US Presidential Election 2020

[Brad Sallows]

Simple solution, then: use verb tenses correctly.  Don't headline with "Trump is worse than Hitler" if the argument is "Trump could become worse than Hitler", which is trivially true.  All non-zero probabilities are in the realm of the possible.

 

[tomahawk6]

The top lofty attitude of some sneering at President Trump, a man of business and accomplishment is breathtaking.

 

[shawn5o]

“Déjà vu all over again?”


In November, POTUS May Be Picked by House, Senate and SCOTUS Members & It Won't Be the First Time

Ronald Yates, The Western Journal
August 29, 2020 at 3:04am

Will 2020 be a reprise of the 1876 presidential election?

What a question, you might ask. But let’s look at what happened in 1876 and then you can make up your mind.

The similarities between 1876 and 2020 are striking.

In 1876 the Democrats controlled the House. The Republicans controlled the Senate. The nation was in political and economic crisis, still staggering from the disastrous Panic of 1873.

Ulysses S. Grant was the incumbent Republican president, but at the last minute, he decided not to run for a third term. Of course, the scenario is different today. Donald Trump is running for a second term, not a third term.

(Historical note: From George Washington until Harry Truman, presidents could serve as many terms as they could win. President Franklin D. Roosevelt won four consecutive terms between 1932 and 1944. On Feb. 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment was ratified, which established a two-term limit for presidents.)

So, with Grant out of the picture, the Republican who did run in 1876 was a dark horse candidate named Rutherford B. Hayes. His Democratic challenger in the intensely disputed election was New York Gov. Samuel Tilden.

Tilden was widely expected to win the general election against the little-known Hayes, who was a Civil War hero and Ohio governor.

Now here is where things get interesting. There are some political pundits today who say the 2020 election could play out in similar fashion to the 1876 election.
Just how might that happen? Let’s look back at the 1876 election.

More HERE

 

[Donald H]

Simple solution, then: use verb tenses correctly.  Don't headline with "Trump is worse than Hitler" if the argument is "Trump could become worse than Hitler", which is trivially true.  All non-zero probabilities are in the realm of the possible.

I would suggest that the verb tense is correct in that Chomsky was obviously referring to a particular point in time. It can be safely assumed that it would be analogous to Hitler's performance to some point in the 30's that would be similar to Trump's current performance.

I have in the past referred to Trump embarking on a fascist regime, even though that wasn't entirely accepted by some members. However, I'm not interested in trying to explain any further when those opposing my opinion aren't even aware of the nuances of the talking points.

And so to leave the Chomsky utube video in our dust, note now that Trump has just proclaimed that he will enact new laws that will enable him to introduce federal police action into states without being requested to do so. A developing story.

:cheers:

 

[shawn5o]

Another scenerio for the next president


Scenario Shows How Nancy Pelosi Could Become President
The Federalist Papers

Carmine Sabia Jr.
Published August 28, 2020 at 3:13pm

There have been rumors swirling for months about a scenario that could lead to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being President of the United States, but Democrats have insisted that they are conspiracy theories.

They have claimed that Republicans are using the scenario to fight against mail-in voting and that they have no basis in fact, but the truth is that they do.

Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explained on “Varney * Co.” on Thursday how Pelosi could become the interim president.

He said that “It could be right” that the California representative would be president if a new president was not chosen in time.

“President Trump’s term ends at precisely noon on Jan. 20, 2021, Napolitano said to host Stuart Varney.

“If the Electoral College has not yet named a successor, presumably either Donald Trump or Joe Biden, then whoever is the speaker of the House would become the acting president of the United States,” he said.

“If the Democrats retain their majority in the House, and it appears likely that they will, but if they do, and if they choose Mrs. Pelosi, knowing at that point that they’re choosing the president of the United States, then it would be she,” he said.

More at link from Fox News and above

 

[Brad Sallows]

>A developing story.

Well, when it develops, post some details instead of trolling with vague worries.

 

[Donald H]

>A developing story.

Well, when it develops, post some details instead of trolling with vague worries.

I'm not trolling Brad, and I have posted some details offered by Chomsky, which you have decided to not listen to. So as I suggested, we can leave Chomsky in our dust.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Are you two or more people posting from one account?

"And so to leave the Chomsky utube video in our dust, note now that Trump has just proclaimed that he will enact new laws that will enable him to introduce federal police action into states without being requested to do so. A developing story."

Clearly "developing story" does not refer to "Chomsky video".  You try to change the channel by dangling an unsubstantiated teaser*, and when challenged to provide some evidence of the claim, you go back to beating your Chomsky drum.

*I skimmed headlines at Fox, CNN, and MSNBC after reading your claim, and again this morning.  Apparently "Trump has just proclaimed that he will enact new laws that will enable him to introduce federal police action into states" isn't a story that warrants front-page treatment.  I'd expect the latter two to be all over it, if it existed.

 

[FJAG]

This brings up what I consider to be an alarming trend.

On my Facebook "Mess Tent" group thread there has been an Photoshoped copy of this picture posted:

The only trouble is that in the altered image, just to the right of Huber (the skateboard man) on the lawn of the background, is an enhanced image of an individual with a naked butt receiving oral sex. Clearly a piece of falsified garbage easily disproved by looking at the original image where the added individuals are not present.

My point is that there seems to be no end of trolls who manipulate images and stories to suite their own ends. Particularly troublesome are images and stories from shortly after the events where all the facts are not known but reporters/commentators have little or no hesitation to fill in the gaps in the narrative with their own interpretations which themselves become part of the "reality" of the event. I tend to give the MSM a bit of a break in this regard because, IMHO, their inaccurate reporting is frequently as a result of laziness in seeking out the full story in their rush to get something into print or on the screen while most of the fringe press does it not out of laziness but out of a desire to get their spin on the story out there regardless of what the facts actually are.

The trouble is that you know you could get better details if the "news" organization took a bit more time so that they could get the additional information. Somewhat ironically, when I want some details on an event happening in America, I go to the UK's Daily Mail Online. The DMO is a crap show in it's own right (anyone employing Piers Morgan has to be) but for some reason or other seems to have a larger stock of reporters who deliver a more comprehensive recitation of the facts (albeit the headlines are frequently misleading)

:facepalm:

 

[mariomike]

:goodpost:

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear? 

Reminds me of the still ongoing controversy over the Zapruder film.

Sort of like a Rorschach test. People see what they want to see.

I prefer to leave analysis of evidence to the police.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What are the grounds for assuming that the MSM does not want to "get their spin on the story"?

 

[Lumber]

Are you in agreement with racism being Trump's main agenda and that he would have nothing without it?

Is Trump racist? Sure.

Is Trump's entire agendaabout self-betterment and the people be damned? Also, sure.

Is Trump'a "main agenda" in racism? No, where do you get that?

 

[Donald H]

Is Trump racist? Sure.

Is Trump's entire agendaabout self-betterment and the people be damned? Also, sure.

Is Trump'a "main agenda" in racism? No, where do you get that?

My wording of the question probably requres an explanation. I meant that without racism, Trump would have no agenda and likely very few followers.

 

[QV]

Is Trump racist? Sure.

Is Trump's entire agendaabout self-betterment and the people be damned? Also, sure.

Is Trump'a "main agenda" in racism? No, where do you get that?

There is no evidence of any of that. 

 

[FJAG]

What are the grounds for assuming that the MSM does not want to "get their spin on the story"?

My in-laws ran a small town newspaper and most of the motivation is to gather advertisers and circulation to make money. That generally pushes you into a position where you try to be as neutral and inoffensive to the largest part of the population as possible. Most of the time when inaccuracies creep into a story it's because of the low salaries in the business which means many of the reporters are only lightly experienced, have expertise in virtually no topic (and too lazy to become more knowledgeable), and are pressed for time with deadlines.

Now that's a broad generalization, at best. There is no doubt that there are individual reporters and publishers who have a certain leaning and want to push their agenda, either overtly or covertly. Been that way since broadsheets were being circulated in the gutters of London. On average, I tend to lean towards publications that at least pretend to have a code of conduct and to hold themselves accountable as opposed to those who have started up a blog site to crank out a stream of vitriolic effluent that's uniquely one-sided.

:cheers:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That's why you need to know who your readers are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose the NYT, then, since the news team pushed the opinion team and got its way, is aiming for the "uniquely one-sided" market.  Fortunately, no-one would think of the NYT as a pillar/marke[r] of "MSM", which, I now understand, is small-town agencies that have to appeal to local readers/viewers, rather than the big names that can get by with an echo bubble.

 

[FJAG]

That's why you need to know who your readers are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

:rofl:

 

[Jarnhamar]

My wording of the question probably requres an explanation. I meant that without racism, Trump would have no agenda and likely very few followers.

So no sources of Trump making racist comments or blatent racist behavior? Just an ambigious statement without racism he'd have no followers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Trump could be deemed racist in the same way that most of his generation, including the Clinton's and Biden can be. I can produce a picture of Hillary hugging the Grand master of the KKK and she knew what he was, politics of the time demanded it and she started her career in the almost epic-centre of White Supremacist post war. Likely a lot of her early support was racist. There are also pictures and quotes from prominent Black talking about how Trump supported them. Trump is no angel and neither are his political opponents.