American Politics Thread

[Volphied]

‘Trump’s racism leads to violence’: Democrats blame president for deadly El Paso shooting

Beto O’Rourke and Bernie Sanders lead condemnation after 20 killed at Walmart store in Texas by suspected white supremacist

www.independent.co.uk

Democratic presidential candidates condemned Donald Trump’s racism and the failure to take action on gun control following the mass shooting by a suspected white supremacist in El Paso.

Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, who represented the district where the attack took place, said the US president bore some responsibility for the attack which left 20 people dead.

“He is a racist, and he stokes racism in this country,” he added. “It does not just offend our sensibilities; it fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence.”

Cory Booker highlighted Mr Trump’s use of words like “infestation” and “invasion” as he accused the president of “giving license to this kind of violence”.

“One of the lessons in my faith is that you reap what you sow,” the senator for New Jersey said. “He’s responsible.”

Bernie Sanders also targeted the president as he urged the US to “come together to reject this dangerous and growing culture of bigotry espoused by Trump and his allies.”

“Instead of wasting money putting children in cages, we must seriously address the scourge of violent bigotry and domestic terrorism,” the Vermont senator added.

“We must treat this violent racism like the security threat that it is.”


View: https://twitter.com/One_Re_li_gi_on/status/1157950451314253824

 

[zoroarctic]

I’m a realist. It’s going to keep getting worse.

 

[Volphied]

View: https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1158087442634854400

 

[zoroarctic]

On a less dire note, today is Barack Obama's 58th birthday. It's kind of mind-blowing that he's been out of office for 2 years, and he's more than a decade younger than each of the top 3 Democratic contenders for 2020.

 

[Weiss]

View: https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1158087442634854400

Spoiler

Seems to fit the definition of invasion pretty well. They are not asylum seekers either as by UN rules they’ve passed through third countries to get to the USA and do not enter at legal ports of entry. Thus invalidating any asylum status. Same in Europe the EU even openly admits that at least 66% of those who came were economic migrants.

Is the language inflammatory perhaps but it’s also true...

If the tweets were deleted I assume it’s Twitter tightening their rules again this was signaled last month and Trump was mentioned.

 

[Volphied]

Seems to fit the definition of invasion pretty well.

Not really? The first definition only applies to ARMED forces, not civilians (it's this definition of refugees as armed hordes that's fueling white supremacists).

The second definition is only for "place or sphere of activity" like football fields.

And the third only applies to your house.

Trump uses the word "invasion because it demonizes and dehumanizes refugees, thus making it easier to justify their abuse or even murder by white supremacists.

Words such as "swarm" or "invasion" can also have implications just as negative when used in connection to refugees. James Hathaway, director of the Program in Refugee and Asylum at the University of Michigan Law School, says that these words are "clearly meant to instill fear."

They are not asylum seekers either as by UN rules they’ve passed through third countries to get to the USA and do not enter at legal ports of entry. Thus invalidating any asylum status.

Even the courts disagree with you. One does not lose his right for asylum due to not crossing legal ports of entry.

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court

A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump's initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally.

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally.

A different federal judge had already put a temporary block on the policy, which would have rejected asylum claims from people who entered the United States between legal ports of entry. The ruling on Friday by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. went further by finding the Trump rule violated immigration law.

 

[Weiss]

Not really? The first definition only applies to ARMED forces, not civilians (it's this definition of refugees as armed hordes that's fueling white supremacists).

The second definition is only for "place or sphere of activity" like football fields.

And the third only applies to your house.

Trump uses the word "invasion because it demonizes and dehumanizes refugees, thus making it easier to justify their abuse or even murder by white supremacists.

Words such as "swarm" or "invasion" can also have implications just as negative when used in connection to refugees. James Hathaway, director of the Program in Refugee and Asylum at the University of Michigan Law School, says that these words are "clearly meant to instill fear."



Even the courts disagree with you. One does not lose his right for asylum due to not crossing legal ports of entry.

Trump rule restricting asylum seekers struck down by court

A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump's initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally.

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Friday struck down one of President Donald Trump’s initiatives to curtail asylum claims, ruling that the government could not reject migrants who had crossed the border illegally.

A different federal judge had already put a temporary block on the policy, which would have rejected asylum claims from people who entered the United States between legal ports of entry. The ruling on Friday by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C. went further by finding the Trump rule violated immigration law.

Do you know how a dictionary works? That’s the first definition but there are two subsequent definitions you’re being selective and choosing to ignore. I don’t care what you have to try and support your claim by definition it could be considered an invasion.

Millions of people over a prolonged period if time entering your country without consent of the government or the people is an invasion sorry just is,,,

Spoiler

edit

Come to realise you’re a sophist having nothing further to do with.

 

[Volphied]

Do you know how a dictionary works? That’s the first definition but there are two subsequent definitions you’re being selective and choosing to ignore.

Huh? But I did NOT ignore the two other definitions. Re-read my previous post before you continue. Or are you referring to some text that didn't fit into your cropped picture?

Millions of people over a prolonged period if time entering your country without consent of the government or the people is an invasion sorry just is,,,

Sorry, but what you just said is nowhere to be found in the dictionary you cited. So no, it's not an "invasion".

Come to realise you’re a sophist having nothing further to do with.

The pot calling the kettle black, yet again. A sophist is someone who waves around the dictionary, completely ignoring the intent of Trump's words, which is to demonize and dehumanize refugees. A sophist believes he can win arguments by being pedantic about the dictionary definition of words, without paying attention to the effect Trump's hateful rhetoric has on human beings.

It's you. You, who despite "not liking Trump", are aggressively defending him armed with a dictionary and nothing else.

 

[Volphied]

More bad news for the GOP:

Spoiler

View: https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1158228636018892800

 

[Lucas Whitefur]

My first choice is Bernie Sanders, but I just really hope the nominee isn't Joe Biden, as I think he'd lose to Trump. We tried running a corporate centrist back in 2016 and look where it got us. However, if it is Biden, I will suck it up and vote for him on November 3, 2020.

 

[Aulos]

My first choice is Bernie Sanders, but I just really hope the nominee isn't Joe Biden, as I think he'd lose to Trump. We tried running a corporate centrist back in 2016 and look where it got us. However, if it is Biden, I will suck it up and vote for him on November 3, 2020.

Yet supposedly the majority think that Biden has the best shot of winning.

The left is so divided right now (thankfully not talking about you, since you will vote for whichever Democrat candidate gets to the general election) and it is quite astounding and frustrating to watch, as Trump is a complete dumpster fire that needs to go ASAP without any doubt.

 

[zoroarctic]

Still a long way to go, but I’m starting to wonder if Biden is Teflon. It seems like nothing negative can stick to him.
To be clear, I don’t dislike Biden at all. In fact, as a serious Catholic, having another Catholic president would mean a lot to me. However, what really worries me about Biden is his confidence that Republicans will have a wake-up call once Trump is gone. That’s simply delusional.

 

[Volphied]

View: https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1159301113692262401

 

[zoroarctic]

One issue I’ve noticed that hasn’t been talked about much, but is still very important: foreign policy. How would the Democratic candidates repair ties with our traditional allies. This could be one area where Biden can shine above everyone else (it’s no secret he’s the preferred candidate for the European powers).

 

[Volphied]

One issue I’ve noticed that hasn’t been talked about much, but is still very important: foreign policy. How would the Democratic candidates repair ties with our traditional allies. This could be one area where Biden can shine above everyone else (it’s no secret he’s the preferred candidate for the European powers).

Speaking of foreign policy:

Why Trump’s 'maximum pressure' foreign policy yields minimum results

The president is heading into 2020 with no major successes and looming crises – so many expect him to attempt to reverse the trend with dramatic deals

www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump is heading into the 2020 elections with no clear-cut foreign policy successes, some dramatic failures and a string of looming crises around the world that could undermine his bid for re-election.

For that reason, many expect the president to try to reverse the trend with dramatic interventions around the globe with uncertain outcomes – which will make the next 16 months even more volatile than his presidency so far.

Trump has pulled out of nuclear agreements with Iran and Russia but the better deals he predicted seem more remote than ever, and in their absence nuclear weapons proliferation looks likely to accelerate.

An effort to oust Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela in April was a fiasco, and subsequent efforts to strangle the economy have so far showed no sign of achieving their political objective. This week, the UN high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, warned that the measures are likely to significantly exacerbate conditions for millions of ordinary Venezuelan.

Trump’s proudest diplomatic achievement so far, becoming the first US president to meet a North Korean leader, is looking increasingly hollow, as Kim Jong-un steadily builds up his nuclear arsenal and resumes missile testing.

Similarly, Trump’s most significant military win, completing the eradication of the Islamic State caliphate in Syria and Iraq, has been tarnished by a Pentagon inspector general report this week saying that Isis had “solidified its insurgent capabilities in Iraq and was resurging in Syria”.

Foreign policy issues rarely play a leading role in US presidential elections, but Trump has relentlessly portrayed himself as uniquely able to strike deals with foreign leaders and bring US troops home. And some foreign crises have a direct domestic result. The absence so far of the promised deal with China, the imposition of tariffs and the prospect of a worsening trade war will directly hit consumers and producers.

 

[Volphied]

Sanders overtakes Biden in New Hampshire poll

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field in New Hampshire with 21 percent in a Gravis Marketing poll released Tuesday.Sanders is followed by former Vice President Joe Bid…

thehill.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field in New Hampshire with 21 percent in a Gravis Marketing poll released Tuesday.

Sanders is followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with 15 percent and by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 12 percent.

The poll also found President Trump losing to every candidate in the top five in the Granite State in a hypothetical match-up among registered voters, with Biden beating him 53 percent to 40 percent and Sanders beating him 51 percent to 41 percent.

Warren, meanwhile, leads Trump 49 percent to 44 percent, while Buttigieg beats him 49 percent to 42 percent and Harris leads him 47 percent to 44 percent. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat Trump by fewer than 0.5 points in the 2016 presidential election.

 

[zoroarctic]

View: https://twitter.com/hotlinejosh/status/1162125777330155520?s=21


Very different from 2016.

 

[Volphied]

Very different from 2016.

This will make Trump furious. Especially since it's a Fox News poll.

Fox News poll shows Trump losing to Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris

A Fox News poll released Thursday showed President Trump losing head-to-head matchups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary contenders.The poll found Trump with 39 percent su…

thehill.com

A Fox News poll released Thursday showed President Trump losing head-to-head matchups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary contenders.

The poll found Trump with 39 percent support among registered voters in head-to-head matchups against Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The poll found Sanders beating Trump with 48 percent, Warren winning over Trump with 45 percent and Harris winning with 46 percent support.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, beat Trump in the theoretical matchup with 50 percent support among those surveyed, compared to Trump's 38 percent.

Among Democratic primary contenders, Warren saw the largest gain in support in the poll — an 8 percent jump from last month's survey. Warren, according to the poll, took second place behind Biden with the support of 20 percent of Democratic primary voters.

Sanders dropped to third, now at 10 percent in the poll and the only other candidate aside from Warren and Biden scoring double digit support among voters.

Biden dropped slightly in the poll from a previous Fox News poll in July, from 33 percent to 31 percent, but remains the clear front-runner in the race according to the survey.

 

[Aulos]

What do polls even mean after the 2016 election? I just can't trust anything I see anymore.

 

[Dorothy]

Hickenlooper dropped out can we get an f in the chat