Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump has an extensive track record of name-calling and othering, and the 2020 presidential election season has provided no exception. His portrayal of Democractic candidate Joe Biden as a radical leftist, among other things, has made this more and more clear as election day draws nearer.

Not only is this classification of his opponent utterly untrue, but a reliance on this sort of rhetoric should be considered a major weakness in Trumps campaign; its use to further divide Americans ultimately demonstrates his incompetence as president and as a candidate for reelection.

While it is stated on Bidens campaign website that he supports the expansion of new clean-energy technologies, recommitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change and conserving 30% of Americas lands and waters by 2030, he said during the 2020 presidential debate that he does not support the more liberal Green New Deal.

While he supports the ban of assault and high-capacity magazines, regulation of existing assault weapons and the reduction of stockpiled weapons, he does not go as far as saying that the Second Amendment should be repealed, the most extreme form of gun control.

While he supports a free two years of community college, tuition-free four-year public colleges and universities for all students with household incomes less than $125,000 and student debt relief, he does not believe that public colleges and universities should be completely tuition free and that all student debt should be cancelled like democratic-socalist Bernie Sanders.

These are only a few issues that illustrate Bidens overall moderate democratic stance, but they aid in showing that Trumps claims about his opponent being a radical leftist are simply untrue they might as well be added to his long-running list of false or misleading claims.

In addition to being dishonest, the sheer amount of time Trump has committed to making these sorts of claims is a glaring weakness in his campaign, given that they take away from talk of actual policy. Dedicating so much breath on scorning and obfuscating his opponent instead of highlighting his own beliefs and politics should be a very concerning point for voters.

For instance, in his GOP acceptance speech on Aug. 27, Trump mentioned Bidens name 44 times. Biden did not once reference Trump by name in his speech at the Democratic convention a week earlier.

How can voters really know who they are voting for when a candidate is running a campaign that is so reliant on diverting the focus onto someone else?

A large portion of that speech was devoted to all the ways in which Biden would be, in the words of Trump, the destroyer of American greatness if elected. This was a cultivation of negative partisanship, or voters who are motivated to vote by their fears of the bad things the opposition party will do then they are the good things they hope their party will do as defined by Eric Black of MinnPost.

Trump used this same strategy in 2016 when running against Hillary Clinton. He portrayed her as an ethically compromised, out-of-touch establishment figure, according to Holly Otterbein and Alex Isenstadt of Politico. And it obviously worked.

Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster cited a rise in negative partisanship and its prevalence as a driving force behind votes in their study Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans. They wrote that it is likely that this new style of partisan behavior has led to a series of deleterious consequences for governance and representation, including citizens loss of trust in their governing institutions.

Further, Jennifer McCoy, Tahmina Rahman and Murat Somer found that people are more likely to accept illiberal measures like restricting freedom of expression or using force against political opponents when they see leaders and supporters of the other party as villains who are out to cause harm to their nation.

Trumps rhetoric of Biden, and many others for that matter, has done just that: He is the destroyer of Americas jobs and, we have spent the last four years reversing the damage Joe Biden inflicted over the last 47 years are just two ways in his 2020 GOP acceptance speech that Trump attempted to illustrate Biden as a sort of evildoer to his listeners.

Theres certain irony in portraying ones opposing candidate as evil when that portrayal has been found to cause rifts in democracy. Especially when misinformation is an added component. Presidential candidates should be strategic, but opting for a strategy that causes deleterious consequences and encourages people to tolerate illiberal measures is unacceptable.

Casting an opponent in an untrue light while compromising the opportunity to express ones own beliefs should not be the norm of American politics. A presidential candidate should make clear what they plan to do if elected to the office, not hide behind a shield they created out of another candidate. They should aim at unifying a nation, not at actively creating mistrust and polarizing two sides for their benefit.

Call me an idealist, but I believe America can do better than a leader chosen out of fear for the other.

Haley is a senior studying Journalism, with a certificate in French. What are your thoughts on Trumps strategy? Do you think negative partisanship is harmful? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.

Go here to see the original:
Evil constructing evil: Trump's exploitation of negative partisanship - Daily Cardinal

State Rep. Robert Sutherland, R-Granite Falls, faces Claus Joens in the race to represent the 39th Legislative District in the state House. The district includes eastern Skagit and Snohomish counties and northeastern King County.

Sutherland was elected to the position in 2018 and is running for a second, two-year term.

Joens, a Democrat who resides in Marblemount, hopes to unseat Sutherland.

"I will do a better job than Sutherland has," he said in a statement to the Skagit Valley Herald. "As both a businessman and a teacher, I understand how budgets work, and education is our largest budget item."

Joens said additional strengths he would bring to the table include connections with agriculture having grown up on a small farm and the environment.

Sutherland on the other hand said in a statement to the Skagit Valley Herald that key issues he and Joens disagree on include rights to gather peacefully, gun rights, property taxes, and transportation taxes and fees.

"We need to strengthen, not weaken, our Constitutionally-protected rights," Sutherland said.

Joens said as someone who hunts and has a concealed carry permit he supports the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

"But I do not threaten people with loaded guns," he said, later referencing news reports of Sutherland toting guns and making threats at protest events in April and June.

The Seattle Times reported that at an April protest in Olympia against Gov. Jay Inslee's COVID-19 stay-at-home measures, Sutherland took a microphone and told the crowd: When we go fishing, theyre going to send their guys with guns, and theyre going to write us tickets ... You send your goons with guns, we will defend ourselves.

As for taxes, Sutherland said he has a plan to do away with a state property tax that brings in about $3.7 billion a year. A bill he sponsored House Bill 2960, introduced to the Legislature in March states it would eliminate that tax, which is collected to support public schools, over a four-year period.

Joens said that tax, collected at a rate of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value, is critical to supporting public schools the state already struggles to adequately fund.

Follow this link:
Sutherland facing challenge from Joens in the 39th - goskagit.com

Lansing Jeff and Sheila Humphrey of Burton stood in the rotunda of the Michigan Capitol Thursday, gazing up at the inner dome more than 100 feet above them. It was their first time inside the building. They carried AR-15 firearms.

"The most beautiful building I've ever seen," Jeff Humphrey, 50, said.

They visited Lansing as part of the "Second Amendment March," in which participants many of whom openly carried weapons gathered to celebrate their right to bear arms. The event occurred as a heated debate flared on in Michigan over whether to continue allowing guns in the Capitol building.

Militia members listen to a speaker. Gun rights advocates rally for the Second Amendment March at the Capitol Building in Lansing, Michigan on September 17, 2020.(Photo: Chris duMond, Special to the Detroit News)

"I don't see any problem with any gun being in this building," Jeff Humphrey contended. "Everything is done by a person's intentions. So if you blame a person before they've done anything ... what's the point of having any rights?"

"It's not so much the guns that are killing people. It's the people who are killing people," Sheila Humphrey, 51, added.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Thursday's Second Amendment March drew an estimated crowd of more than 200 people, including some militia members and supporters of the right-wing Proud Boys.

Similar rallies are held every year at the Capitol. However, this one occurred as the Michigan Capitol Commission continues to consider whether to limit firearms inside the building.

On Monday, the six-member commission rejected one proposal to generally ban guns and another to limit only the open carry of weapons. However, the panel, which is usually in charge of maintaining the Capitol grounds, plans to continue considering the matter, including meeting with the leaders of the Michigan House and Senate.

Commission member Joan Bauer, a former Democratic lawmaker from Lansing, has contendedthe commission has a "moral and legal responsibility to act before something terrible happens."

The discussion was spurred by an April 30 rally at the Capitol against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders. During the protest, dozens of people some of whom carried firearms ventured inside the Capitol building demanding entry into the House chamber. Michigan State Police troopers stood in a line blocking the protesters, who chanted, "Let us in."

Some protesters with firearms also went to the Senate gallery, which was open to the public and where demonstrators occasionally shouted down at lawmakers as they were in session.

Founder of the 2nd Amendment March, Skip Coryell, addresses the crowd. Gun rights advocates rally for the Second Amendment March at the Capitol Building in Lansing, Michigan on September 17, 2020.(Photo: Chris duMond, Special to the Detroit News)

"Its been four months since armed gunmen stood above elected officials while they worked," the Michigan Senate Democrats' official Twitter account posted this week. "Legislators, staff, children & teachers shouldn't have to fear guns in the Capitol."

But participants in the Second Amendment March disagreed Thursday. Phil Robinson of Michigan Liberty Militia said a ban would infringe on people's constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"This is my house," Robinson said gesturing toward the Capitol building. "I make the rules here, not them ... We have every right to be in that building with our guns."

Jack Griffes of Lenawee County held a sign at the event that said, "Gun control kills kids." Griffes said the Michigan Constitution is clear that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. Banning guns in the Capitol would go against that, he said.

"They obviously can't make laws that are against the Constitution," Griffes said. "The only way that they could do that legally is by amending the Constitution."

Douglas Fell, 33, of Mount Clemens, walked around the ground floor of the Capitol on Thursday as the rally took place outside. He carried an AR-15.

Asked why guns should be allowed in the Capitol, he gestured toward a Michigan State Police trooper who had walked by.

"He's doing it," Fell said. "Why can he and I can't?"

cmauger@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/17/second-amendment-advocates-march-keep-guns-michigan-capitol/3481252001/

Read more:
Second Amendment advocates march to keep guns in Michigan Capitol - The Detroit News

Beyond the presidential and congressional candidates whose names will appear on ballots this year, there are two state constitutional amendments to vote on, as well. The first has been nearly 20 years in the making and it could reshape voting for the next decade.

The amendment to Virginias constitution could create a nonpartisan commission to draft new voting district maps based on 2020 census data. The need, advocates say, stems from the states legislative body tending to draw unfair maps designed to push out or keep in various voter demographics, keeping some legislators safely in their seats.

We deserve to have voting districts that reflect our communities and allow voters to make the decision on who represents them, said Brian Cannon, director of OneVirginia2021, an advocacy group that lobbied for the amendment. The current system is unfair because it robs voters of that choice and creates districts that reflect some incumbent politicians re-election strategy. This carves up our communities and insulates legislators from the will of the people.

The amendment, if passed, would create a commission will:

If the process fails to reach a consensus, the Supreme Court of Virginia would then assume control and draw the lines.

Designed to be as nonpartisan as possible, the proposed commission aims to create fairer maps that are more representative of communities across the state. Cannon said that once established, the commissions work will take place from January to March of next year to create district maps for both the states general assembly and its congressional districts that represent Virginia at the federal level.

Having ultimately garnered bipartisan support from current legislators, the efforts have been nearly 20 years in the making with republicans and democrats alike balking at various ideas to redraw voting maps.

After a previous decade of advocacy leading up to it, a 2011 commission from former governor Robert McDonell yielded recommendations that the general assembly discarded.

In older days we fought with fists and swords. Today we fight with computer programs that can allow us to draw a house out of a district, said Quentin Kidd, dean of Christopher Newport Universitys College of Social Sciences and director of the Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy. So much information about voters can be used to draw a house out of a district. Its the power of information that has made redistricting so much more lethal.

In a once republican-majority legislature, there was a strong push by democrats for redistricting that has somewhat cooled. Some recent hesitancy surrounding the amendment stems in the democratic party due to the fact that if the commission fails to produce maps, responsibility shifts to the supreme court of the state.

Kidd said more progressive democrats are leery of the possibility of the maps going to the Supreme court because the court has largely been appointed by republicans over the years.

Cannon critiques the current court for being too deferential to the legislature but said the members are not party hacks.

Cannon notes recent cases that have run through the supreme court of Virginia that democrats would favor, such as upholding restrictions during the Second Amendment rally in Jan. 2020, Richmond Mayor Levar Stoneys removal of Confederate statues, and the extension of eviction moratorium during the pandemic.

None of us will know until something happens, but the broad structure of the reform could work really well, Kidd said. Presumably, those citizens [on the commission] are not going to have the same incentives to draw partisan maps like an elected official would.

Ultimately, Kidd is more hopeful of the amendment for its impact on redistricting reform for its enhanced transparency.

Our biggest obstacle is the I dont know vote, Cannon said. If we tell them what this amendment does, we win.

See original here:
What you need to know about the first of two constitutional amendments on this year's ballot - Charlottesville Tomorrow

President Trump: If I Wasn't Here You Would not Have a Second Amendment Right Now

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On 9 September 2020 in an interview on the Shawn Hannity show on Fox news.com, President Trump made a bold assertion. He said if he were not in the office, the Second Amendment would have become essentially meaningless, because of the different judges who would have been appointed. From the transcript:

And also, Supreme Court judges or justices.

And you the whole country, it depends on these decisions, which way you go, whether you have a Second Amendment or not. I mean, the Second Amendment would be under siege.

If I wasn't here, you wouldn't have a Second Amendment right now. You wouldn't have a right to guns. You would whether you had it or it was just almost totally obliterated, but it would be in a very different form than you have right now.

I've kept it totally as it was, and it's, you know, something I'm very proud of, and people I think it's a real voting issue, Second Amendment.

Life, you look at that. So these judges are going to be making massive decisions. And the next president is going to get one, two, three, or four justices of the Supreme Court.

The President is correct in his statement. If Hillary would have become President, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights would have been interpreted out of any significance. We already have several circuit courts who are working hard to interpret the Second Amendment as of little consequence. If a President Hillary would have appointed replacements for Justice Scalia and Kennedy, the ten Second Amendment cases the Supreme Court has refused to hear, would have been granted writs of certiorari at the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters would not have liked the results.

Very likely, the Supreme Court would have confirmed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home; that bans on semi-automatic rifles are permissible; that ammunition bans are permissible; that bans on magazines are permissible; that not all commonly available handguns are protected by the Second Amendment, or, they may be covered by the Second Amendment, but the state can still regulate them out of existence.

The ban on butterfly knives in a Hawaii District Court, or the ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, are templates for that interpretation of a toothless Second Amendment.

President Trump has appointed about 200 judges to the lower federal courts. Without Trump appointees, it is likely the three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit would have held the California magazine ban to be constitutional.

President Trump has appointed ten judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges.

President Trump is correct in saying that next to war and peace, the appointment of federal judges is the most consequential act a president can perform. President Trump has been appointing judges who respect the Constitution as written.

President Trump has done better in this regard than any other president since Calvin Coolidge. It is one of the reasons the Left in this country fear him so much. The judges he is appointing are showing a willingness to reverse decades of unconstitutional decisions by Progressive judges who have worked hard to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read the rest here:
President Trump: If I Wasn't Here You Would not Have a Second Amendment Right Now - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News