The Trump Presidency

[jfb]

I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders, and I honestly don't understand why. He would benefit the vast majority of Americans (if he got his way, at least) but for some reason people want to protect billionaires while they funnel more and more money out of your bank accounts and into theirs. I would fight to protect the healthcare system we have in Canada, and can't imagine having to choose between dying or going bankrupt from hospital bills.

I won't deny that most news organizations have gone out of their way to paint Bernie in a negative light, but frankly they haven't had to work that hard.  He's a crank.  He only joined the Democratic party to run for President. 

He is the one candidate that is truly left-wing - maybe not "seize the means of production" left, but not that far removed.  While plenty of Americans (including myself) would like to see a stronger welfare state, stronger consumer protections (in health care and insurance as well as products), stronger financial regulation, etc., we're not quite willing to go the full socialist.  He has spoken favorably of the old Soviet Union in the past. 

And he's making promises he knows he can't keep - he's pulling a Trump, but with socialist-curious Millenials instead of aging racist shitheads.  And from what I can tell he's all for even further expanding Executive power, which even I, big-gummint Democrat I am, strongly oppose.  The Executive is already too goddamned powerful. 

Not that any of the Dem candidates are any better in that specific respect. 

I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.

I don't want an "exciting" President.  I don't want a President who's in the news every goddamned day for saying or doing something stupid.  I want a President who's competent, picks competent people to run the various departments, and basically just does the job. 

And the best way to avoid 4 years of Hunterghazi is to keep the House and flip the Senate.  Which we need to do anyway because RBG isn't going to last another 4 years, and McConnell has proven he's perfectly willing to let a SCOTUS seat remain empty as long as it takes to get a Republican President. 

The Senate should be the focus of every American this election, not the White House. 

[LunarOrbit]

I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders...

I won't deny that most news organizations have gone out of their way to paint Bernie in a negative light, but frankly they haven't had to work that hard.

I think it goes beyond just Bernie. It seems like if you say the word "socialism" around some Americans they suffer anxiety attacks and don't sleep for a month. The wealthy have done an amazing job convincing people that it's in their best interests to let them hoard all the money.

If only people were as concerned about fascism... you probably wouldn't have President Trump.

He only joined the Democratic party to run for President.

I gotta admit, that always bothered me about him.

He is the one candidate that is truly left-wing - maybe not "seize the means of production" left, but not that far removed.

I wouldn't go that far. As far as I can tell, he's only talking about having the wealthy share more of the burden because they can.

He has spoken favorably of the old Soviet Union in the past.

Yeah, that's another thing that bothers me about him.

And he's making promises he knows he can't keep

Maybe, but if he raises awareness to the reality that the current system has become obscenely unfair then it might at least push things back in the right direction an inch or two.

I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.

I don't want an "exciting" President.  I don't want a President who's in the news every goddamned day for saying or doing something stupid.  I want a President who's competent, picks competent people to run the various departments, and basically just does the job. 

"Excite" might have been the wrong choice of words. I don't want to have to worry about the President of the USA starting an exciting nuclear war with Iran or North Korea. So yeah, boring can be good. But I would like to see some fresh ideas get implemented, rather than just reverting to the way things were done for decades because that's what Biden knows. The problems that we have today are partly due to politicians in the past who didn't do enough to avert them.

And the best way to avoid 4 years of Hunterghazi is to keep the House and flip the Senate.  Which we need to do anyway because RBG isn't going to last another 4 years, and McConnell has proven he's perfectly willing to let a SCOTUS seat remain empty as long as it takes to get a Republican President.

The Senate should be the focus of every American this election, not the White House. 

I definitely won't disagree with that.

[smartcooky]

I think it goes beyond just Bernie. It seems like if you say the word "socialism" around some Americans they suffer anxiety attacks and don't sleep for a month. The wealthy have done an amazing job convincing people that it's in their best interests to let them hoard all the money

Even worse, the average American not only has no idea what "socialism" actually is... (they see socialism and communism as two sides of the same coin) they actually don't realise that by the standards of the rest of the world, they choose every two years between two essentially right wing parties, Democrats (right of centre) and Republicans (further right of centre). Both the Dems and the GOP are further right than our centre-right National Party, and if you transposed our Labour Party into US Politics, they would be considered more extreme left wing than AOC. She would fit quite comfortably into the moderate wing of our Labour Party.

Just take a look at what happened in the aftermath of the Christchurch Mosque shootings. It just took one event like that for the Government to ban assault rifles within a few weeks. Done and dusted. Can you imagine any US Administration ever responding like that?

[Peter B]

Stupid Tuesday has come and gone, and we're basically down to Biden and Bernie. 

=sigh=

Some opinions from an outside observer:

I liked Kamala Harris a lot, and Elizabeth Warren too. It doesn't make sense that they received so little support. Of the remaining people running (last time I checked) I'd vote for Warren. I also liked Andrew Yang a lot. People didn't take him seriously, but he at least seems to be aware of what is coming our way economically.

I would have been okay with Pete Buttigieg too, but he became more and more moderate during the course of his campaign. He's young, so I think it makes more sense for him to run for Congress or as a Governor first anyway.

I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders, and I honestly don't understand why. He would benefit the vast majority of Americans (if he got his way, at least) but for some reason people want to protect billionaires while they funnel more and more money out of your bank accounts and into theirs. I would fight to protect the healthcare system we have in Canada, and can't imagine having to choose between dying or going bankrupt from hospital bills.

I think Michael Bloomberg is more interested in beating Bernie Sanders than he is in beating Trump. He just wants to protect his wealth and keep the trillion dollar tax break that Trump provided, so I can't take him seriously when he talks about things like fighting climate change. As far as billionaire politicians go, I liked Tom Steyer a whole lot more than Bloomberg.

I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.

The bolded section above reminds me of a quote attributed (I understand mistakenly) to John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." The USA is a society with among the lowest social mobility of any OECD country, and yet thanks to the success of the concept of the American Dream many Americans seem to see the wealthy as a group of people they are just one brilliant success away from joining.

And in that regard Hollywood has a lot to answer for - movies telling the success stories of the American Dream do well at the box office (think of "The Pursuit of Happyness", "Joy" or "The Blind Side") despite the rarity of such events.

Also, that attitude to the rich I think underpins some of Trump's attractiveness to white working class men who voted for him: they see much of themselves in him, and his success is something they can aspire to.

As for the various Democratic aspirants to the Presidential nomination - a lot of them have drawbacks of various sorts: age, inexperience, questionable pasts, questionable policies. As these shortcomings have been publicised during the Democratic debates they simply hand ammunition to Trump to use all over again in the Presidential election campaign.

With Biden looking increasingly likely to be the successful candidate, his choice of VP is going to be important. The upside is that if he wins the election he probably has a good pool of talent to choose his cabinet from. I'd also like to think that a couple of the unsuccessful candidates might like to exploit the publicity they've gained in the last couple of months to stand for Congress (if it's not too late for them to nominate), like Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro or Richard Ojeda.

But ultimately, if the Democrats are going to remain a strong party, it's going to take a heap of ordinary people to get involved in politics at all levels rather than sitting back and expressing their outrage via Twitter.

[LunarOrbit]

The bolded section above reminds me of a quote attributed (I understand mistakenly) to John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

I like that quote.

Also, that attitude to the rich I think underpins some of Trump's attractiveness to white working class men who voted for him: they see much of themselves in him, and his success is something they can aspire to.

Which is something I don't get. Trump didn't start out poor and become wealthy through hard work... he was born wealthy and through ineptitude has had to declare bankruptcy multiple times. He isn't a role model in any conceivable way.

As for the various Democratic aspirants to the Presidential nomination - a lot of them have drawbacks of various sorts: age, inexperience, questionable pasts, questionable policies. As these shortcomings have been publicised during the Democratic debates they simply hand ammunition to Trump to use all over again in the Presidential election campaign.

Age, inexperience, a questionable past, and questionable policies... Trump has all of those drawbacks too, so I can't see how attacking the Democratic candidate on those grounds would be a winning strategy for him. We now have a record of just how terrible President Trump has been, whereas in 2016 it was just speculation. The only people who will vote for Trump this time are people who are blinded by loyalty, hypocrites, and people who are as racist and morally corrupt as he is.

[gillianren]

My candidate of choice had been Elizabeth Warren, though I was frankly concerned about her age--I want a President considerably closer to my age; I'm 43, which is at the low end of eligibility, but I want a President below retirement age.  It's a stressful job, and I worry about someone in their 70s or 80s surviving a first term, let alone a second.

[LunarOrbit]

My candidate of choice had been Elizabeth Warren, though I was frankly concerned about her age--I want a President considerably closer to my age; I'm 43, which is at the low end of eligibility, but I want a President below retirement age.  It's a stressful job, and I worry about someone in their 70s or 80s surviving a first term, let alone a second.

She at least seems healthier than the guy that just had a heart attack 3 months ago.

[MBDK]

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.

Yeah, there are good people on both sides 

Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions.  That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law.  This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.

Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.

"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"

NOTE:  Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.

[MBDK]

Seriously.  If you're not here to defend Trump, you're doing an awfully good impersonation of someone who is.

List things he does that you disagree with. 

While I swear on a bible?  Sibrel would be proud of this copy-cat tactic.  Your request remains irrelevant to flaws I pointed out.

[MBDK]

MBDK, what do you think of the stable genius's latest claim about the COVID19 death rates? Apparently he knows more than the WHO.

My opinion on this sideline has not wavered since my original post on this topic:
"First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science"

Scientifically, evidence clearly shows he IS at least ignorant, if not WILLINGLY so.

[smartcooky]

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.

Yeah, there are good people on both sides 

Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions.  That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law.  This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.

Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.

"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"

NOTE:  Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.

My problem with you is that you seem to only  be interested in pointing out flawed conclusions on one side, those that show Trump in a bad light.

The only "galloping in their own closed loop" happening here is by you. I seems you are so biased towards Trump, you are unable to see how that bias looks when observed from the outside. You can only come out in support of him (and against his opponents) so many times before it becomes suspicious.


ETA: If you believe that Trump is a good guy, a law abiding citizen who has only ever surrounded himself with the best people, then I will leave this here for you to ponder

[MBDK]

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.

Yeah, there are good people on both sides 

Again (again), pointing out flawed conclusions, even thought they may reside among a lot of similar correct ones, does NOT justify those flawed conclusions.  That does not hold up in science, nor in any unbiased court of law.  This has been stated many times, and your adherence to a mindless mantra is rather juvenile.

Still, you have just proven this portion of an earlier post of mine.

"people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop"

NOTE:  Edited for clarity regarding flawed conclusions.

My problem with you is that you seem to only  be interested in pointing out flawed conclusions on one side, those that show Trump in a bad light.

The only "galloping in their own closed loop" happening here is by you. I seems you are so biased towards Trump, you are unable to see how that bias looks when observed from the outside. You can only come out in support of him (and against his opponents) so many times before it becomes suspicious.

No.  I clearly stated my purpose in my first post.  I have tried to adhere to it, and if anything have acquiesced to some aspects of other posters' comments.  You, and others, can't argue your way around the similarities that some of your claims have with CTs' flawed lines of reasoning.  Instead, you demand other, irrelevant to my original post, actions/words from me that prop up your more reasonable conclusions.  Why I have to keep explaining this SIMPLE concept is very much akin to trying to explain basic physics to a CT.  You really need to take a step back, look at my complaint in conjunction with similar complaints YOU have made regarding CT posts/tactics, and if you CAN'T identify the parallels, you are essentially just as close-minded as they are. 

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
― Walt Kelly

[MBDK]

ETA: If you believe that Trump is a good guy, a law abiding citizen who has only ever surrounded himself with the best people, then I will leave this here for you to ponder

Ignoring the actual content of my posts...AGAIN...is either a willful attempt to skew facts, or an indication of some underlying condition you have that temporarily blinds you whenever you come across words your prejudice(s) reject.  Please indicate where I have EVER made such generalizations.  Hint:  You can't, because I never have.

Note:  Edited to get rid of unneeded redundant image.

[gillianren]

You defended that he fired the pandemic response team and said it didn't make a difference.  Do you even know what a pandemic response team does and why it's necessary, you know, during a pandemic?

[MBDK]

You defended that he fired the pandemic response team and said it didn't make a difference.  Do you even know what a pandemic response team does and why it's necessary, you know, during a pandemic?

Sorry, gillianren, but YOU started this ball rolling with reply #770, where your entire comment was simply -
"Well, how safe is everyone feeling in a country where the entire CDC pandemic team was fired and not replaced?"

MY direct reply (# 772) was -
"A boneheaded move, indeed.  However, I feel just as safe as I would if there WAS a team in place.  I don't see how such a team would have any practical effect at this time.  First of all, the WHO does NOT consider it pandemic...yet...(although news coverage of it certainly is)."

- followed by a quote from the Surgeon General, who said, "we should not be afraid".  Then I added information on how best to prevent becoming infected, including information from the CDC.

Nowhere in that is a defense of the firing.  How safe I feel includes my trust in the Surgeon General, but is ultimately my own opinion, and since the virus is currently NOT a pandemic per the WHO, any "pandemic team" would have no role to play AT THIS TIME.

So, I answered the question you asked, precisely as it applied to me at that time (and currently still does).  Yet, here you are, once more, reading things into my response(s) that aren't there. 

If you want more information on WHY the coronavirus is NOT a pandemic, here is a link -
https://www.mic.com/p/what-is-a-pandemic-is-the-coronavirus-outbreak-considered-one-22416103