lol responsible harm reduction would be - don't do dangerous drugs at all.It actually really responsible harm reduction.
We can't trust the polls at all. We don't know who is ahead or by how much and anything can change until then. I do agree it is his election to lose.I mean, this election is really his to lose. He has a more passionate base, he beat Mueller, Democrats are self destructing ... shit. If he would have just controlled himself a little , he could be ahead 15 points right now.
Indeed they're petrified of the chaos caused by leftist protesters and may stay home for their own safety (would that be classified as terrorism?)But the people in the suburbs , especially the women, are just not going to show up for him. They're tired of the chaos.
Demented normalcy?maybe the Dems made a smart move betting this would be a return to normalcy election.
Except what's taking us is the earth cooling right now and that's about to be a rude shock for a lot of people.People just want to switch off and let global warming take us.
How Trump Can Weaponize the DACA Decision and Cut Taxes | Opinion
Emphasis is mine....
Thanks to the Supreme Court, however, Trump could do more. Under the Court's decision upholding the Obama administration's deferred immigration programs last week, Trump could unilaterally cut income taxes by 50 percent, accelerate infrastructure projects and cut red tape for starting new businesses. He could create a "recovery permit" that would give businesses the right to sidestep agency red tape, burdensome environmental regulations and onerous obstacles to opening new enterprises.
According to Regents, presidents can now stop enforcing laws they dislike, hand out permits or benefits that run contrary to acts of Congress and prevent their successors from repealing their policies for several years. This gives Trump the opportunity to jump-start an economic recovery by declining to enforce the tax laws and economic regulations—shall we call it an economic deferred action program, EDAP? Just as Obama refused to enforce the immigration laws, Trump can decline to fully enforce the tax laws. While Obama offered humanitarian reasons for helping the DREAM-ers, Trump could argue that he is helping the poorest Americans, those hardest hit by the COVID economic collapse, and that he is accelerating an economic recovery from the pandemic shutdowns.
Tax cuts would provide an enormous boost to the economy, far greater than the proposals kicking around Congress, such as temporarily suspending the payroll tax or extending unemployment insurance. Rather than keep the unemployed on public assistance, it could give them the incentive to work and keep more of their own pay. The prospect of reaping more of the benefits of their own risk-taking and entrepreneurship would encourage the middle class to start opening more small businesses. A unilateral tax cut favoring the poor would answer attacks on Trump that he does not care about minorities or the inner cities. Cutting taxes to zero for the poor could provide the most immediate, direct financial boost for minorities hit hardest by the pandemic.
Trump could go even farther to restart the economy. If he wants to boost infrastructure spending, he could issue permits allowing federally financed or regulated construction projects to go forward. He could waive all federal requirements for approval, such as the years required to go through environmental reviews, and suspend conditions that drive up the costs of construction projects (such as the Davis-Bacon Act, which require federal projects to pay high union wages). All it requires is for the president to defer action under environmental laws, permitting regulations and other excessive federal laws.
Critics would say that this economic deferred action program would violate the law, because the president would not be fulfilling his responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But, according to the Supreme Court's DACA opinion, presidents now can use their prosecutorial discretion to set the enforcement level for any federal law at zero.
If Trump wins re-election this November, the tax cuts and recovery permits could remain good for the next five years. Even if Joe Biden wins, the Court's decision means that it could well take at least two years for his administration to repeal the Trump program. In the meantime, the poorest Americans will have more money in their pockets to save and spend and more American businesses can get back to work faster.
I can, have you seen that sexy man? He’s all painted gold and had a big bank account and mushroom shaped cloud. Plus, have you seen The Apprentice? Brilliance! He also only dates the highest class of women.But seriously, I'm amazed any women actually support trump.
After a rather telling interview with the New York Times, it was revealed that both past and present Republican lawmakers are and have been so deeply under the thumb of Donald Trump that they have virtually no choice but to go along with whatever hair-brained, manic, and unhinged policy Trump has laid on the table that day — or face his ire and consider an early retirement.
Per the Times report, “Just under four years after he began his takeover of a party to which he had little connection, Mr. Trump enters 2020 burdened with the ignominy of being the first sitting president to seek re-election after being impeached,” continuing, “But he does so wearing a political coat of armor built on total loyalty from G.O.P. activists and their representatives in Congress. If he does not enjoy the broad admiration Republicans afforded Ronald Reagan, he is more feared by his party’s lawmakers than any occupant of the Oval Office since at least Lyndon Johnson.”
One former GOP lawmaker admitted that he was personally faced with the quandary of bucking Donald Trump back in 2017 and knew full well the consequences he would face if he decided to do so.
“By the summer of 2017, Dave Trott, a two-term Republican congressman, was worried enough about President Trump’s erratic behavior and his flailing attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act that he criticized the president in a closed-door meeting with fellow G.O.P. lawmakers,” the report reads. “The response was instantaneous — but had nothing to do with the substance of Mr. Trott’s concerns. ‘Dave, you need to know somebody has already told the White House what you said,’ he recalled a colleague telling him. ‘Be ready for a barrage of tweets.'”
The ex-lawmaker revealed that he chose not to run for reelection, explaining, “If I was still there and speaking out against the president, what would happen to me?”
Trott is far from the only GOP lawmaker who has faced the nearly impossible conundrum of being a Republican who doesn’t agree with Donald Trump.
“Interviews with current and former Republican lawmakers as well as party strategists, many of whom requested anonymity so as not to publicly cross the president, suggest that many elected officials are effectively faced with two choices. They can vote with their feet by retiring — and a remarkable 40 percent of Republican members of Congress have done so or have been defeated at the ballot box since Mr. Trump took office,” the Times notes in their report. “Or they can mute their criticism of him. All the incentives that shape political behavior — with voters, donors and the news media — compel Republicans to bow to Mr. Trump if they want to survive.”
Trott feels far more comfortable with expressing his criticism of number 45 now that he’s no longer under Trump’s thumb in such a way, stating, “Trump is emotionally, intellectually and psychologically unfit for office, and I’m sure a lot of Republicans feel the same way. But if they say that, the social media barrage will be overwhelming.”
Former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) was quick to concur that the fear of Trump’s fury provides an undeniable opening for those challenging the GOP.
“The greatest fear any member of Congress has these days is losing a primary,” he clarified. “That’s the foremost motivator.”
The report went on to state, “The incentive to show fealty to Mr. Trump has become evident to the Club for Growth, a fiscal conservative group that was made famous for its willingness to tangle with Republican leaders and was hostile to Mr. Trump in 2016.”
Group President David McIntosh admitted, “Poll after poll showed us that Republican primary voters wanted their nominees to support President Trump, so in order to make sure they were viable and would get re-elected, they ended up being supporters of his.”
These fleeing GOP members are joined by retiring GOP lawmaker Francis Rooney of Florida who revealed to the Times, “Public officials need to be held accountable, and I don’t think any governmental system works well with blind loyalty without reason.”
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Donald’s “supporters” are not so much actually loyal supporters as they are terrified human beings worried sick about the destruction of their career.
However, the time has come where morals have to come first. Silence in complacence. Careers be damned.
You can read the full report here.