary people, but one which isn't backed up by anything other than sentimentality.

Trump's promise to build a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, it's just going to enrich the contractors he hires to do it, while the illegals continue to come over by plane.
You don't understand how illegal immigration works, clearly.

Illegal immigration only works through surreptitiousness. Flying on a plane (which you have to find on pay for a flight on), a highly visible activity, is not surreptitious; it's stupid. You will simply get caught and deported by the TSA or some other agency due to making your presence highly visible.
Trump's economic agenda isn't going to make Middle America better off, by all metrics, they're going to be worse off, while the people at the very top continue to rake in more and more money. It's the same story with his promises to get 'tough' with China, cut taxes for the very richest, and repeal Obamacare.
The economy becoming worse isn't what's happening right now, in fact quite the opposite, so I assume you're wrong on all of that.
Or do you disagree with any of that? I'd like to see you defend Trump's economic agenda on the grounds that it is going to improve the economic standing of ordinary Americans over the course of the next decade.
I do disagree, because it is.
The difference is, one is a totally spurious claim, made disingenuously; the other is backed up by months upon months of documentation.
What "documentation"? It's all just gross distortions, severe misrepresentations, cherry-picked data, and outright lies. Your first descriptor, "a totally spurious claim, made disingenuously", is a more accurate depiction if any given Trump "scandal" shown by the media recently.
Why should I take the time out of my day to find everything I have read about Trump over the course of the last 2 years which has informed my opinion of him? What evidence do you want me to present, anyway?
Nobody is asking that of you, we just want what evidence you have for any given claim you make about him.
 
The difference is, one is a totally spurious claim, made disingenuously; the other is backed up by months upon months of documentation. What you are essentially doing here is employing the kind of tactic commonly used by creationists and other conspiracy believers. First, you hold yourself to no standard by casually dismissing the view you happen to disagree with, then, you hold your opponent to an unreasonably high standard by asking them to take the time out of their day to compile a dossier for you, all while throwing in a ridiculous comparison for good measure.

Why should I take the time out of my day to find everything I have read about Trump over the course of the last 2 years which has informed my opinion of him? What evidence do you want me to present, anyway?

OK: if you show me evidence of documentation that isn't just "I did hear Ford say that guy raped her." or something along those lines that isn't proof of anything but an accusation. Show me what disproves all Ford's supposed witnesses all saying it never happened? What I see is tons and tons of spurious, easily debunked claims. A Gish Gallop, if you will.

I'm certainly no creationist, and you right now are the one supporting a conspiracy theory (kavenaugh raped this lady and tons of people are lying to cover it up, right?) I'm saying claims are easy to make, show evidence and my opinion will be swayed. It's really that easy, its happened many times before and will happen many more times in the future.
 
So it's all a conspiracy? The mainstream media is clearly out to get Trump, and so everything they report about him must be false? How convenient. Have you ever considered that perhaps the "mainstream media" does the lion's share of reporting about Trump because they have access to resources that you don't? After all, not many people have the capital to hire investigative reporters, nor the brand recognition or prestige to gain exclusive access to important leads, and this is before we even get to the issue of whether or not they are able to make a return on all that investment by subsequently selling the story to the public.
Am I being baited or are you really this retarded

If even one third of what the MSM is saying about Trump were true he would've been impeached already. Hasn't happened though.
 
Firstly, Obamacare was almost dead by the end of Obama's term.

Obamacare was gutted by a foolish compromise (the removal of the public option), but there are some aspects of it which were a real step forward in terms of expanding healthcare provision for the American people: like the clause which prevents discrimination based upon preexisting conditions. Do you really want that aspect of the bill to be repealed? Do you think that ordinary Americans will be better off if they can once again be denied coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition?

As for other things, they all seem like positive first steps towards helping middle Americas economic future.

Tax cuts for the very richest isn't going to benefit ordinary Americans, unless you believe in the myth of trickle-down economics. Tariffs on China probably isn't going to benefit them either, because living costs will likely go up. I don't know why you would think that the failed supply-side economic model which has coincided with a decline in real living standards over the past 40 years would suddenly start working now that Trump has slapped his name on it.

And you are saying that all the illegals that have so little money that they walk to the border from other countries will somehow have the money to charter a light plane into the US from people smugglers, and apparently these are stealth light planes because no ones going to get suspicious about them?

Who said anything about light aircraft? They can just get on a commercial plane and overstay their visa, as a statistically significant proportion of illegal immigrants from the South already do. That is of course, unless they merely decide to invest in a ladder.

The real solution to the illegal immigrant problem isn't to build a wall, but to crack down on the businesses which employ them. Admittedly, Trump's administration does appear keen to start doing this, but I'm not going to offer them any praise until I actually see some results, and in any event, this should have been the central focus all along, not building a wall.

Illegal immigration only works through surreptitiousness. Flying on a plane (which you have to find on pay for a flight on), a highly visible activity, is not surreptitious; it's stupid. You will simply get caught and deported by the TSA or some other agency due to making your presence highly visible.

Why would they get deported at the airport if they legally applied for a visa? The immigration officials don't know that they plan on overstaying it, and they can change their identity after the fact with the same ease that a border crosser can adopt one in order to secure employment. This is already done on a massive scale.

The economy becoming worse isn't what's happening right now, in fact quite the opposite, so I assume you're wrong on all of that.

By what metric am I wrong? Real wages have been stagnant since Trump took office. Aggregate measures of economic growth like GDP and GNI are pretty irrelevant to ordinary people if ordinary people are not the beneficiaries of them, wouldn't you agree?

I'm certainly no creationist, and you right now are the one supporting a conspiracy theory (kavenaugh raped this lady and tons of people are lying to cover it up, right?)

Where have I mentioned anything about Kavanaugh?

Am I being baited or are you really this exceptional

If even one third of what the MSM is saying about Trump were true he would've been impeached already. Hasn't happened though.

If you only read opinion pieces, perhaps, but that doesn't make everything they report about him false now does it.
 
Nobody. The only candidate in the last election who came somewhat close to understanding and articulating the source of America's disaffection was Bernie Sanders, and he proved totally ineffective. The biggest problem with the US political system is the entrenched financial interests who now practically own both political parties, and they are the reason people like Hillary Clinton keep getting nominated for election.

The only reason Trump was able to bypass this behemoth was the fact that he was able to buy his way in, but that's not a positive appraisal for Trump, it's a negative indictment of the entire system that surrounds him. The only way things are going to start changing for real, is if the American people start organizing in an effort to bring down the corruption inherent in their government, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. People are too placated, lazy, and beguiled by trash culture and predatory corporate values to care, so for now, enjoy the decline.



Probably like this:



So it's all a conspiracy? The mainstream media is clearly out to get Trump, and so everything they report about him must be false? How convenient. Have you ever considered that perhaps the "mainstream media" does the lion's share of reporting about Trump because they have access to resources that you don't? After all, not many people have the capital to hire investigative reporters, nor the brand recognition or prestige to gain exclusive access to important leads, and this is before we even get to the issue of whether or not they are able to make a return on all that investment by subsequently selling the story to the public.

I would certainly never suggest that people should just blindly believe whatever they see or hear from the mainstream media, but I really do think that a lot of people nowadays lack a lot of understanding and respect about the realities of the journalistic profession. The blogosphere has cultivated this belief in a generation of people that journalism is all about one person spouting their opinion, while another group of people read it, but the reality is a lot more complicated than that. Quality journalism requires a lot of resources, people, and planning, and it seems that nowadays even the very best of reporting is met with convenient incredulity. It's really quite sad.



A message which appeals to the concerns of ordinary people, but one which isn't backed up by anything other than sentimentality.

Trump's promise to build a wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, it's just going to enrich the contractors he hires to do it, while the illegals continue to come over by plane. Trump's economic agenda isn't going to make Middle America better off, by all metrics, they're going to be worse off, while the people at the very top continue to rake in more and more money. It's the same story with his promises to get 'tough' with China, cut taxes for the very richest, and repeal Obamacare.

Or do you disagree with any of that? I'd like to see you defend Trump's economic agenda on the grounds that it is going to improve the economic standing of ordinary Americans over the course of the next decade.



The difference is, one is a totally spurious claim, made disingenuously; the other is backed up by months upon months of documentation. What you are essentially doing here is employing the kind of tactic commonly used by creationists and other conspiracy believers. First, you hold yourself to no standard by casually dismissing the view you happen to disagree with, then, you hold your opponent to an unreasonably high standard by asking them to take the time out of their day to compile a dossier for you, all while throwing in a ridiculous comparison for good measure.

Why should I take the time out of my day to find everything I have read about Trump over the course of the last 2 years which has informed my opinion of him? What evidence do you want me to present, anyway?
You're getting a lot of shit for this post but it's totally reasonable. Far too many people here have become reflexively defensive of Trump in response to the spread of TDS in society, as if that will help anything.
 
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo