|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 01 2016 06:42 Yoav wrote:So speaking of 538, I'm calling this chat "Nate Silver has had it with this fucking election." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-immigration-chat/Excerpts: Show nested quote +micah: Yeah, it seems like even if he shits positions, Anna, voters won’t forget about his old one.
* “Shifts,” that should say.
natesilver: I think “shits” is more accurate tbh. Show nested quote +micah: [Trump is] giving a “MAJOR!!!” speech on immigration Wednesday; what will you all be watching for?
natesilver: I think I have a fantasy football draft so I’ll be watching for whether there’s a run on wide receivers.
harry: I’m less interested in what he says than how he says it. That’s part of what got Trump in so much trouble in the first place. It’s one thing to say we’re going to build a wall. It’s another to talk about Mexicans as rapists.
micah: Nate, you’re playing into people’s stereotypes about how we don’t care about issues.
natesilver: 180 degrees wrong! It’s not a fucking policy speech!
micah: It might be.
natesilver: It would be disrespectful to policy speeches to see it as a policy speech.
You're playing into people's stereotypes! So funny.
harry: This chat is rated R.
micah: The speech hasn’t even happened yet! How will you know if it’s a policy speech if you don’t watch?
natesilver: Anything he says carries no substantive weight because he’s already taken every available position on the issue.
I very much like how micah's going
shhhh you're proving everybody's stereotypes right
|
On September 01 2016 07:14 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 06:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote:"Who pays for the wall? We didn't discuss," Trump said when asked by a reporter during a news conference following their meeting in Mexico City. "We did discuss the wall. We didn't discuss payment of the wall. That'll be for a later date." How does this become a "flip flop" and "total Trump capitulation." And how would a "flip flop" even be negative if you don't like the wall? 1) Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall (see campaign memo). Given the chance, he didn't bring it up (or any of the acts laid out in the campaign memo). Position abandoned. He will try to half walk this back today and tomorrow, but it won't work, just like his mass deportation walk back. 2) I can hold the following two positions and remain consistent: A - Trump's wall is foolishness and his plan to make Mexico pay for it is both a lie and foolish B - Trump is a deeply inconsistent flip-flopper who flips positions on a minute by minute basis to appease whoever he is talking to at that moment (see him not bringing up wall) How did you dismiss the idea that they just didn't talk about it like he said? It's their first ever meeting, he's still a candidate, they probably talked about many things. I doubt your post would be any less negative if he had come out and said he gave them the ultimatum. The "memo" is not some kind of secret that you revealed him abandoning, it's his publicly advertised position, all the info is on his campaign page. Perhaps a (EDIT: 6-second) video presentation would make this more clear. Man Speaks Differently To Enthusiastic Rally Than To Press At Official Meeting (AP/Reuters)I think a clue that your outrage could be misplaced is actual supporters aren't reacting as you are. So who are the Useful Idiots here? The mainstream Republicans who are discounting everything that Rally Trump says? XOR The Trumpkins who are discounting everything that Teleprompter Trump says?
There aren't two Trumps, that's another caricature. There's no contradiction here. All he did was temper himself and his speech for a meeting. As low as your expectations clearly are you should actually be proud he didn't threaten to use foreign aid to pay for construction of a giant phallus in Mexico so they could go fuck themselves.
What's not helping politics right now is a mass of college-educated people boasting about how they have no idea what a guy who speaks at a 4th grade reading level's positions are or what he stands for, they have advanced degrees but this is too hard to crack, they can't figure it out. It's not hard if you pay attention.
|
On September 01 2016 07:09 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +Um....the modern republican party has been milking the southern strategy for like 4 decades. Them claiming the Democrats are racist is super rich since their party is actively trying to repress black voters in several states. Not in the past during the civil rights movement. Like right now, today. I definitely disagree with this statement, assuming you're referring to voter ID laws (you may not be). I've seen much of this discussion earlier in this thread, but requiring an ID is all about preventing voter fraud, not a conspiracy to hold down black voters. I simply don't believe that the bank teller is racist, or the liquor store clerk is racist because they make me show ID. It's to ensure I'm eligible to be there and participate.
Yep that is exactly why those laws keep getting struck down *thumbs up*
|
On September 01 2016 07:09 josephmcjoe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Um....the modern republican party has been milking the southern strategy for like 4 decades. Them claiming the Democrats are racist is super rich since their party is actively trying to repress black voters in several states. Not in the past during the civil rights movement. Like right now, today. I definitely disagree with this statement, assuming you're referring to voter ID laws (you may not be). I've seen much of this discussion earlier in this thread, but requiring an ID is all about preventing voter fraud, not a conspiracy to hold down black voters. I simply don't believe that the bank teller is racist, or the liquor store clerk is racist because they make me show ID. It's to ensure I'm eligible to be there and participate.
The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.
Court Opinion
|
On September 01 2016 07:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:14 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 06:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote:"Who pays for the wall? We didn't discuss," Trump said when asked by a reporter during a news conference following their meeting in Mexico City. "We did discuss the wall. We didn't discuss payment of the wall. That'll be for a later date." How does this become a "flip flop" and "total Trump capitulation." And how would a "flip flop" even be negative if you don't like the wall? 1) Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall (see campaign memo). Given the chance, he didn't bring it up (or any of the acts laid out in the campaign memo). Position abandoned. He will try to half walk this back today and tomorrow, but it won't work, just like his mass deportation walk back. 2) I can hold the following two positions and remain consistent: A - Trump's wall is foolishness and his plan to make Mexico pay for it is both a lie and foolish B - Trump is a deeply inconsistent flip-flopper who flips positions on a minute by minute basis to appease whoever he is talking to at that moment (see him not bringing up wall) How did you dismiss the idea that they just didn't talk about it like he said? It's their first ever meeting, he's still a candidate, they probably talked about many things. I doubt your post would be any less negative if he had come out and said he gave them the ultimatum. The "memo" is not some kind of secret that you revealed him abandoning, it's his publicly advertised position, all the info is on his campaign page. Perhaps a (EDIT: 6-second) video presentation would make this more clear. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/771088055080026113 Man Speaks Differently To Enthusiastic Rally Than To Press At Official Meeting (AP/Reuters)I think a clue that your outrage could be misplaced is actual supporters aren't reacting as you are. So who are the Useful Idiots here? The mainstream Republicans who are discounting everything that Rally Trump says? XOR The Trumpkins who are discounting everything that Teleprompter Trump says? There aren't two Trumps, that's another caricature. There's no contradiction here. All he did was temper himself and his speech for a meeting. As low as your expectations clearly are you should actually be proud he didn't threaten to use foreign aid to pay for construction of a giant phallus in Mexico so they could go fuck themselves. What's not helping politics right now is a mass of college-educated people boasting about how they have no idea what a guy who speaks at a 4th grade reading level's positions are or what he stands for, they have advanced degrees but this is too hard to crack, they can't figure it out. It's not hard if you pay attention.
February:
“I’m going to cut spending big league,” Trump pronounced at the MSNBC town hall. His sole example, when pressed by Joe Scarborough, was the Education Department.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-utterly-ridiculous-budget-plan/2016/02/19/b6300002-d72b-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.6600a7c4541a
August:
“Her number is a fraction of what we’re talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,” the nominee of the party of limited government said last week in an interview on the Fox Business Network. “I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need a lot more than that.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trumps-big-spending-infrastructure-dream/494993/
I can do this all day because Trump has given me infinite ammunition, but I have to work now. Perhaps you mean that Trump's core message of reinforcing a fading white hierarchy and cracking down the browns/blacks/muslims/foreigns is consistent. Yes, that is consistent and comes through all the time. But Trump's stated words are laughably inconsistent because he can't ever come up with a defensible policy set to implement his reinforcement of white hierarchy and brown crackdown.
|
Can't Hillary put this zombie Trump down
I've never seen a candidate get more 10+ point leads that are back to within the margin of error or completely gone a week later as there have been 10+ point Hillary leads this summer.
|
The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.]
I wasn't able to reserve a racquetball court earlier this week because the semester just started and I didn't get my school ID till yesterday. I was "about to" grab one of those sweet courts, but had the opportunity taken away for lack of an ID. Was the girl who turned me away at the counter racist? Why does race have to come up in so many places?
|
United States43953 Posts
On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] I wasn't able to reserve a racquetball court earlier this week because the semester just started and I didn't get my school ID till yesterday. I was "about to" grab one of those sweet courts, but had the opportunity taken away for lack of an ID. Was the girl who turned me away at the counter racist? Why does race have to come up in so many places?
The Supreme Court does not believe you have a constitutional right for racquetball so it's not really an issue if you need an ID to get a court.
|
On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] Why does race have to come up in so many places?
Possibly because of the sentence "Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision"
|
I don't see why HRC is giving trump free opportunities like this. First Louisiana and now Mexico, she better realize her unfavorables are so high that she might very well still lose.
|
She is just going to keep doing what she is doing and prepare for the debates. She can't stop Trump from pulling stunts like this.
|
Aaannnnnd my previous posts are invalid because Trump lied again. I swear, if I take even one word out of his mouth as being true, then I am cucked for it within hours.
Trump and Peña Nieto met privately in Mexico City on Wednesday afternoon.
When they emerged from the meeting, Trump told reporters they discussed the wall, but not paying for it.
Hours later, Peña Nieto tweeted his version: "At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump, I made clear that Mexico would not pay for the wall."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pena-nieto-says-trump-lied-about-wall-discussion
|
On September 01 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] Why does race have to come up in so many places? Possibly because of the sentence "Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision"
I just looked up the provisions of the struck-down law, and here's what is so objectionable:
1) potential voter must present photo id
2) potential voter cannot register to vote on the day the election occurs
3) potential voter must vote in their local precinct
This surgically targets blacks trying to vote? I don't see it. Any enlightenment welcome.
|
United States43953 Posts
On September 01 2016 08:34 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] Why does race have to come up in so many places? Possibly because of the sentence "Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision" I just looked up the provisions of the struck-down law, and here's what is so objectionable: 1) potential voter must present photo id 2) potential voter cannot register to vote on the day the election occurs 3) potential voter must vote in their local precinct This surgically targets blacks trying to vote? I don't see it. Any enlightenment welcome.
If you still don't get it you're choosing not to. We couldn't explain it using any words you haven't already read.
|
On September 01 2016 08:34 josephmcjoe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] Why does race have to come up in so many places? Possibly because of the sentence "Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision" I just looked up the provisions of the struck-down law, and here's what is so objectionable: 1) potential voter must present photo id 2) potential voter cannot register to vote on the day the election occurs 3) potential voter must vote in their local precinct This surgically targets blacks trying to vote? I don't see it. Any enlightenment welcome.
Questions you need to ask are:
1) Which American citizens are least likely to have photo id?
2) Which American citizens are most likely to register the day of the election?
3) Which American citizens are most likely to vote outside their local precinct?
Answer is apparently blacks for all.
|
On September 01 2016 07:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:25 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:14 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 06:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote:"Who pays for the wall? We didn't discuss," Trump said when asked by a reporter during a news conference following their meeting in Mexico City. "We did discuss the wall. We didn't discuss payment of the wall. That'll be for a later date." How does this become a "flip flop" and "total Trump capitulation." And how would a "flip flop" even be negative if you don't like the wall? 1) Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall (see campaign memo). Given the chance, he didn't bring it up (or any of the acts laid out in the campaign memo). Position abandoned. He will try to half walk this back today and tomorrow, but it won't work, just like his mass deportation walk back. 2) I can hold the following two positions and remain consistent: A - Trump's wall is foolishness and his plan to make Mexico pay for it is both a lie and foolish B - Trump is a deeply inconsistent flip-flopper who flips positions on a minute by minute basis to appease whoever he is talking to at that moment (see him not bringing up wall) How did you dismiss the idea that they just didn't talk about it like he said? It's their first ever meeting, he's still a candidate, they probably talked about many things. I doubt your post would be any less negative if he had come out and said he gave them the ultimatum. The "memo" is not some kind of secret that you revealed him abandoning, it's his publicly advertised position, all the info is on his campaign page. Perhaps a (EDIT: 6-second) video presentation would make this more clear. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/771088055080026113 Man Speaks Differently To Enthusiastic Rally Than To Press At Official Meeting (AP/Reuters)I think a clue that your outrage could be misplaced is actual supporters aren't reacting as you are. So who are the Useful Idiots here? The mainstream Republicans who are discounting everything that Rally Trump says? XOR The Trumpkins who are discounting everything that Teleprompter Trump says? There aren't two Trumps, that's another caricature. There's no contradiction here. All he did was temper himself and his speech for a meeting. As low as your expectations clearly are you should actually be proud he didn't threaten to use foreign aid to pay for construction of a giant phallus in Mexico so they could go fuck themselves. What's not helping politics right now is a mass of college-educated people boasting about how they have no idea what a guy who speaks at a 4th grade reading level's positions are or what he stands for, they have advanced degrees but this is too hard to crack, they can't figure it out. It's not hard if you pay attention. February: “ I’m going to cut spending big league,” Trump pronounced at the MSNBC town hall. His sole example, when pressed by Joe Scarborough, was the Education Department. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-utterly-ridiculous-budget-plan/2016/02/19/b6300002-d72b-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.6600a7c4541aAugust: “Her number is a fraction of what we’re talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,” the nominee of the party of limited government said last week in an interview on the Fox Business Network. “ I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need a lot more than that.” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trumps-big-spending-infrastructure-dream/494993/
So he wants to cut spending in general and prioritize infrastructure.
|
On September 01 2016 08:30 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Aaannnnnd my previous posts are invalid because Trump lied again. I swear, if I take even one word out of his mouth as being true, then I am cucked for it within hours. Trump and Peña Nieto met privately in Mexico City on Wednesday afternoon.
When they emerged from the meeting, Trump told reporters they discussed the wall, but not paying for it.
Hours later, Peña Nieto tweeted his version: "At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump, I made clear that Mexico would not pay for the wall."http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pena-nieto-says-trump-lied-about-wall-discussion
He lies about literally everything. Why do people still give him the benefit of the doubt?
|
The most important part is that there are clear guidelines to require ID at the polls that won't violate people's rights and the courts will allow. The law that was struck down violated all those guidelines.
|
On September 01 2016 08:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 08:34 josephmcjoe wrote:On September 01 2016 07:59 Nebuchad wrote:On September 01 2016 07:54 josephmcjoe wrote:The federal appeals court that struck the North Carolina law down disagrees with you.
[In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.] Why does race have to come up in so many places? Possibly because of the sentence "Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision" I just looked up the provisions of the struck-down law, and here's what is so objectionable: 1) potential voter must present photo id 2) potential voter cannot register to vote on the day the election occurs 3) potential voter must vote in their local precinct This surgically targets blacks trying to vote? I don't see it. Any enlightenment welcome. Questions you need to ask are: 1) Which American citizens are least likely to have photo id? 2) Which American citizens are most likely to register the day of the election? 3) Which American citizens are most likely to vote outside their local precinct? Answer is apparently blacks for all.
also, iirc they're not just against people registering late but also against people voting on sundays and black people happened to have shuttle services from churches to get people to vote in some places. So that's no longer a thing either?
(I could be confusing one of the voter ID laws with another one but I'm fairly sure one of them made that impossible)
|
On September 01 2016 08:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2016 07:38 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:25 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:14 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 07:04 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:On September 01 2016 06:47 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 01 2016 06:40 oBlade wrote:"Who pays for the wall? We didn't discuss," Trump said when asked by a reporter during a news conference following their meeting in Mexico City. "We did discuss the wall. We didn't discuss payment of the wall. That'll be for a later date." How does this become a "flip flop" and "total Trump capitulation." And how would a "flip flop" even be negative if you don't like the wall? 1) Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall (see campaign memo). Given the chance, he didn't bring it up (or any of the acts laid out in the campaign memo). Position abandoned. He will try to half walk this back today and tomorrow, but it won't work, just like his mass deportation walk back. 2) I can hold the following two positions and remain consistent: A - Trump's wall is foolishness and his plan to make Mexico pay for it is both a lie and foolish B - Trump is a deeply inconsistent flip-flopper who flips positions on a minute by minute basis to appease whoever he is talking to at that moment (see him not bringing up wall) How did you dismiss the idea that they just didn't talk about it like he said? It's their first ever meeting, he's still a candidate, they probably talked about many things. I doubt your post would be any less negative if he had come out and said he gave them the ultimatum. The "memo" is not some kind of secret that you revealed him abandoning, it's his publicly advertised position, all the info is on his campaign page. Perhaps a (EDIT: 6-second) video presentation would make this more clear. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/771088055080026113 Man Speaks Differently To Enthusiastic Rally Than To Press At Official Meeting (AP/Reuters)I think a clue that your outrage could be misplaced is actual supporters aren't reacting as you are. So who are the Useful Idiots here? The mainstream Republicans who are discounting everything that Rally Trump says? XOR The Trumpkins who are discounting everything that Teleprompter Trump says? There aren't two Trumps, that's another caricature. There's no contradiction here. All he did was temper himself and his speech for a meeting. As low as your expectations clearly are you should actually be proud he didn't threaten to use foreign aid to pay for construction of a giant phallus in Mexico so they could go fuck themselves. What's not helping politics right now is a mass of college-educated people boasting about how they have no idea what a guy who speaks at a 4th grade reading level's positions are or what he stands for, they have advanced degrees but this is too hard to crack, they can't figure it out. It's not hard if you pay attention. February: “ I’m going to cut spending big league,” Trump pronounced at the MSNBC town hall. His sole example, when pressed by Joe Scarborough, was the Education Department. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trumps-utterly-ridiculous-budget-plan/2016/02/19/b6300002-d72b-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.6600a7c4541aAugust: “Her number is a fraction of what we’re talking about. We need much more money to rebuild our infrastructure,” the nominee of the party of limited government said last week in an interview on the Fox Business Network. “ I would say at least double her numbers, and you’re going to really need a lot more than that.” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trumps-big-spending-infrastructure-dream/494993/ So he wants to cut spending in general and prioritize infrastructure.
He wants to cut federal tax income by 20%. If he wants to increase infrastructure spending additionally he will have to shift a few hundred billion bucks around. Oh and he also wants to strengthen the military and improve vet care. I'd really like to see a list of things he's going to cut
|
|
|
|
|
|
308
273
228
114
305
253
100
EPT
