How Is Biden Leading Trump?!

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 12:47 PM)Dill Wrote: China has a bigger army than we do and GDP growth set to surpass ours.

We should be learning how to handle COVID from them and not countries will little armies.

Pretty easy to contain covid in a place like Canada.

Canadian Public Service Announcement Wrote:Attention Citizens of Canada. When you go out chopping trees and collecting syrup today imake sure you social distance.

[*jason*]

(08-30-2020, 12:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's just typical of the way some see America vs other countries.  

We have a massive military so USA #1!  

They have everything else so their weak and we could TOTALLY just take them over no problem.  It's funny.

Well... They DID send Nickelback down here. I'm not sure why we let that slide.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 12:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's just typical of the way some see America vs other countries.  

We have a massive military so USA #1!  

They have everything else so their weak and we could TOTALLY just take them over no problem.  It's funny.

Apparently we take a hit in education. 

[Dill]

(08-29-2020, 10:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it's entertaining to watch folks that do not understand checks and balances lose their shit over the totalitarian  power they think POTUS has. 

?? 

We have a president who knows less about the Constitution than any in history, and has violated--with impunity--more Constitutional checks than any in history, supported by millions who are fine with every abuse of power. 

And they could re-elect him--the ultimate permission to continue that abuse.

But you are implying the folks concerned about this situation are the ones who "do not understand checks and balances"?  

You are "entertained" by the chaos and division created by Trump's abuse?

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? 

We have a president who knows less about the Constitution than any in history, and has violated--with impunity--more Constitutional checks than any in history, supported by millions who are fine with every abuse of power. 

And they could re-elect him--the ultimate permission to continue that abuse.

1. But you are implying the folks concerned about this situation are the ones who "do not understand checks and balances"?  

2. You are "entertained" by the chaos and division created by Trump's abuse?

1. Yes
2. No

I'm entertained by folks that do not understand checks and balances losing their shit over Trump's ultimate power. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-30-2020, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Yes
2. No

I'm entertained by folks that do not understand checks and balances losing their shit over Trump's ultimate power. 

I think it's less about Trump's lack of actual power and more of how many supposed freedom-loving people are willing to agree with and support measures to reduce freedoms and democracy in order to (supposedly) further their own agenda.

With that being said, I'll admit liberals trying to save us from extra-large soda pops is a sham, too.

[Dill]

(08-30-2020, 03:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Yes
2. No

I'm entertained by folks that do not understand checks and balances losing their shit over Trump's ultimate power. 

So far it looks to me like the people most loudly supporting Trump are those that do not understand checks and balances, or want to do away with them.

So you've lost me until I get some specific examples. 

That's what will decide who does or does not understand checks and balances, and who'se "losing their shit."

[*jason*]

When Canada sends it's people , they're not sending their best... They're not sending Neil Young, they're not sending Robbie Robertson, they're not sending Colter Wall... They're sending Corey Hart, they're sending Nickelback, and some of them I'm sure are good people....

[GMDino]

(08-30-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? 

We have a president who knows less about the Constitution than any in history, and has violated--with impunity--more Constitutional checks than any in history, supported by millions who are fine with every abuse of power. 

And they could re-elect him--the ultimate permission to continue that abuse.

But you are implying the folks concerned about this situation are the ones who "do not understand checks and balances"?  

You are "entertained" by the chaos and division created by Trump's abuse?

The POTUS has remained largely unchecked by his party which controls the senate from all of the norms (and some of the laws) meant to keep him from wielding all the power.  But some like it because he does things "his way".

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 04:13 PM)Dill Wrote: So far it looks to me like the people most loudly supporting Trump are those that do not understand checks and balances, or want to do away with them.

So you've lost me until I get some specific examples. 

That's what will decide who does or does not understand checks and balances, and who'se "losing their shit."

The post I quoted is an example. "Trump kills Americans because he doesn't do enough about Covid". 

The President doesn't pass laws. What measures have the folks that actually pass laws done to curb the spread?

POTUS has constantly said he defers to Governors which is what exactly he should do. 

Violence in Portland, Trump sends in Federal Troops: "Trump needs to stay out of it and let local elected officials handle it"

A global pandemic hits the US and Trump defers to local elected officials; "Trump should do more at a federal level"

Seems like a tough to please crowd and one that gives 2 shits about answers. 

[EatonFan]

(08-25-2020, 07:27 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: The pollsters can’t get trumps base on the phone because they’re too busy humping pillows while watching chris Hanson and don’t pick up their phones due to creditors calling them all day.

Ah, insults.  That will get you no where.  It's what Dems do best...

[EatonFan]

(08-30-2020, 04:13 PM)Dill Wrote: So far it looks to me like the people most loudly supporting Trump are those that do not understand checks and balances, or want to do away with them.

So you've lost me until I get some specific examples. 

That's what will decide who does or does not understand checks and balances, and who'se "losing their shit."

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.  (I voted third party).  I will be voting Trump this time and yes, I know all about checks and balances.  

[Dill]

(08-30-2020, 10:42 PM)EatonFan Wrote: I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.  (I voted third party).  I will be voting Trump this time and yes, I know all about checks and balances.  

Then you know something about rule of law as well.

So is it that

1) you don't agree that Trump has consistently used his power of office, plus the backing of his party, to successfully flout rule of law and overcome checks on executive power, or that

2) you don't really care if he has/does this?

Also, if you have time, I am genuinely curious: why did you NOT vote for Trump in 2016, and what has happened since to make you think him a better choice than Biden? Is there some accomplishment or policy that now makes Trump the clear chocie for you? If so, which? 

[Dill]

(08-30-2020, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The post I quoted is an example. "Trump kills Americans because he doesn't do enough about Covid". 
The President doesn't pass laws. What measures have the folks that actually pass laws done to curb the spread?

POTUS has constantly said he defers to Governors which is what exactly he should do. 

Violence in Portland, Trump sends in Federal Troops: "Trump needs to stay out of it and let local elected officials handle it"

A global pandemic hits the US and Trump defers to local elected officials; "Trump should do more at a federal level"

Seems like a tough to please crowd and one that gives 2 shits about answers. 

1. Not sure exactly which post you are refering to--the one making military power a grouind of effective COVOD policy? But noting that Trump's bad decisions regarding the pandemic could be a reason for the high body count does not illustrate some misunderstanding of checks and balances. The office of the presidency, with its special reactive powers, was created so a government could react to NATIONAL emergencies faster than a legislature. E.g., if Mexico bombed Phoenix, the US could not wait for Congress to "pass laws" to begin protecting the US. The commander in chief has the power to react immediatetly to protect the US. Same for a pandemic.

2. When the current pandemic arrived, Trump styled himself a "wartime president," presumably with similar reactive powers. You say he should have "deferred to governors" under this national threat. That would be like letting the governor of Arizona handle the attack from Mexico on his own. Imagine if Trump's response to a military attack on US soil like that was to implement a market so states could compete against one another to purchase ammunition.  

3. Protecting the US from a nationwide threat is the job of the federal government; sending the military or feds unasked into local/state jurisdictions is not; it violates the principle of "two systems" and respect for states' autonomy.  So yes, a national response to the pandemic is required, just as a national/international response to the 9/11 attacks was required. Bush did not leave it to the governor of New York or the Mayor of NYC to invade Afghanistan. But a federal response was not required in Lafayette Square; protecting federal buildings in Portland had a rationale, at least, but bled into unindentifiable federal troops cruising the streets far from federal buildings and yanking people in without probable cause, then letting them go hours later having no charges lodged against them. And it led to Trump begging states to let him order the military in.

Your Pandemic/Portland contradiction appears to rest on a misunderstanding of Executive powers and of the difference between federal and state powers--so you assume Trump is "damned if does" when he wants to violate state's rights and "damned if he doesn't" when he shifts his primary responsiblity to lead a national response to the pandemic onto the local/state level.

[Big Boss]

I grew up in a Republican household, and I consider myself a moderate.

I cannot wait to vote against Donald Trump in November. Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as "country before party," and I genuinely believe that this man is a legitimate danger to our country. He is not fit to hold this Office, for any number of reasons. Go ahead and pick your top five.

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2020, 10:42 PM)EatonFan Wrote: I didn't vote for Trump in 2016.  (I voted third party).  I will be voting Trump this time and yes, I know all about checks and balances.  

Fascinating.

Why didn't you vote for him in 2016 and what happened to change your mind?

[Big Boss]

(08-25-2020, 04:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Polls have Biden leading Trump, but someone PLEASE tell me how that's possible?!

He's losing his mental faculties by the day and keeps messing up in interviews, he won't leave his basement, gets irritated easily, and he's making INSANE (and insulting comments) like asking a black interviewer if he ever tested positive for cocaine!

A lot of women I've heard say it's because they don't want the government to control their body (which is ridiculous), but it's ok for Biden to sniff women's hair and just be creepy as hell around them?!  "But that's just his personality and you can't vote with emotion!"  Really?!  How many people are voting AGAINST Trump for the sole reason that they think he's an asshole?

How can ANYONE vote for this guy?  Is it just blindly voting Democrat?

My man, Trump has done the exact same shit.  The bolded in particular.  Are you serious with this?

You want to talk about blind support?  Try putting Biden on blast for his mental faculties and offensive remarks, but completely looking the other way on your guy. If this is a legit talking point about Biden, then Trump is fair game too. Don't pull this hypocritical nonsense.

In fact, it's the hypocrisy put on display in defense of this president that frankly stupefies me the most. There is not one Trump supporter here who could convince me with a straight face that they wouldn't be losing their ***** minds right now if a democratic President had pulled even half of the shit Trump has in just four short years.

Openly crippling the US postal service in the months leading up to a federal election - during a quarantine - and admitting quite explicitly that it is to affect mail-in voting? Openly talking about a third term? Oh yeah. If Obama had done that in 2012 I'm sure it all would've been just shits and giggles, amirite? It's all a joke until it's not.

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2020, 12:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Then you know something about rule of law as well.

So is it that

1) you don't agree that Trump has consistently used his power of office, plus the backing of his party, to successfully flout rule of law and overcome checks on executive power, or that

2) you don't really care if he has/does this?

Also, if you have time, I am genuinely curious: why did you NOT vote for Turmp in 2016, and what has happened since to make you think him a better choice than Biden? Is there some accomplishment or policy that now makes Trump the clear chocie for you? If so, which? 

I agree Trump has tried just as every POTUS before him. Seems I remember something about Obama and illegal immigration. Can you refresh my memory or does that not count?

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2020, 11:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree Trump has tried just as every POTUS before him. Seems I remember something about Obama and illegal immigration. Can you refresh my memory or does that not count?

You could just choose the option that you don't care rather than engaging in whataboutism.

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2020, 11:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You could just choose the option that you don't care rather than engaging in whataboutism.

Yes, you're right. I should not have pointed it out. i apologize for my unwarranted use of whataboutisim