Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

Robert Mueller: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


I'm assuming you failed the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT. Or you're a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a complete moron and go with the latter.

DP: Sorry, this is truly absurd. NO ONE can prove he or she DID NOT commit a crime....unless in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany.

We are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Mueller had 2 years, hundreds of subpoenas and interviews, millions of dollars at his disposal...and he could prove ZERO COLLUSION OR COOPERATION WITH THE RUSSIANS.

So what exactly is Mueller mumbling about? And this was supposed to be some kind of objective superlawyer?

Thank you. You don’t need to prove a negative.

+100
Kind of reminds me of the Kavanaugh nonsense...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

Robert Mueller: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


I'm assuming you failed the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT. Or you're a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a complete moron and go with the latter.

DP: Sorry, this is truly absurd. NO ONE can prove he or she DID NOT commit a crime....unless in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany.

We are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Mueller had 2 years, hundreds of subpoenas and interviews, millions of dollars at his disposal...and he could prove ZERO COLLUSION OR COOPERATION WITH THE RUSSIANS.

So what exactly is Mueller mumbling about? And this was supposed to be some kind of objective superlawyer?

Thank you. You don’t need to prove a negative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

Well the GOP plays white identity politics to the hilt and the “poorly educated”, poor, older white men almost always vote for a white man. What has a poor white man in Appalachia got to do with the conman billionaire from NYC? Nada. Zilch. Yet they identified with the liar-in-chief because he was one of them even though he had no life experience any where close to them.

Stop trolling. Trump never claimed to share the same experience as poor whites in Appalachia because he is also white. People from different backgrounds *CAN* share the same common vision, which is to put the interest of America first. It's different to share a common goal than to identify with someone based on the color of their skin.

I call BS on that. The liar, pussy grabber panders to the white supremacists all the time. He didn’t put America first by any means, that’s just his successful con job. He made enough of his cult members believe in his con. He gave tax cuts for the rich and tried very hard to take away Obamacare which helped them. He cut education budgets which helps the poor and middle class. There is no wall. Dreamers are still here. Obamacare is still here. China trade Deficits are at the highest ever, debt to gdp ratio is 100% , agriculture is suffering due to tariffs, no immigration fix, no new coal/ steel jobs and in fact many coal plants have shut down..... on and on...

If he is America first he should pass a bill with mandatory e-verify, that’s it. But he will never ever do that because he can’t recruit illegals in his properties. He is a fraud and his cult has fallen for his con job.

If all you are going to do is engage in nonstop trite and juvenile name calling, you'll just be ignored.

+1.

Let's ignore he or she who can't make an actual argument.

PP was making so many good points about the GOP and Trump that simply can't be wished away. There is a lot of truth about the GOP which has become a party for the rich and no one can defend Trump on his personality, behavior or integrity. The president is the standard bearer for the country and we should be ashamed that he represents us all. But Trump is good at PR and marketing, which he is using to maximum effect even though he has NO POLICY WINS other than the unpopular tax cuts.

See, you both live in the same little bubble and parrot the same talking points.

Meanwhile, to a good number of posters in this thread, and as much as we don't like Trump as a person, we see a more prosperous, safe and peaceful country around us, especially compared to the sh!tty years 2014-2016.

2020 is not about who's our Preacher-in-Chief. It's about President and Commander-in-Chief. And Trump's results have exceeded the expectations by this non-Trump voter.

Someone earlier in this thread compared Trump to a surgeon she knew -- abrasive, no bed-side manners...and yet the most competent in town, so everyone went to him.

This is exactly how I feel.

-Another non-Trump voter who will be voting for him this time

I actually work in healthcare, and agree completely with the surgeon analogy.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

Robert Mueller: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


I'm assuming you failed the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT. Or you're a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a complete moron and go with the latter.

DP: Sorry, this is truly absurd. NO ONE can prove he or she DID NOT commit a crime....unless in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany.

We are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Mueller had 2 years, hundreds of subpoenas and interviews, millions of dollars at his disposal...and he could prove ZERO COLLUSION OR COOPERATION WITH THE RUSSIANS.

So what exactly is Mueller mumbling about? And this was supposed to be some kind of objective superlawyer?

Thank you. You don’t need to prove a negative.

Uh, police investigators "clear" suspects ALL THE TIME. They confirm alibis, review digital evidence, etc.

Mueller and his investigators explicitly could not "clear" the POTUS based on the evidence and testimony acquired by Mueller's team. That's damning.

Please share with us...Based on the Mueller report, what crime was committed? when and where exactly? How? By whom and with whom? Where's the money trail?

This whole thing was a bad joke.

Yes, there was Russian interference.

And yes, the President while it happened was Obama.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[/b]Liberals never practice what they preach. [b]They rant about the importance of diversity, not being racist and ensuring equality for women. But consider the field of potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. The dominant candidates are two white guys well in their late 70s and a white guy from Indiana.

The women, the Hispanic, the Asian and the African-American are almost non-starters.

Terms like never and always tend to squash rather than advance civil discourse. I wish you wouldn’t lead this way, esp as in this case, you are making a good point that for all the talk of diversity, the leading Presidential candidates on the D side are old white guys.

But you must allow that the emerging cadre of Dem leadership includes a range of races, creeds and colors, esp compared to the R side. Considering the projected demographic changes in the next 30 years, why aren’t Republicans cultivating diversity in their leadership?

So the field for Dem nominee includes all colors and creeds? So what? They are all running on far-leftist policies that would destroy the economy! Leftists need to stop looking at "not white" as the way to pick nominees. It's stupid identity politics - and it's racist.

What I am asking is - why aren’t Republicans doing more to cultivate leaders of color within their own ranks? If for no other reason that in the next 25 years, whites will be the minority. Why not begin to develop leadership among women as well? I am not talking about identity politics- that’s a throwaway defense. I am asking why, in the face of the changes coming in the demographics of America, Republicans are only focusing on their historic white base and not exploring development of support across Hispanics, AAs, etc.

I am not sure that anyone needs to cultivate leaders of a certain color. An organization that does that for the black and yellow people can use the same mechanism to do it for white people. Race and color of the skin are superficial features and should receive no consideration what so ever. This is *NOT* to say that we shouldn't cultivate leaders from different backgrounds and cultures so that they can bring their perspective. How similar is Kamala Harris' background and cultural experience from those of the average African American in urban environments, in the deep south, and etc. Not very similar. So why are we looking at Kamala Harris as if the color of her skin should give her some additional consideration for leadership?

Well the GOP plays white identity politics to the hilt and the “poorly educated”, poor, older white men almost always vote for a white man. What has a poor white man in Appalachia got to do with the conman billionaire from NYC? Nada. Zilch. Yet they identified with the liar-in-chief because he was one of them even though he had no life experience any where close to them.

Stop trolling. Trump never claimed to share the same experience as poor whites in Appalachia because he is also white. People from different backgrounds *CAN* share the same common vision, which is to put the interest of America first. It's different to share a common goal than to identify with someone based on the color of their skin.

I call BS on that. The liar, pussy grabber panders to the white supremacists all the time. He didn’t put America first by any means, that’s just his successful con job. He made enough of his cult members believe in his con. He gave tax cuts for the rich and tried very hard to take away Obamacare which helped them. He cut education budgets which helps the poor and middle class. There is no wall. Dreamers are still here. Obamacare is still here. China trade Deficits are at the highest ever, debt to gdp ratio is 100% , agriculture is suffering due to tariffs, no immigration fix, no new coal/ steel jobs and in fact many coal plants have shut down..... on and on...

If he is America first he should pass a bill with mandatory e-verify, that’s it. But he will never ever do that because he can’t recruit illegals in his properties. He is a fraud and his cult has fallen for his con job.

If all you are going to do is engage in nonstop trite and juvenile name calling, you'll just be ignored.

+1.

Let's ignore he or she who can't make an actual argument.

PP was making so many good points about the GOP and Trump that simply can't be wished away. There is a lot of truth about the GOP which has become a party for the rich and no one can defend Trump on his personality, behavior or integrity. The president is the standard bearer for the country and we should be ashamed that he represents us all. But Trump is good at PR and marketing, which he is using to maximum effect even though he has NO POLICY WINS other than the unpopular tax cuts.

See, you both live in the same little bubble and parrot the same talking points.

Meanwhile, to a good number of posters in this thread, and as much as we don't like Trump as a person, we see a more prosperous, safe and peaceful country around us, especially compared to the sh!tty years 2014-2016.

2020 is not about who's our Preacher-in-Chief. It's about President and Commander-in-Chief. And Trump's results have exceeded the expectations by this non-Trump voter.

Someone earlier in this thread compared Trump to a surgeon she knew -- abrasive, no bed-side manners...and yet the most competent in town, so everyone went to him.

This is exactly how I feel.

-Another non-Trump voter who will be voting for him this time

I actually work in healthcare, and agree completely with the surgeon analogy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good chunk of the discussion on this thread had been engaging, thoughtful, and stripped of the same tired talking points. I prefer to exchange views with people who hold different opinions rather than hear my own recycled and repeated. Thank you to those who engaged with civility.

I do take delight in the fact that this thread is longer and far more engaging than that other "optimism" thread.

The other thread has a lot more data in it, however. This one has none. All of you are in a circle playing soggy MAGA hat.

Anonymous wrote:Trump won’t win. Not with all 7 kingdoms aligned against him. He has lost his throne, its only a matter of time before he is brought before the council and we are free from the scourge that was the House of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller’s little non-speech about what was not found only furthers the exoneration of President Trump. End of story.

Robert Mueller: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


I'm assuming you failed the logical reasoning portion of the LSAT. Or you're a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a complete moron and go with the latter.

DP: Sorry, this is truly absurd. NO ONE can prove he or she DID NOT commit a crime....unless in Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany.

We are all INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Mueller had 2 years, hundreds of subpoenas and interviews, millions of dollars at his disposal...and he could prove ZERO COLLUSION OR COOPERATION WITH THE RUSSIANS.

So what exactly is Mueller mumbling about? And this was supposed to be some kind of objective superlawyer?

Thank you. You don’t need to prove a negative.

Uh, police investigators "clear" suspects ALL THE TIME. They confirm alibis, review digital evidence, etc.

Mueller and his investigators explicitly could not "clear" the POTUS based on the evidence and testimony acquired by Mueller's team. That's damning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good chunk of the discussion on this thread had been engaging, thoughtful, and stripped of the same tired talking points. I prefer to exchange views with people who hold different opinions rather than hear my own recycled and repeated. Thank you to those who engaged with civility.

I do take delight in the fact that this thread is longer and far more engaging than that other "optimism" thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

Total delusions. The cult 45 leader, conman and liar-in-chief lost by 3 million votes and was "selected" by slavery era EC with a grand total of 75K votes in 3 states. Since then there is a 2-3% decline in old white men repalced by 2% hispanics and 0.5% Asians, both vote 66% dems. If you look at this the generation method, the older silent gen(75+ and 66% trump voters) have declined by 5% and now replaced by gen Z who vote for dem 66%.

In 2018 the dem turnout was so high and they had a huge victory of 9% margin because of the liars unpopularity. White women deserted him big time in 2018 and are unlikely to return and vote for the Pussy grabber, because women have more shame and decency than the shameless white men.

When you mix some arguments with stupid name-calling and obvious paranoia, those arguments lose any potential credibility.

Please be well.

Tell that to the name calling liar-in-chief who I am ashamed to consider as president. I thought you guys dont like to be Politically correct. I am anti PC as well and call a fraud as a fraud. Why don't you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

All that is fine but the US per capita consumption is still the highest by a mile. Imagine if everyone wants to consume at the Same level in ROW, and that’s what we are seeing today. The US should set good precedent NOT consumerist precedent that everyone wants to follow. A great nation should set a great example for others to follow. We are setting bad precedent in everything: selecting a conman by slavery era EC to needlessly big homes to BIG SUVs to conspicuous consumerism to poor public transit. An educated and smart people are supposed to think for the society and future generations NOT me me me shortsighted selfishness. It is sad.

Once again, consumption is strongly correlated to quality of life: countries with higher quality of life will consume more by definition. Saying that the US per-capita consumption is the highest is not saying much beyond that the US has a high quality of life. By the way, the US does not have the highest consumption "by a mile". You can check the per-capita rankings here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_final_consumption_expenditure_per_capita

I don't understand why you think consumption is bad. I agree it has become somewhat popular among impressionable youth to criticize consumerism as it is an idea supported by socialism and Marxist thought. It feeds into their sense of rebellion, to be counter-cultural. So edgy, so exciting!

Consumption will be more by $ amount because things are expensive in Europe even though Europeans consumes lot less. That is not a good measure at all.

Let us take carbon emissions/capita in which US is the leading emitter among large countries. If a county like Qatar with tiny population emits a lot per capita it is insignificant in global scale because of their tiny population.


https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/

It is not true that countries with higher income consume the most because there are other factors like tax, subsidies that affect consumption. Western Europe is as rich as the US but their per capita consumption is lot less because they work to reduce emissions unlike the SUV driving Americans. Europeans also use public transit, get a big portion of their electricity from renewables and nuclear energy.

So the US is not a torch bearer when it comes to carbon emissions and infact we are the worst culprit since we are the only ones that pulled out of paris summit.

Thanks for fixing the quotes. Things cost more in Europe but that doesn't suddenly mean a dollar spent in Europe somehow has less value than a dollar in the US. If an egg costs $2 in Europe, that egg represents $2 of economic value in Europe, even if the egg only contributes $1 of economic value in the US since it only sells for $1 here. What counts is the dollar value, not what the underlying good/service is. Different goods/services have different values to different people in different locations.

I agree with the observation that the US has higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita compared to other developed countries. This is definitely one area we need to improve on. My point in this regard is that if you look at our energy use and emissions history, it is going in the right direction: energy consumption per $ GDP is going down, and our overall emissions are also going down despite growing population and growing consumption. Our goal should be to continue driving towards further efficiency. Consumerism is not the problem, it is the solution.

I am puzzled by your Paris accord comment. Were you not aware of the recent revelation that China is responsible for damaging the ozone layer to the detriment of decades of efforts by the US and European countries? Guess who is a Paris Accord signatory? How is being a part of the Paris Accord meaningful when most of the developed countries that are part of the Paris Accord failed to meet the proposed emission reduction goals. Guess which country achieved the largest reduction in carbon emissions? Read this:

https://capitalresearch.org/article/u-s-achieves-largest-decrease-in-carbon-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Again, don't fall into the common liberal trap of thinking that defaulting to some international body means a country is doing the right thing. Results matter. Empty promises don't.

If price is more demand goes down and consumption is less, duh! Simple economics.

Regardless,.US is still the highest per capita emitter and unless that goes down we can't accuse anyone else.

That US emissions went down is due to coal being economically enviable and due to thousands of cases filed against coal plants because they don't meet pollution standards. Bloomberg and Tom Styer together are responsible in shutting down hundreds of polluting power plants using their billions to fight against global warming.

Then another issue is the liberal states set the Fuel efficiency standards and in this regard CA and NY set the path and the rest of America including the laggard red states follow. CA hasn't budged on obama era fuel efficiency standards because it is STATE RIGHTS. So the auto manufacturers are not gonna make two cars, one clean car for blue and another polluting set of cars for red states. So thank the Blue states for being the leader and TRUMP can't do much to stop CA.

I think you are confusing the economic concept of consumption with how much physical goods/services are actually consumed.

If an egg costs $1 and at this price level 10 eggs were consumed, consumption is $10. If an egg costs $2 and at this price level 7 eggs were consumed, consumption is $14, even though only 7 eggs were consumed. What you probably didn't realize is that the economic value of an egg is not measured in the egg but in the cost, because the cost factors in a variety of other inputs and costs in the supply chain, as well as taxes and regulatory compliance. A clearer example may be this: organic sustainable-farmed eggs cost more at your local supermarket because more effort/costs went into the production of those eggs. That egg embodies these additional qualities which you as a consumer is paying for and consuming. For this reason, the actual consumption dollar amount, not the specific physical good/service purchased, is the true measure of consumption.

I feel like I am having to repeat this many times: the US greenhouse gas emissions have indeed been going down despite higher population growth and increased consumption:



And it has also been decreasing on a per-capita basis:

I never made the point that US carbon emissions per capita is NOT DECREASING, But that it is still the highest among major countries. You agreed to my point that consumption is reduced when price is increased. The earth doesn't care about economic value. The more the consumption the higher the need to increase production and the higher the need to clear tree filled forests to make way for farms.

The clearing of trees due to increasing consumption and increase in consumption of beef(it takes 10X the resources to produce 1lb of beef) are directly propoetional to increase in consumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

Total delusions. The cult 45 leader, conman and liar-in-chief lost by 3 million votes and was "selected" by slavery era EC with a grand total of 75K votes in 3 states. Since then there is a 2-3% decline in old white men repalced by 2% hispanics and 0.5% Asians, both vote 66% dems. If you look at this the generation method, the older silent gen(75+ and 66% trump voters) have declined by 5% and now replaced by gen Z who vote for dem 66%.

In 2018 the dem turnout was so high and they had a huge victory of 9% margin because of the liars unpopularity. White women deserted him big time in 2018 and are unlikely to return and vote for the Pussy grabber, because women have more shame and decency than the shameless white men.

When you mix some arguments with stupid name-calling and obvious paranoia, those arguments lose any potential credibility.

Please be well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll win for several reasons:
Most Americans outside of the DC stay at home mom demographic sees a big change and high consumer confidence levels.

Liberals have gone off the deep-end. They're insane. Everything is no racist, there are 37 different genders, trans-gay rallies in elementary school, mass importation of illegal immigrants, abolish ICE/CPB, Green New Deal, crazy twitter outrage mobs, antfa...most people want nothing to do with that crap. Even Europeans are laughing at us about this politically correct BS

Economy is good thanks to Trump

People don't believe what the media says anyways, they see the media as sycophants to the democrat party

no one who is sane supports partial birth abortion or late term abortion. The pro-abortion crowd does, most Americans do not.

Men are being tired of constantly being told they're sexist. They're not, they simply are confused. Women want equal rights and demand to be in high level CEO positions because they're "under represented." They're also under represented in fields such as Sewage Treatment, garbage men, plumbers, HVAC, carpentry, telecommunication techs who go out in the cold and fix your internet, cops, paramedics, lumberjacks, fishers, iron workers, power-line workers, roofers, truck drivers. Consequently, those are jobs with higher fatality rates more than any other job and not one I listed has higher than 25% female labor force. Only one remotely close is farmers, who only 24% are female. Most of what I listed is 90% male or above

People are tired of being told everything they do and say is racist. It's not. The only people who seem stuck on race is virtue signaling white liberals. Normal people aren't.

Those are just a few of the reasons.

I think anyone who feels like this voted for Trump last time. The open question is whether a competitor can command more voters - and whether every person who voted for him last time will do so again. He won by the slimmest of margins the last time. I don't think you can count on old, white, male culture war voters - as you've described in this post - being enough. But maybe you can. And incumbents certainly enjoy advantages, while incumbents with a good economy do even more so.

It's not just old white men though...white women voted for Trump as well.

And men in general are tired of being told they're sexist. Liberals don't believe in the presumption of innocence. Twitter is the modern day fire and pitchforks flaming and destroying people. Men are tired of being accused for things they didn't do and being destroyed because of it.

Total delusions. The cult 45 leader, conman and liar-in-chief lost by 3 million votes and was "selected" by slavery era EC with a grand total of 75K votes in 3 states. Since then there is a 2-3% decline in old white men repalced by 2% hispanics and 0.5% Asians, both vote 66% dems. If you look at this the generation method, the older silent gen(75+ and 66% trump voters) have declined by 5% and now replaced by gen Z who vote for dem 66%.

In 2018 the dem turnout was so high and they had a huge victory of 9% margin because of the liars unpopularity. White women deserted him big time in 2018 and are unlikely to return and vote for the Pussy grabber, because women have more shame and decency than the shameless white men.