Schizophrenia of Trump's campaigning
#1
Has anyone noticed that the Trump/the Trump campaign is (metaphorically) schizophrenic? For example:

Trump claims that Joe Biden and Democrats were too tough on crime on one day but on the other days that they are too soft on crime. 
One day Trump Tweets about how Blacks should vote for him but on another day he blows racial dog whistles about low-income housing in the suburbs.

I guess it is mainly confined to Trump's divided loyalties to working-class whites and the elusive blacks willing to vote for him. In other candidates, the change would be over the long term and would be concrete (aka "flip flops") but Trump changes by the day and goes back and forth.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bombero's post:
  • Melkite
Reply
#2
Quote:Trump claims that Joe Biden and Democrats were too tough on crime on one day but on the other days that they are too soft on crime.

One day Trump Tweets about how Blacks should vote for him but on another day he blows racial dog whistles about low-income housing in the suburbs.
  
One can be "too hard on crime" in one sense (e.g., prison sentences for possession of cannabis, three strikes you're out no matter what the strikes are, etc.) and "too soft on crime" in others (e.g., Soros's district attorneys' unwillingness to prosecute rioters). 

There's nothing inherently racial about thinking it unwise to push subsidized housing in established suburbs. People of all races get subsidized housing.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 3 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • antiquarian, austenbosten, Orthodox Andy
Reply
#3
(10-15-2020, 03:37 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:Trump claims that Joe Biden and Democrats were too tough on crime on one day but on the other days that they are too soft on crime.

One day Trump Tweets about how Blacks should vote for him but on another day he blows racial dog whistles about low-income housing in the suburbs.
  
One can be "too hard on crime" in one sense (e.g., prison sentences for possession of cannabis, three strikes you're out no matter what the strikes are, etc.) and "too soft on crime" in others (e.g., Soros's district attorneys' unwillingness to prosecute rioters). 

There's nothing inherently racial about thinking it unwise to push subsidized housing in established suburbs. People of all races get subsidized housing.

Whaaaa!  You're a Trump worshipper!!!  Whaaaaa!

Orange Man Bad!  Orange Man Bad!

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3DApi&f=1]
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#4
Where did Trump's campaign say Biden was "tough on crime?"
--BobCatholic 
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!
 
Reply
#5
(10-15-2020, 03:37 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:Trump claims that Joe Biden and Democrats were too tough on crime on one day but on the other days that they are too soft on crime.

One day Trump Tweets about how Blacks should vote for him but on another day he blows racial dog whistles about low-income housing in the suburbs.
  
One can be "too hard on crime" in one sense (e.g., prison sentences for possession of cannabis, three strikes you're out no matter what the strikes are, etc.) and "too soft on crime" in others (e.g., Soros's district attorneys' unwillingness to prosecute rioters). 

There's nothing inherently racial about thinking it unwise to push subsidized housing in established suburbs. People of all races get subsidized housing.

Housing assitance is disproporationally used by non-whites. Why do you think Obama's HUD tried to put those on assistance into white neighborhoods? Why would Trump supporters not like that? No need to pretend here.

(10-15-2020, 10:10 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(10-15-2020, 03:37 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:Trump claims that Joe Biden and Democrats were too tough on crime on one day but on the other days that they are too soft on crime.

One day Trump Tweets about how Blacks should vote for him but on another day he blows racial dog whistles about low-income housing in the suburbs.
  
One can be "too hard on crime" in one sense (e.g., prison sentences for possession of cannabis, three strikes you're out no matter what the strikes are, etc.) and "too soft on crime" in others (e.g., Soros's district attorneys' unwillingness to prosecute rioters). 

There's nothing inherently racial about thinking it unwise to push subsidized housing in established suburbs. People of all races get subsidized housing.

Whaaaa!  You're a Trump worshipper!!!  Whaaaaa!

Orange Man Bad!  Orange Man Bad!

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3DApi&f=1]

Where did you get this pic of you on election night 2020?

(10-15-2020, 11:20 AM)BobCatholic Wrote: Where did Trump's campaign say Biden was "tough on crime?"

I said "too tough on crime". Trump and his campaign didn't use those words but it implied that "Democrats are the real racists" for pushing/agreeing with "tough on crime" measures of the 80s and 90s.
Reply
#6
(10-15-2020, 08:05 PM)Bombero Wrote: Where did you get this pic of you on election night 2020?

If Trump loses, we will both be poor and persecuted, so while you may have bragging rights the day following the election...you will still end up in the same boat as me.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • antiquarian, Jacobite
Reply
#7
(10-15-2020, 08:46 PM)austenbosten Wrote: If Trump loses, we will both be poor and persecuted, so while you may have bragging rights the day following the election...you will still end up in the same boat as me.

I'm not rich, so Trump's loss wouldn't be my loss, economically speaking. How will Biden be any different socially? Trump has enacted executeive gun control and appointed pro-LGBT justices to the Supreme Court.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bombero's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#8
(10-16-2020, 01:00 AM)Bombero Wrote:
(10-15-2020, 08:46 PM)austenbosten Wrote: If Trump loses, we will both be poor and persecuted, so while you may have bragging rights the day following the election...you will still end up in the same boat as me.

I'm not rich, so Trump's loss wouldn't be my loss, economically speaking. How will Biden be any different socially? Trump has enacted executeive gun control and appointed pro-LGBT justices to the Supreme Court.
I don't know, losing that Child Tax credit is going to hurt a bit
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"[T]he Church is putting off it's medieval character as the mother of nations, returning again into its primitive condition as a society of members scattered among the peoples and cities of the world." - Cardinal Manning, Present Crisis of the Holy See (1861)

"At the behest of the two-horned beast looking 'like a lamb', but who 'speaks as a dragon' (Apo. 13:11), the partisans of Barabbas are now closing in for the kill by democratizing the Church herself." - Solange Hertz
Reply
#9
(10-16-2020, 01:00 AM)Bombero Wrote: I'm not rich, so Trump's loss wouldn't be my loss, economically speaking. How will Biden be any different socially? Trump has enacted executeive gun control and appointed pro-LGBT justices to the Supreme Court.

I'm going to actually try and restrain myself because what you posted I find simply ludicrous.

If you cannot distinguish between Trump's Bump Stock bans (which I approve of btw because they were invented to circumvent NFA) and Biden's proposed universal background checks (aka Whitey can't own a gun), regulating the sale of firearms to 1 per month, banning all online sales of firearms and ammo, and banning "assault rifles"...then you really shouldn't be voting in this election until you are more informed.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Jacobite
Reply
#10
(10-16-2020, 09:00 AM)Augustinian Wrote: I don't know, losing that Child Tax credit is going to hurt a bit

What are you referring to? Did Trump or Biden promise to end it?


(10-16-2020, 02:01 PM)austenbosten Wrote: If you cannot distinguish between Trump's Bump Stock bans (which I approve of btw because they were invented to circumvent NFA) and Biden's proposed universal background checks (aka Whitey can't own a gun), regulating the sale of firearms to 1 per month, banning all online sales of firearms and ammo, and banning "assault rifles"...then you really shouldn't be voting in this election until you are more informed.

First, the fact that you approve of executive gun control shows that you are drunk on Trump Kool-Aid. Had Obama or President Hillary Clinton done this, you would have been outraged and we would have (rightly) never heard the end of it. But since Trump did it, you rationalize it using your faulty liberal logic: "because they were invented to circumvent NFA". That doesn't matter. The fact is that it did not meet the legal criteria for NFA. The honest approach would have been to have Congress amend the NFA to close the loophole so that it covers bump stocks but you, like most liberals, know that you can't get it done via legislation and rely on executive action and cross your fingers that the courts will allow it. Which brings me to how can you complain about gun ctonrol when you support the National Firerms Act? You must be one of those "lifelong Republican" Baby Boomers who think that guns should be used for hunting only.

Second, Biden's proposals are just that...proposals. As you should know, but probably don't, most of Trump's proposals made before his election have not occured. Why? Because for better or for worse, Congress is so partisan that they can rarely agree on anything, left or right. Look at Obama's promises. He didn't get most passed and some that he did have been undone or will be undone.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bombero's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)