The 2020 Presidential Race

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

"listen he is clearly a criminal unfit for office, but his policies are great for my massive investments."

Even as real wages for lower and middle class Americans are stagnant as ever.

Keep ignoring factual posts to spin propaganda.

What IS hard for me to ignore is the fact that my wife and I have seen more than a 180% increase in our income (which was already more than double the WI median) in the last 3 years.

Y’all keep on keepin on with your misery though. I’m gonna do me.

[S14rebuild]

^ i keep telln yall, TRUMPs gonna win 2020 election

[gbaby2089]

nopenopenope

[Future240]

No matter what side of the aisle one leans it is becoming more and more apparent the dems don’t have a strong enough candidate to beat Trump.

Biden - viewed as too out of touch by centrists And not left enough for the dems.
Warren / sanders too left for centrists.

Nominee is a toss up between Warren and Biden.

Both are weak candidates IMO.

MAGA these days is almost gang gang. Biden and Warren can’t stand up to that. Neither has been able to unite the dems.

The dems cannot decide what their platform is. Their eating each other.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-debate-lineup

[lewisfk]

If the POTUS is doing such a great job, why is the stock market fluctuating and investors nervous?


Why did the Feds cut interest rates? Third time this year!


Why has the tax cut not improved the lives of the middle class as promised?



Why is the Jobs numbers so good for this administration and not for the other? Especially, when the jobs added are low paying jobs, the people getting these jobs still rely on federal assistance.

[S14rebuild]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Whoa, one person's anecdotes outweigh all scholarly/economist's work. Big if true.

Also shouts to you literally saying it is fine that he is committing crimes in office.

Your business would've failed without an incompetent racist criminal in office? What is the RNC/Turning Point USA mass buying your photos too?

You can just say "Fuck everyone else, I got mine." You're selfish, you've made that very clear.

As for your statement about the electoral college, let us not forget this:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...494082?lang=en

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

And he said that about a president that won both the electoral college and popular vote handily.

Consider that over half the country favors impeachment.



Looking forward to you saying I'm obnoxious because you can't articulate a response to facts. Trump does love the poorly educated.

Yes it does. So ur telling me, that if im happy n my life is great, i should sacrifice that cause others arent? Socialism much?

[gbaby2089]

nopenopenope

[lewisfk]

^^I wouldn't call it racism! I agree with your post. I find it funny a segment of the country talks about constitutional rights, but find it ok to tell a woman what to do with her body. It's sad the POTUS had know idea what the ERA was about. The POTUS is no back on the rocket man bandwagon and talking about military action against North Korea, but has failed to pass the military spending budget. It looks like the military will start 2020 in C.R. Texas Judge just blocked the building of border wall, let that sink in. This wall is holding up the military budget, I wish Mexico would do their part! ��

[S14rebuild]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Is your self-doubt so great that you're only capable of success as a result of Trump? Both of y'all keep talking income too.

Is money all that makes y'all happy?

When did wanting others to be happy and healthy become a weakness?

It is similar to the question I have for 'social conservatives.'

Does gay marriage change your own marriage?
Does the legality of abortion change your own ability to have & raise children?
Does fighting food, education and transportation inequity and segregation ruin your own life? (The answer to the last one is, if yes, you're a racist)

Your maken this WAY bigger then it needs to be...we were talking about trump...his policys have made my life better. Thats all i stated. So why would i not vote for him again.

Answer to ur last question is YES!

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Looking forward to you saying I'm obnoxious because you can't articulate a response to facts. Trump does love the poorly educated.

If there’s one thing that you’ve made quite clear is you absolutely hate people that disagree with you. Your constant condescending tone and belittling is exhausting. I didn’t live my life that way under Obama and honestly I just feel sorry for you.

Originally Posted by Future240

MAGA these days is almost gang gang.

The constant attacks and elitist attitudes, displayed so perfectly by gbaby, are part of the reason.

Originally Posted by lewisfk

If the POTUS is doing such a great job, why is the stock market fluctuating and investors nervous?


Why did the Feds cut interest rates? Third time this year!


Why has the tax cut not improved the lives of the middle class as promised?



Why is the Jobs numbers so good for this administration and not for the other? Especially, when the jobs added are low paying jobs, the people getting these jobs still rely on federal assistance.

Wait, this is the first time the stock market has fluctuated? Huh, news to me. Come on. While is has fluctuated it has also bounced back to new records every time. And we know the reason. At least the main one and that’s the uncertainty with China. But we know that isn’t going to perfectly smoothly. It should t even be expected a

Originally Posted by gbaby2089

Is your self-doubt so great that you're only capable of success as a result of Trump? Both of y'all keep talking income too.

Is money all that makes y'all happy?

When did wanting others to be happy and healthy become a weakness?

It is similar to the question I have for 'social conservatives.'

Does gay marriage change your own marriage?
Does the legality of abortion change your own ability to have & raise children?
Does fighting food, education and transportation inequity and segregation ruin your own life? (The answer to the last one is, if yes, you're a racist)

I’m pro gay marriage. L
I’m pro choice (mostly)
My wife and I have fought for children with special needs and have changed practices at the state labs that have effected every child born in this state since 2012.
We also donate thousands of dollars a year and hold fund raisers.
And when a homie needs some help financially I don’t even hesitate. I got them.

But again, you keep trying to paint your picture of me and other trump supporters and making assumptions.

[lewisfk]

^^ Really Exit, you missed the Feds cutting interest rates 3 times to keep the economy moving? Can somebody say Tariffs; lumber, steel, and agriculture. I believe those industries are getting help from the federal government; sound like a little cooperate welfare!


https://www.cato.org/publications/co...trumps-tariffs

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by lewisfk

^^ Really Exit, you missed the Feds cutting interest rates 3 times to keep the economy moving? Can somebody say Tariffs; lumber, steel, and agriculture. I believe those industries are getting help from the federal government; sound like a little cooperate welfare!


https://www.cato.org/publications/co...trumps-tariffs

Selective outrage. Solar, wind, EVs have all been built by government subsidies but since it’s in the name of global warming, sorry, climate change it’s ok.

And I’m not saying we don’t support those things or do anything to help the climate (whole different convo) but I’m saying if you mad at the fed doing what it needs to do to keep the economy going than you gotta be mad at that shit too. No?

[exitspeed]

And hey, don’t take a bunch of uneducated, racist Trump supports word on impeachment, look no further than Democrat Presidential hopeful (one who I think is the most in touch with reality) Andrew Yang.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ut-impeachment

The benefit of being an outsider candidate is that you are freer to speak your mind than, say, a senator who is beholden to the party line.

That was part of the appeal of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, and it is likely the same reason why tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang has been able to make a real go of it in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Yang, who polls in sixth place according to the RealClearPolitics polling average, solidified his “outsider” bona fides this week when he came right out and said impeachment is a “loser” issue for Democrats.

Just imagine Sens. Cory Booker or Amy Klobuchar, both of whom trail behind Yang in the polls, saying the same. They might actually have to vote on impeachment.

Yang's remarks about impeachment came amid a freewheeling interview with journalist Matt Taibbi and writer Katie Halper.

“What’s your take on the impeachment process?” asked Taibbi.

The 2020 Democratic candidate responded, “I’m pro-impeachment, but this is going to be a loser.”


“How dare you!” Halper joked.

Yang continued, answering seriously, “Not a single Republican has given any indication that they’re in fact-finding mode. They’re all in defend-the-president mode. You need literally dozens of Republican senators to switch sides when the trial starts, which we’ve gotten zero indication is going to happen.”


“The more this drags on, the more danger there is of two things: Number one, Donald Trump comes out of this and is vindicated, totally exonerated. Number two, we are wasting precious time where we should be creating a positive vision that Americans are excited about solving the problems that got Donald Trump elected, and beat him in 2020,” he added.

He went on: “If all that happens is all of the Democrats are talking about impeachment that fails, then it seems like there is no vision. It seems like all we can do is throw ineffective rocks at Donald Trump, and then it ends up leading unfortunately toward his reelection.”

Halper added, “It’s like good PR for him.”

“He’s a creature that thrives on attention,” responded the 2020 Democratic candidate, “and so the more attention he gets, the better for him, the worst for Democrats.”


Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday morning that she had asked the “chairman to proceed with the articles of impeachment.”

For Yang, it seems like Democrats learned nothing from the 2016 defeat.


Taibbi said, “After 2016, the first thought I had was, ‘Well, this is going to inspire a rethink in the Democratic Party. They’re going to re-argue their case. They’re going to find a way to tell people how they’re going to fix the problems of ordinary people across America. ... Immediately they point to Russiagate, now impeachment. … They’re focusing on this thing that, to a lot of people, is an internecine phenomenon, a Washington drama."

“Unfortunately,” said Yang, “my team and I have been part of some of the planning sessions, and that’s not changing. Their take on it is, we argued against Trump wrong last time — this time we’re going to really stick it to him by talking about this. You’re like, ‘Oh, my gosh. We’ve learned nothing.’”

Democratic officials, activists, and strategists are likely going to hate these remarks from Yang, and he will likely catch heat for them. At the same time, he will also likely benefit from the appearance of being his own man and being unafraid to run afoul of his own party, a quality that voters seem to appreciate more than usual these days.

[S14rebuild]

Lmao @ Andrew yang

Yea cause cause handing everyone free money monthly is gonna save this country...not to mention where is this "free" money comen from?

Hell these struggling " families" (more like single parent. Multi children. he seeks to assist already on goverment funding, we need to give them more. And dont get me started when there high tax return $ comes is...yea that $ is put to good use.

Biden will win the primary cause hes obamas homeboi. And then hill proceed to get destroyed by trump in the polls, debates and logic.

[VROOOM]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

Please stop with the “I know you are but what am I”.

Also, during an “impeachment “.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was at 73% while he was being impeached.

[lewisfk]

^^ Exit. Solar and wind subsidies are to help the environment and to make it cheaper for the average person to acquire. Subsidies given to the steel and agricultural industry is because the POTUS thought that he could win a trade war! Americans are not winning!

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by lewisfk

^^ Exit. Solar and wind subsidies are to help the environment and to make it cheaper for the average person to acquire. Subsidies given to the steel and agricultural industry is because the POTUS thought that he could win a trade war! Americans are not winning!

They “help”, but they are still an industry owned by the private sector that is propped up with tax payer money.

The trade war isn’t over. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. America wasn’t winning with China before Trump decided to take a stand either.

[exitspeed]

Lol at the 2 articles of impeachment. What an absolute joke. Russia 2.0.

Shit is done.

[lewisfk]

The joke is the POTUS never learned from the Muller report. You can't ask for a foreign country to help in American elections! 2 articles is enough to prove he is worse than Nixon. Senate Republicans will not impeach, but history will show the Dems were correct to do so.

[exitspeed]

The joke is the whole thing is a partisan sham.

Quid pro quo? Guess not.

Interfering in an American election (abuse of power)? Hardly. The investigation was going before Trump even mentioned it.

Obstruction? You mean like EVERY SINGLE president has done in the last 100 years?

Straws.

The American people see this for what it is. Democrats still throwing a tantrum they lost.

[exitspeed]

Let’s not gloss over the new USMCA trade deal Trump administration made and negotiated with the Dems.. “A great victory for American workers.” Pelosie.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/hous...rade-deal.html

[exitspeed]

And uh oh, looks like the FBI and the Obama administration has some serious explaining to do.

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

And uh oh, looks like the FBI and the Obama administration has some serious explaining to do.

...... you absolutely didnt read the report. Literally the first line of the summary on the first few pages says the IG found no wrong doing by the Obama admin or the FBI.....


I'll pull up the report and the subsequent page quotes

CHS - Confidential Human Source
UCE - Under Cover Employees

Quote Originally Posted by Pages xvi-xvii
We found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation

[RalliartRsX]

Classic case confirmatory bias with zero basis for your assertion apart from you heard it from faux news and trump

[exitspeed]

You obviously didn’t follow the hearing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/u...aring.amp.html

“Let’s assume that there was a lawful predicate to open up a counterintelligence investigation,” Mr. Graham said. “What’s been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy over time to defraud the FISA court, to illegally surveil an American citizen and to keep an operation open against a sitting president of the United States, violating every norm known to the rule of law.”

He focused on Mr. Horowitz’s finding that a lower-level F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email from the C.I.A. used in preparing to seek a renewal of a wiretap order targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide, in a way that kept the court from learning potentially exculpatory information about Mr. Page.

He also slammed the F.B.I. for using a dossier of opposition research about Mr. Trump compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele, for Democrats in the Page wiretap applications — and for continuing to use it to seek renewals even after they interviewed Mr. Steele’s primary source and he contradicted what the dossier said.

And Mr. Graham read at length text messages between F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation who expressed personal views in opposition to Mr. Trump’s election, saying that people with such views should never have been in charge of investigating the Trump campaign.



Confirmation bias indeed. Yeah, nothing to see here.

[RalliartRsX]

Nope. Not following. I will read the excerpt you posted shortly

[RalliartRsX]

Originally Posted by exitspeed

You obviously didn’t follow the hearing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/u...aring.amp.html

“Let’s assume that there was a lawful predicate to open up a counterintelligence investigation,” Mr. Graham said. “What’s been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy over time to defraud the FISA court, to illegally surveil an American citizen and to keep an operation open against a sitting president of the United States, violating every norm known to the rule of law.”

He focused on Mr. Horowitz’s finding that a lower-level F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email from the C.I.A. used in preparing to seek a renewal of a wiretap order targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide, in a way that kept the court from learning potentially exculpatory information about Mr. Page.

He also slammed the F.B.I. for using a dossier of opposition research about Mr. Trump compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele, for Democrats in the Page wiretap applications — and for continuing to use it to seek renewals even after they interviewed Mr. Steele’s primary source and he contradicted what the dossier said.

And Mr. Graham read at length text messages between F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation who expressed personal views in opposition to Mr. Trump’s election, saying that people with such views should never have been in charge of investigating the Trump campaign.

Confirmation bias indeed. Yeah, nothing to see here.

Why assume when the reports states that there was a lawful precident when the report was opened up?? Didn't Graham not read the report??

And here let me help you since you seem to cherry pick your statements from your article vs reading and quoting the entire article.

In a lengthy opening statement, Mr. Graham did not quarrel with the finding by the inspector general that the F.B.I.’s basis for opening the Russia investigation met the standard. But Mr. Graham slammed the F.B.I. for how that inquiry unfolded.

So Graham is or isn't arguing about the legal precedence?? Which is it??

So let me get this straight; you are quoting Graham, not the report correct??

Are you really arguing that Graham has authority over Horowithz in a report the IG/Horowitz developed??

How does that work??

As I said YOU DIDNT READ THE REPORT!

Below is also from your excerpt.

One of Mr. Horowitz’s biggest findings dealt with whether any Justice Department or F.B.I. official let their political views affect the opening of Crossfire Hurricane or any investigative steps they took. The inspector general found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” to open the investigation.

Republicans immediately attacked this conclusion. “There is no planet on which I think that this report indicates that things were O.K. within the F.B.I.,” said Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah.

And Mr. Graham pointed to texts among F.B.I. officials involved in the investigation — uncovered by the inspector general — that indicated anti-Trump sentiments as evidence that the officials acted with bias. Though Mr. Horowitz disagreed, he has said the texts demonstrated bad judgment and cast a cloud over the F.B.I.


Mr. Graham vilified Peter Strzok, a former F.B.I. top counterintelligence agent, and Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, the officials who assailed Mr. Trump in text messages. In his report, Mr. Horowitz noted that the decision to start the Russia investigation did not rest with Mr. Strzok. Mr. Horowitz also reaffirmed those texts did not influence the decision by Bill Priestap, head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, to open the Russia investigation. The report said that Ms. Page played no role in opening the Russia investigation or the F.B.I.’s scrutiny of four Trump campaign associates, including Mr. Page.

[RalliartRsX]

Essentially you are undermining the IG report because it doesn't fit your narrative. Exactly what Graham is doing.

It's like me taking my child to a doc for an ailment, saying fuck the expert who went to school and has 30 years of experience, and taking the advice from some rando in a white jacket from 711 on what the real issue is with my child.

One has years of experience; another just wears a white jacket.

No surprised one bit.

[exitspeed]

No, I didn’t have time to read a 476 page report.

There are much smarter folks than myself that have a lot more to say on it.

Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an "operational contact" gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...the-rest-of-us

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by RalliartRsX

Essentially you are undermining the IG report because it doesn't fit your narrative. Exactly what Graham is doing.

It's like me taking my child to a doc for an ailment, saying fuck the expert who went to school and has 30 years of experience, and taking the advice from some rando in a white jacket from 711 on what the real issue is with my child.

One has years of experience; another just wears a white jacket.

No surprised one bit.

Ah, but you’re perfectly ok with obvious bogus articles of impeachment (one we know the fbi under Obama did with trump, and 2 every president ever has done). GTFO with that holier than thou bs.