THE ERA OF TRUMP

[StCapps]

Scott Adams, who I find tiring to listen to says Trump was masterful with this messaging

Scott Adams called the whole mess a checkmate for Trump. The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four “progressives,” but now they are forced to embrace them. That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!

I was just thinking that same thing this morning on the way to work. Right after the newbies called Pelosi racist, and they looked to be trying to silence them, in comes Trump and gets the old Democrat guard to defend the newbies who they were just days ago telling to stand down.

He is playing them and the media yet again. Trump may love the attention, but the media keeps falling for the traps and giving him more of what he wants.

They can't help it, Trump can even tell him he is doing it, and that only makes them double down even more, he's next level.

[PartyOf5]

ok but was telling them to go back to their home countries or whatever the most effective way to achieve that goal?

It was a poor choice in messaging. He should have told them to go back and fix their own districts instead of implying they should go back to other countries. Only 1 of that group is an immigrant where that line would even apply.

[StCapps]

ok but was telling them to go back to their home countries or whatever the most effective way to achieve that goal?

It was a poor choice in messaging. He should have told them to go back and fix their own districts instead of implying they should go back to other countries. Only 1 of that group is an immigrant where that line would even apply.

It was great choice in messaging, he wanted to trigger the Democrats who were attacking AOC and Omar into defending them publicly and passionately, being more tame is less triggering, being provocative is more triggering. Mission Accomplished.

[pineapplemike]

they're already triggered, a tame provocation would trigger them plenty

+1 partyof5

[StCapps]

they're already triggered, a tame provocation would trigger them plenty

+1 partyof5

Not enough for the desired effect. He need them to do it with more passion than they were attacking AOC with, so that the defense of her sticks more in their minds than the attacks. Tame is not Trump's brand, being tame might have allowed them to see the trick and temper their response. Mission Accomplished.

[Fife]

[StCapps]

That was the exact reaction Trump was looking for.

[PartyOf5]

CNN and the others should be thanking Trump. He has been the only thing keeping their ratings from tanking even faster.

[C-Mag]

Just how would signing and ratifying the Paris Accords have been detrimental to US sovereignty? Who do you imagine you would have been given more control over the US to? Who would have gained sovereignty over you if you'd ratified it?

Heritage did a good piece on it back in the day
https://www.heritage.org/testimony/pari ... al-america

I'm against foreign entanglements for the US. This is one we could easily get out of and I'm glad for it. Others I'd like to get out of are far more sticky, like the UN and NATO.

Doesn't answer my question, really. A treaty isn't equal to a surrender of national sovereignty. When you and the Soviets made those old nuclear proliferation treaties you didn't hand over sovereignty to the Soviets.

That lengthy article did not answer the question of how the Paris Agreement infringes on US sovereignty ? I think it more than answered your original question of 'detrimental to US sovereignty' not surrender of national sovereignty as you state now.

Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory.

[BjornP]

Heritage did a good piece on it back in the day
https://www.heritage.org/testimony/pari ... al-america

I'm against foreign entanglements for the US. This is one we could easily get out of and I'm glad for it. Others I'd like to get out of are far more sticky, like the UN and NATO.

Doesn't answer my question, really. A treaty isn't equal to a surrender of national sovereignty. When you and the Soviets made those old nuclear proliferation treaties you didn't hand over sovereignty to the Soviets.

That lengthy article did not answer the question of how the Paris Agreement infringes on US sovereignty ? I think it more than answered your original question of 'detrimental to US sovereignty' not surrender of national sovereignty as you state now.

Second, let's keep in mind this is all based and promoted on the back of Athropogenic Global Warming. A flawed and unproven theory.

Not even detrimental. And there's nothing in the article about national sovereignty, Carlus. He complained, quite rightly I think, that there should have been greater congressional approval of such a treaty. That's how you ensure international and bilateral treaties have a long life, after all. However, even if Obama signed the treaty without congressional approval, he still signed it as the elected and legitimate head of state and government of the United States of America. You didn't lose your sovereignty because he signed the Paris Accord.