Opinion: If Trump makes this election about Law and Order, he will lose. He HAS to make it about the economy and China. Big cities isn't the path.

[shockedcanadian]

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, he might lose it again in 2020. He won key battleground states and counties by a small margin however. If he has a chance in 2020, he can't take the bait that big city mayors seem to be dangling and focus on "Law and Order". He is going to make the same mistake Hillary made in 2016, by neglecting key swing locations.

Now I have no problem with Trump talking about security, including the wall. He should balance it with Justice Reform as well, an optimistic message. If you go with "Law and Order", it's just negative. Worse, you won't get traction with Rust Belt and the swing states. Trump getting an extra 8% in big cities isn't going to help him, he isn't going to win NY, D,C or California. He needs to win the E.C not the local mayoral race.

He is very smart to fly to these various locations this week, talk about the economy, talk about confronting China, yes, talking about making sure citizens rights are upheld, but nobody expects that you as President can run cities, so don't take the bait. Tell people, "we reject Cancel Culture, we believe in Due Process, accountability for police and those destroying government property and terrorizing all neighbourhoods, many of them in need because of poor local leadership".

THAT should be the extent of it. He can't give up the economic ground to Biden, or he will lose those key locations he barely won in 2016. Don't listen to the Echo Chamber that talk about policing 24/7, they aren't political winners, they are focused narrowly, you have a federal election to win.

I will support Trump (in spirit from afar) or ANY politician who wants to stand up to China, defend capitalism and your sovereignty. As America goes, so go the rest of the West. I just hope he has his eyes open, because in 2020, they aren't holding anything back.

By the way, Dan Bongino had it right on Fox and Friends this morning, the only solution if you want change is to vote out local leadership. That's it. I agree 100%, Trump can offer assistance, but he can't be mayor and president.

Am I missing it, or is there a link to this op ed?

It's opinion clearly, I even stated it.

 

[bendog]

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, he might lose it again in 2020. He won key battleground states and counties by a small margin however. If he has a chance in 2020, he can't take the bait that big city mayors seem to be dangling and focus on "Law and Order". He is going to make the same mistake Hillary made in 2016, by neglecting key swing locations.

Now I have no problem with Trump talking about security, including the wall. He should balance it with Justice Reform as well, an optimistic message. If you go with "Law and Order", it's just negative. Worse, you won't get traction with Rust Belt and the swing states. Trump getting an extra 8% in big cities isn't going to help him, he isn't going to win NY, D,C or California. He needs to win the E.C not the local mayoral race.

He is very smart to fly to these various locations this week, talk about the economy, talk about confronting China, yes, talking about making sure citizens rights are upheld, but nobody expects that you as President can run cities, so don't take the bait. Tell people, "we reject Cancel Culture, we believe in Due Process, accountability for police and those destroying government property and terrorizing all neighbourhoods, many of them in need because of poor local leadership".

THAT should be the extent of it. He can't give up the economic ground to Biden, or he will lose those key locations he barely won in 2016. Don't listen to the Echo Chamber that talk about policing 24/7, they aren't political winners, they are focused narrowly, you have a federal election to win.

I will support Trump (in spirit from afar) or ANY politician who wants to stand up to China, defend capitalism and your sovereignty. As America goes, so go the rest of the West. I just hope he has his eyes open, because in 2020, they aren't holding anything back.

By the way, Dan Bongino had it right on Fox and Friends this morning, the only solution if you want change is to vote out local leadership. That's it. I agree 100%, Trump can offer assistance, but he can't be mayor and president.

Am I missing it, or is there a link to this op ed?

It's opinion clearly, I even stated it.

I wasn't complaining about your thread. I just was curious to read the original op ed. I'm not even commenting upon Trump's chances for re-election.

 

[pknopp]

On Fox News just now, Fox and Friends, they just stated that CNN's own poll had Biden ahead of Trump by 14%, after Harris was named V.P, the gap lowered to 4%!

Why? This is because Harris is viewed as an extreme, strong arm AG with a history of "Law and Order". She is costing Biden the black vote, I am telling you. Few trust her, and I think in his heart Biden knows this. She is a big city winner for Biden, she will help him win Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, she will get him big money from donors. She will NOT get him key votes he needs to win.

Trump and Pence have to take up that space. Square in the middle. Harris is viewed extreme left AND right. So unique, very Canadian actually contrary to how we present ourselves. Trump has the middle now and he has to be positive, he has so many easy paths in his message now. When he calls her angry woman, (I wouldn't use that exact phrasing, just call her angry), it reminds people, "yeah, that's right, she does seem a bit angry, a bit SCARY (that is key, people fear fascism to their core)"

Congrats. You are going to win what you were going to win anyways. Trump has to understand how this V.P choice impacts Dem supporters, focus on the positive, the economy and China. Swing states want their jobs protected from Communist intrusion.

Those not supporting Biden because of Harris aren't going to turn their support to Trump either.

Trump is incapable of being positive so it's a race to the bottom.

You can pull the lever for whomever you wish. Bottom line is that if it isn’t for one of the two the the incumbent wins...period.

The country loses either way.

So say you...Others believe otherwise.

They do. It's why we will soon be 30 trillion in debt. That is not going to end well.

So, now libs are fiscally conscious about debt? Not buying it...

Where did I say that?

In the post I responded to

No I didn't. I've even noted that they don't even pretend to be.

 

[pknopp]

He can only lie about China but unfortunately voters accept lies for some odd reason. Both sides will do this.

And regarding the economy, the biggest thing he has in his favor is that people don't look beyond the simple headlines. They'll hear about the low unemployment rate before the virus hit, but they don't know about the hyper-Keynesian spending that got us there, or the fact that the NY Fed STILL had to pour $1.4T into short term credit markets to grease the system, or the fact that bond yields (the bond market's view of the economy) had crashed by 60%, or that we had been in a prolonged manufacturing recession, or that the 2.1% GDP rate we were at when the virus hit was not worth what we were paying for it.

Peoples eyes glaze over when you dig that deep into the weeds...Right or wrong, people are more like myself, in the sense that what they do is ask themselves was my situation better 5 yrs ago, or today....And, I believe that answer is clear.

You believe we will be better off with 30 trillion in debt? If so, why not just make it 70 trillion?

democrats are trying.

Yeah, trying to turn America into Venezuela.

Without the ability to simply create money out of nothing we are already there. It's not going to last forever.

We do that now! Obama did that, like Bush before him, and Clinton before him...Where you been?

I said they didn't?

 

[j-mac]

He can only lie about China but unfortunately voters accept lies for some odd reason. Both sides will do this.

And regarding the economy, the biggest thing he has in his favor is that people don't look beyond the simple headlines. They'll hear about the low unemployment rate before the virus hit, but they don't know about the hyper-Keynesian spending that got us there, or the fact that the NY Fed STILL had to pour $1.4T into short term credit markets to grease the system, or the fact that bond yields (the bond market's view of the economy) had crashed by 60%, or that we had been in a prolonged manufacturing recession, or that the 2.1% GDP rate we were at when the virus hit was not worth what we were paying for it.

Peoples eyes glaze over when you dig that deep into the weeds...Right or wrong, people are more like myself, in the sense that what they do is ask themselves was my situation better 5 yrs ago, or today....And, I believe that answer is clear.

You believe we will be better off with 30 trillion in debt? If so, why not just make it 70 trillion?

democrats are trying.

Yeah, trying to turn America into Venezuela.

Without the ability to simply create money out of nothing we are already there. It's not going to last forever.

We do that now! Obama did that, like Bush before him, and Clinton before him...Where you been?

I said they didn't?

Did you not type this:

" It's why we will soon be 30 trillion in debt. That is not going to end well. "

Trying to make everyone believe that the increase in debt was all on Trump? Or, that you're even worried about the rising debt? Spare me.

I said they didn't?

Didn't what? Create money out of thin air? Again, where have you been?

How about this little ditty from the WaPo no less....circa 2016

" Obama can’t place the blame for Clinton’s poor performance purely on her campaign. On the contrary, the past eight years of policymaking have damaged Democrats at all levels. Recovering Democratic strength will require the party’s leaders to come to terms with what it has become — and the role Obama played in bringing it to this point. "

snip

" Many Democrats think that Trump supporters voted against their own economic interests. But voters don’t want concentrated financial power that deigns to redistribute some cash, along with weak consumer protection laws. They want jobs. They want to be free to govern themselves. Trump is not exactly pitching self-government. But he is offering a wall of sorts to protect voters against neo-liberals who consolidate financial power, ship jobs abroad and replace paychecks with food stamps. Democrats should have something better to offer working people. If they did, they could have won in November. In the wreckage of this last administration, they didn’t. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

Or this one from 2012, POLITOCO

"The Obama administration regularly congratulates itself for being the “most transparent administration ever.” The “most transparently political administration” would be more like it.

President Barack Obama, since taking officer, has showered his donors and allies with billions in federal dollars. A steady stream of grants and loans flows from the administration to Obama’s political cronies. And taxpayers foot the bill."

Obama repays donors in tax dollars

Opinion: A stream of grants and loans flows from the administration to Obama’s political cronies.

www.politico.com

You libs on this board too often act like history only began in 2015 when Trump came down that golden elevator, and that son, is your downfall....Democrats have a history.

 

[pknopp]

He can only lie about China but unfortunately voters accept lies for some odd reason. Both sides will do this.

And regarding the economy, the biggest thing he has in his favor is that people don't look beyond the simple headlines. They'll hear about the low unemployment rate before the virus hit, but they don't know about the hyper-Keynesian spending that got us there, or the fact that the NY Fed STILL had to pour $1.4T into short term credit markets to grease the system, or the fact that bond yields (the bond market's view of the economy) had crashed by 60%, or that we had been in a prolonged manufacturing recession, or that the 2.1% GDP rate we were at when the virus hit was not worth what we were paying for it.

Peoples eyes glaze over when you dig that deep into the weeds...Right or wrong, people are more like myself, in the sense that what they do is ask themselves was my situation better 5 yrs ago, or today....And, I believe that answer is clear.

You believe we will be better off with 30 trillion in debt? If so, why not just make it 70 trillion?

democrats are trying.

Yeah, trying to turn America into Venezuela.

Without the ability to simply create money out of nothing we are already there. It's not going to last forever.

We do that now! Obama did that, like Bush before him, and Clinton before him...Where you been?

I said they didn't?

Did you not type this:

" It's why we will soon be 30 trillion in debt. That is not going to end well. "

Trying to make everyone believe that the increase in debt was all on Trump? Or, that you're even worried about the rising debt? Spare me.

It's your guilty conscience telling you this. This debt far preceded Trump. There is no question he has taken it to another level despite his claims that balancing the budget would be easy though.

 

[j-mac]

He can only lie about China but unfortunately voters accept lies for some odd reason. Both sides will do this.

And regarding the economy, the biggest thing he has in his favor is that people don't look beyond the simple headlines. They'll hear about the low unemployment rate before the virus hit, but they don't know about the hyper-Keynesian spending that got us there, or the fact that the NY Fed STILL had to pour $1.4T into short term credit markets to grease the system, or the fact that bond yields (the bond market's view of the economy) had crashed by 60%, or that we had been in a prolonged manufacturing recession, or that the 2.1% GDP rate we were at when the virus hit was not worth what we were paying for it.

Peoples eyes glaze over when you dig that deep into the weeds...Right or wrong, people are more like myself, in the sense that what they do is ask themselves was my situation better 5 yrs ago, or today....And, I believe that answer is clear.

You believe we will be better off with 30 trillion in debt? If so, why not just make it 70 trillion?

democrats are trying.

Yeah, trying to turn America into Venezuela.

Without the ability to simply create money out of nothing we are already there. It's not going to last forever.

We do that now! Obama did that, like Bush before him, and Clinton before him...Where you been?

I said they didn't?

Did you not type this:

" It's why we will soon be 30 trillion in debt. That is not going to end well. "

Trying to make everyone believe that the increase in debt was all on Trump? Or, that you're even worried about the rising debt? Spare me.

It's your guilty conscience telling you this. This debt far preceded Trump. There is no question he has taken it to another level despite his claims that balancing the budget would be easy though.

How has he, Trump, "taken it to another level"? Please explain....

 

[pknopp]

He can only lie about China but unfortunately voters accept lies for some odd reason. Both sides will do this.

And regarding the economy, the biggest thing he has in his favor is that people don't look beyond the simple headlines. They'll hear about the low unemployment rate before the virus hit, but they don't know about the hyper-Keynesian spending that got us there, or the fact that the NY Fed STILL had to pour $1.4T into short term credit markets to grease the system, or the fact that bond yields (the bond market's view of the economy) had crashed by 60%, or that we had been in a prolonged manufacturing recession, or that the 2.1% GDP rate we were at when the virus hit was not worth what we were paying for it.

Peoples eyes glaze over when you dig that deep into the weeds...Right or wrong, people are more like myself, in the sense that what they do is ask themselves was my situation better 5 yrs ago, or today....And, I believe that answer is clear.

You believe we will be better off with 30 trillion in debt? If so, why not just make it 70 trillion?

democrats are trying.

Yeah, trying to turn America into Venezuela.

Without the ability to simply create money out of nothing we are already there. It's not going to last forever.

We do that now! Obama did that, like Bush before him, and Clinton before him...Where you been?

I said they didn't?

Did you not type this:

" It's why we will soon be 30 trillion in debt. That is not going to end well. "

Trying to make everyone believe that the increase in debt was all on Trump? Or, that you're even worried about the rising debt? Spare me.

It's your guilty conscience telling you this. This debt far preceded Trump. There is no question he has taken it to another level despite his claims that balancing the budget would be easy though.

How has he, Trump, "taken it to another level"? Please explain....

Please.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[pknopp]

Doh. Those darn tariffs are really hurting them.

China’s Economy Is Bouncing Back—And Gaining Ground on the U.S.