I have spent the day trying to process the results of the 2024 election here in the U.S. As you might imagine I was depressed, angry, and very disappointed in them. As you are aware Donald Trump was re-elected as president and the Senate flipped to Republican control. At this time the House is still in question. The future of my country is uncertain. I have no liking for Trump or many of his policies. But it is not just that which is of concern. It is that so many of my fellow Americans find his behavior to their liking. It brings into question their support for the ideals of this country. So I have spent the day cleaning my house and doing other mundane tasks to take my mind off of my worry for my country’s future and the future of those who depend on us. I also surfed around to find what other people’s reactions may be. Well, those who were on the losing side as I was, anyway.
Here are a few:
Liz Cheney was eloquent in her statement. It really is up to those of us who genuinely believe in our Constitution to defend it. We cannot rely on Donald Trump or his followers to do so.
These two videos are examples of the staying power of Americans and their dedication to our country.
In our history we have overcome many kinds of adversity. It has not been easy, nor will it be easy going forward. But to give up on our democracy is to fail those who fought so hard for it. We have a long history of standing up for people’s rights. Even if only one person’s eyes are opened it is a success.
The blame game has begun. As of now, in the smoke-filled back rooms of the Democratic Party's opening review process, Joe Biden has moved from lauded patriot, sacrificing his own ambitions to the greater good, moved now to 'arrogant' old man hanging on long after his day had passed, and forcing the Party to try to deal in short-shrift with the problems of substituting a candidate at the last minute. Politico
(I think the truth is probably somewhere in between. Biden had to be convinced by metrics he trusted--in this case his own private polling numbers--that he'd fatally blown it with the disastrous opening performance in his debate with Trump. Once he was convinced that he couldn't win, then he 'did the right thing' and withdrew from the contest for the Democratic nomination.)
By the way, Putin still hasn't bothered to call and congratulate Trump on his election win. It is possible that Putin has grown completely contemptuous of him. (Gotta wonder what Putin thinks about the average American voter who put Trump back into power.)
I would guess Putin thinks of Trump voters as suckers and easily manipulated. Like their Orange Leader.
If I were Joe Biden I would seriously consider giving the Ukrainians as much as we can before his Orangeness ascends the throne.
I don't know if you looked at any of those videos, but the comments are interesting. The blame game is not just for what the Dems did or did not do. It trickles down to this voters who are MAGA. This election will not unite the country.
Word is the Biden administration was front-loading the supply pipe to Ukraine even before the election returns came in. (To help take the Trumpkin heat off of a newly elected Harris if for no other reason.) And that effort has already accelerated (as soon as Trump's win became known).
Always did. They put up with the obviousness of his lies and ugliness of his personality because he read them back the stories they'd been wishing were true. And then he promised them the outlets for their malice that they'd longed for.
↑↑ Not all of them, of course, but a high enough percentage of new voters came in from the far right to allow the old Reaganite Republicans to make common cause and replace the moderates they'd been slowly losing for years.
Putin has said he's ready to receive a call from President-Elect Trump, should Trump choose to call on him. (He also made a formal public congratulatory statement, but nothing that takes away from the power play he's made in publicly setting out the demand that Trump has to seek an audience with him instead of the other way 'round.) Just makin' sure all of Europe understands who's the big dog in this Putin/Trump relationship, and who's the subordinate puppy Politico.EU
I don't know that that's necessarily true. Putin certainly wants us to abandon Ukraine. But he shows no immediate need for that to happen. He's filling his needs adequately from an ad-hoc rival alliance of China, India, Iran, North Korea, Brazil, UAE, South Africa (among several African nations), and various lesser known supporters.
Lynnette, I'm not surprised that the losing side insist on still not getting it. Even your own video choices include three where people wring their hands about the forces of darkness that are about to descend, and one where Americans settle their differences the good ole' fashioned way -- by beating seven shades of shitake out of each other.
There's a lot to dislike about Trump, most especially his persistent challenges to the 2020 election outcome. But Democrats have done themselves no favours by amplifying his faults beyond any semblance of reality. If they'd stuck to "Orange Man bad" they'd had gotten more traction. But no, they had to make him Satan incarnate. And by doing so they managed to airbrush their own failings, because "what's a little economic hardship compared to keeping the devil out of power?".
Their constant refrain was that Trump is going to be a fascist dictator because he told us so himself. Well, it turns out that when you engage in such hyperbole people are just going to stop believing you. And there were lots of things that Dems claimed Trump said that he simply didn't. Like support for a federal abortion ban. Kamala honestly believed that she'd garner a huge vote on the abortion issue alone. Turns out that when you are on the radical left of that issue, you're prone to believing things that aren't the case.
A majority of Americans support abortion, but it's often cited as "in all or most cases" (language used by Pew Research). In fact, almost two thirds do not support abortion after the first trimester, and four fifths do not after the second trimester (according to Gallup). I think Hillary was the last high profile Democrat to use the words "safe legal and rare", a term introduced to Democrats by her hubby back in 1992. But rarity implies stigma and that is anathema to Democrat radicals like Kamala. She thought American women would be abortion extremists like herself (and Tim Walz). She was wrong.
On the immigration issue she was caught between a rock and a hard place. Even Democrats could not play the ostrich and pretend it was not a high profile issue with the electorate. But she could not disown the Biden administration which undermined any claim that she would be effective on the issue going forward.
She was ridiculously lightweight on the economy. She needed something to counter Trump's claims about tax reductions so she trotted out some word salad about tinkering around the edges with Child and Earned Income tax credits. She blamed grocery costs on price gouging by big bad corporates. She made some noises about affordable health care, a topic I can't really comment on because US health care looks so fantastically dysfunctional to most of the rest of the developed world. Her $25k down payment for first time home buyers was for the birds. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at housing market dynamics thinks that putting free money in the hands of buyers will make things more affordable. And you just had to smile at her energy economics. She literally published graphs of how oil and gas extraction had expanded to record highs under the Biden admin. And yet she was still all about green tech which, she claimed, Trump was setting out to wreck.
But then, how many Americans actually read her policy document on the economy? 0.1%? 0.001%? If you're going to paint your political opponents as Orange Satan-loving morons, don't be surprised when their economic calculus is simplistic. It amounts to comparing the first three years of the Trump admin to three years under Biden -- a comparison that may be trite but is nonetheless stark. It's undoubtedly true that overspending on the pandemic is Trump's fault and that global headwinds contributed to inflation, but Biden's laughably titled "Inflation Reduction Act" threw petrol on the fire. Presidential candidates love to claim (mostly erroneously) that they can directly impact the economy. This one happened on the Biden / Harris watch so they get to own it.
Kamala also suffered from the lateness of her foray into the presidential race. Biden is squarely to blame for that one. As much as ole' Lee continues to claim he stepped down gracefully for the sake of the country after carefully discussing his options with the party (LOL), that doesn't hold water. Even Pelosi has now taken the gloves off in public and blamed him for his intransigence. But I think we'll be seeing a lot of Democrat internal self-recrimination. Can't remember which member I saw the other day blaming the party for being a bunch of elitist snobs. That's probably close to the mark. Trump got no more votes than he did in 2020. But ten million less people voted for Harris compared to Biden. Even that is being blamed in some Democrat quarters as MAGA hats refusing to vote for a black female president. The delusion is palpable. It's the economy, stupid. But no, the Dems can't / won't accept it was anything other than a bunch of morons in thrall to the Orange Satan. They can't see that the caricature they've built has become comical to a lot of voters.
The American body politic is seriously sick. But it's got two arms that each think the other is a diseased limb that needs to be lopped off. I genuinely think that Democrats are going to have a bigger problem rising above their holier-than-thou attitude. After all, they are cleverer, more educated, better off. How dare that Orange Cheeto and his garbage followers complain about the impoverishment of the working classes! I look at the CNNs of the world and see that they have less than zero clue about their own elitism.
"As much as ole' Lee continues to claim he stepped down gracefully for the sake of the country after carefully discussing his options with the party (LOL), that doesn't hold water."
I never said anything even close to that. That's a complete and utter fabrication. (No doubt being a pious Catholic gets you off the hook for that with a Hail Mary or two.) It wouldn't be worth denying (you've become an occasional misinformation here, usually worth ignoring) except I do want Lynnette to notice you're making shit up out of whole cloth, even as you're accusing the Harris campaign of doing just such politicking. It might make a difference in how serious she treats your assertion that "it's the economy". That was merely a fabricated tale of the supposedly wonderful Trump years (in comparison), built up out of whole cloth to hide the very real politics of social backlash that are so very appealing to rather broad swathes of the American population.
By the way. We got the Latino immigrants who lost their political wars back home when the Socialists/Leftists/Communists (depending on the country of origin) took power back home. The conservative and ultra-conservative elements made up the backbone of the migrations to America. (That may be less the case these days, but I'm talking 'bout Latino immigrant populations who've been here long enough to become citizens and vote.) Trump represents a political pattern they recognize and with which they are comfortable. He's a right-wing autocrat. It's the good ol' days all over again. He's what they would have had back home if the left-wing autocrats hadn't pulled more public support. They support Trump, they got another crack at taking power and persecuting their enemies instead of being among the persecuted, and this time in a richer country, with more power.
Ole' Lee, August 1st: "Biden held in, held on until the polls solidified a few weeks after his debate fiasco, and during that weekend he when had covid and went into isolation he reviewed the polling numbers and trends with his most trusted advisors. They came to the conclusion that Biden was gonna lose. ... The Democrats' internal "Dump Biden" movement didn't get him to quit... In the end, they failed, but Biden quit anyway ... "
Funny, lots of Dems don't remember it that way. They seem to think Biden caved to intolerable pressure. That said, there's plenty of different recriminations floating around.
Pelosi: ""had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race".
Unnamed Harris aide: "We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president. Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight."
An unnamed Biden aide says Harris is making excuses: "How did you spend $1 billion and not f*$&ing win?"
Another Biden aide blames Obama because he "publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out".
John Fetterman: "For those that decided and moved to break Biden, and then you got the election that you wanted, it’s appropriate to own the outcome and fallout".
Congressman Tom Suozzi blames "being politically correct" and failing to counteract Republican claims of "anarchy on college campuses, defund the police, biological boys playing in girls' sports, and a general attack on traditional values".
Ritchie Torres blames "the far left [who] managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx’".
Bernie Sanders: "While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right". He argued Democrats probably wouldn't learn from the election outcome.
"Funny, lots of Dems don't remember it that way. They seem to think Biden caved to intolerable pressure."
That's how they claim to remember it anyway. But they had, and still have, their own political fortunes to burnish. If Harris had won they'd share in her glory if they claimed credit for getting Biden out (whether she wanted to share or not). Pelosi still isn't up to admitting the Biden ignored her---he didn't take her calls; she did not handle that well; they still haven't talked (to the best of my last info on that particular subject).
And, there were several media outlets which also wanted to puff up their own importance. They'll go along with the "lots of Dems" who remember their fantasy instead of what really happened.
You've a barely functioning grasp of American politics, so I'm not gonna bother you with the details of how what happened, did actually happen. It's enough that you've obviously read my short-version summary.
You can continue to drag up other Democrats though, I won't mind.
"victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan." John Kennedy upon the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion--it was old even then
So now we got a lot of Democrats trying to preëmptively blame some other Democrats and not get their own agenda compromised in what's gonna be the infighting to come over the failure to keep Trump out of the White House. Were it Harris who'd won it would instead be the Republican who would be trying once again to get shed of Trump, and undercut one another.
Lynnette: I wonder if Trump will realize that at this time Putin needs him more that he needs Putin.
Lee: I don't know that that's necessarily true. Putin certainly wants us to abandon Ukraine. But he shows no immediate need for that to happen. He's filling his needs adequately from an ad-hoc rival alliance of China, India, Iran, North Korea, Brazil, UAE, South Africa (among several African nations), and various lesser known supporters.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a reason Russia is desperately interfering in US and other's internal affairs. There is a reason they have reached out to various foreign countries, including North Korea, for fighters. There is a reason Putin has not called for a new internal mobilization. I can't imagine that Putin is doing those things from a position of strength, despite outside help from the countries you mentioned. You can only stand to lose so many workers to death or disability because of a war you started. How long can you spend a large portion of your budget on a never ending war? Raising taxes continually to support a war you started is not conducive to happy citizens.
I suspect Russia's economy is hurting far more than they are letting on. After Trump caves on Ukraine how long will it be before he lifts any sanctions the US has put on Russia?
Btw, how strong is China's economy, really? I just read somewhere that the CCP is injecting more money into their economy to encourage bank lending. If Trump actually raises tariffs on China how will that help their economy?
Petes: Lynnette, I'm not surprised that the losing side insist on still not getting it. Even your own video choices include three where people wring their hands about the forces of darkness that are about to descend, and one where Americans settle their differences the good ole' fashioned way -- by beating seven shades of shitake out of each other.
The second 2 videos really expressed my feelings, so I placed them in the post. Yes, we are concerned about the future of this country. But it is more than that for me, I can't speak for them. There is a show on CNN hosted by Michael Smerconish who is always polling his audience regarding various issues. His question this morning was whether Trump's win has changed America or revealed it? The majority of the respondents, over 80%, said that he has revealed it. I came to believe the same. So for someone like me who truly believes that democracy and the rule of law are the foundations which have made this country great and have created the environment for all that comes after, including a health economy, the thought that so many of my fellow citizens do not feel the same is extremely depressing. Perhaps that is why I placed the video with Liz Cheney first, because despite my disagreements with her over policy, I admire her stance on this issue.
The last video is from the movie "Giant" which came out in 1956. I used to watch re-runs of that when I was a kid. Okay, I admit that Rock Hudson was part of the attraction, but I put it here because sometimes you can see the development of a society through its entertainment. It will appear very dated to people today, because of the norms of that era. I put up the fight scene not because of the fight itself but because of what it represented to the main character. In the beginning of the film he, like so many of that era, exhibited the xenophobia that was so endemic to various areas of the country. But because of his son's relationship with a Mexican woman he comes to know her as a person and not as the "other". In that scene his character stands up, not just for her and his grandson, but for strangers. He came to understand that he was wrong in his original idea about people from other countries, legal or illegal.
I will have to continue my responses later. I have to be somewhere...
I did read an article the other day expounding on Russia's "overheating" economy. Difficulties finding employees--difficulties in paying wages competitive with the signing bonuses for the military. Shortages piling up, etc. None of this raises up a challenger for Putin's chair. He's been most careful to see that there was no credible challenger waiting in the wings for unhappy citizens to rally 'round.
But, I was about to raise a related question. I think I'll go 'head and do it…
Ya s'pose Trump will be ready with a string of Chinese tariffs come early January?
PeteS: I look at the CNNs of the world and see that they have less than zero clue about their own elitism.
I look at the people who voted for Trump and see people who think it's okay to mock disabled people, grab women by the pussy, vilify anyone who has a differing opinion, force women to have babies, and try to force people to believe as they do. I see Putin lite. Because that is the man they elected to the highest office of the land. We can argue until the cows come home on who has the best ideas to create a healthy economy, deal with the border, provide quality healthcare and other bread and butter issues, but bottom line is that cruelty is now the accepted norm in America. We will regress back to the era of "Giant". That is the time period MAGA is dreaming about.
Lee: The conservative and ultra-conservative elements made up the backbone of the migrations to America. (That may be less the case these days, but I'm talking 'bout Latino immigrant populations who've been here long enough to become citizens and vote.)
I thought about your comment from long ago about how many migrants are bringing their societal beliefs along with them, and they may not really be democratic in nature, when I saw how the Latin community broke for Trump. You may have been spot on,.
I haven't seen him for a while now. Wasn't he talking about moving to Canada or something?
Here's a real head-scratcher.
Team Harris day before election: Trump is Hitler Team Harris day after election: Let’s make the transition to Hitler as smooth as possible.
Hold it, what?
I know! A peaceful transition, as in following the law, does seem rather odd now, doesn't it? How quickly things change when flouting the law, as Trump does, becomes the norm. It comes as a shock when there are still government officials that try to adhere to it, despite the fact that they are turning the keys over to someone less than worthy.
Lee: Ya s'pose Trump will be ready with a string of Chinese tariffs come early January?
Businesses here are not waiting to find out. They are ordering as much stock from China as they can to try to get ahead of the price increases they will be forced to pass on to the American consumers. Ain't Trump grand?
Okay, I'm starting to get a little snarky here. I will have to go wallow in a few Netflix shows for a little bit to refresh my mood.
A comment I found laying around somewhere. It kind of dovetails with Jeffrey's observation about the transfer of power.
America proclaimed a king.
You could cry foul but thats the final truth.
The slaves voted for their masters.
One of the reasons I vote is due to my experiences in countries that can't.
Another reason was a conversation I had while on deployment to Europe.
An old WW2 German veteran, told me of how the German people were "hungry and hopeless." In the 1930s
He said
"We young men were angry. No work, no pride, no hope"
"Then a man stood up and told us it wasn't our fault. It was the government, the lazy, the foreigners, the others. But he had a plan to sweep away the old boring politicians and make Germany great again. Food and honor"
The trains would run on time.
It didn't start with tanks and soldiers, it started as an idea, an excuse to allow you to do all you wanted to do. "Freedom for us, the rest must go"
And the rest is, history
As a point, it may be a good idea when trump gets in for Americans to ask who is on those trains and where they are going before they find themselves in a box-car or servicing the ovens.
Sorry to sound grim, but I looked into that German veteran's eyes.
Ignoring your responsibility as a citizen to vote and to know what the policies of the party are is a sure road to slavery.
"I thought about your comment from long ago about how many migrants are bringing their societal beliefs along with them…"
I am not opposed to allowing Muslim immigrants, nor against Hispanic immigrants, nor against Black immigrants, nor am I in favor of selecting out any group for disfavor. However, I am opposed to allowing immigrants en masse because of their status as refugees from their own civil wars, environmental predations, or etc., or just because they have a family member who's already been allowed residency. I've long believed that immigrants should be approved on an individual basis, after an individual evaluation of their application. None of this bringing them in by groups stuff. (That gets us blocks of Arab-Americans voting for Trump en masse to punish America because the Democrats had proven less pliable on the issue of punishing Israel than the Arabs had hoped.)
I'm also not in favor of us allowing dual citizenship. I don't object to other countries doing as they please on that subject, but I don't think the United States should participate in that practice. If you're allowed to vote in America, your allegiance should be to America undiluted. (Elon Musk is another example of why I object to the dual citizenship concept.)
Lynnette: "I look at the people who voted for Trump and see people who think it's okay to mock disabled people, grab women by the pussy, vilify anyone who has a differing opinion, force women to have babies, and try to force people to believe as they do. I see Putin lite. Because that is the man they elected to the highest office of the land."
I can think of multiple reasons to not want Trump for president. But your list doesn't contain any of them. Those are mostly inventions or embellishments by the vitriolic left. I genuinely don't believe Trump mocked that disabled reporter. He has mocked a lot of people and, being a mean SOB, he's generally been prepared to double down on it rather than deny it. He says he didn't know who Serge Kovaleski was and was trying to mimic a flustered reporter. That is very credible if you are not seeing Orange Satan behind every corner.
"Grabbing women by the pussy" is a very unfortunate term. It's also the sort of thing that a large fraction of men on the planet have said or regularly heard throughout their lives. Sorry to break that to you if it's news. I probably started hearing terms like it around age ten to twelve. Of course, one wouldn't say them in polite company. It was a topic for immature boys on their own together. It turns out there are lots of men who never get beyond it. I don't like it but I understand it. Integrity demands that what you think and say in private and how you act in public ought to be aligned, but it takes a bit of mature self-reflection to realise it. I've no idea how many men never take that leap. But I'm pretty certain if every man was subjected to secret recordings of their unguarded comments you'd find a lot of Trump-like comments. It's unpleasant but simply not surprising. JFK was quite likely a bigger philanderer than Trump. I'm pretty sure his secret recordings would raise eyebrows.
Trump hasn't forced anyone to have a baby. Abortion legislation has gone back to the States where it used to be and arguably should have remained. The original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision centred around a supposed relevant right to privacy discovered in the 9th and 14th amendments. It took a great deal of philosophical contortion to turn this discovery into a right to abortion in early pregnancy, but allowing the state's "compelling and legitimate" interest in pre-natal life to apply the brakes on later term abortions. By all means let any argument for abortion be taken on its merits. Roe v. Wade was a case of superficial reasoning and amateur philosophising.
"We can argue until the cows come home on who has the best ideas to create a healthy economy, deal with the border, provide quality healthcare and other bread and butter issues, but bottom line is that cruelty is now the accepted norm in America. We will regress back to the era of "Giant". That is the time period MAGA is dreaming about."
Of course cruelty isn't the accepted norm. You are accusing more than half your compatriots of being sadists. The fact is there is are radical minorities at the left and right wing extremes whose voices are amplified out of all proportion by the new media and their algorithms. That has a polarising effect on everyone else, including the legacy media. It's not too late to wake up and realise that Twitter and Instagram are not necessarily representative of the real world.
I'll let you in on a secret. I've watched a bunch of YouTube videos about "liberal" reactions to the Trump win. They range from people giving advice on how best to flee the country, to women vowing to withhold sex for four years, to those wishing all rightwingers to die (and even offering to expedite them), or just plain unhinged screaming into the camera. Some of these may be sincerely felt views, but I suspect most are attention-seeking nutjobs. They come pre-packaged in ten-minute chunks of hilarity and fed to me by an algorithm that knows I'll get a kick out of them. If I thought they represented average Democrat voters I would despair. Just as I would despair if QAnon or Pizzagate conspiracies were mainstream beliefs on the right.
The tragedy of all this polarisation is that it detracts from your important first question: who has the best ideas on managing the economy and affairs of state. The one thing I can say fairly certainly is that they weren't running in the 2024 presidential election. I'm still trying to figure out how such a great country fielded such awful candidates.
He also said he'd never met E. Jean Carroll. A jury decided that question otherwise, to the tune of over $88 million in damages. And Kovalski has claimed otherwise, the he and Trump had been on a first name basis for years from back in the days when Trump was courting all the headlines he could get. Kovalski was one of those whom he cultivated for publicity.
And you have previously acknowledged Trump to be a pathelogical liar. (I may have picked the wrong adjective, maybe it was compulsory liar, or something else along those lines, but you've made the claim when it suited you.) Now that is suits you to argue from a different perspective you suddenly have become incredibly gullible, finding Trump credible on the basis that his own lyin' self has made a dubious and self-serving claim.
I gotta wonder why Lynnette still engages with you, why she hasn't thrown you back already.
Yore wonderin' sounds more than a little weird and creepy. Maybe focus on your own apparent addiction to engagin' with me. Fortunately I can help y'all out with that.
I'm actually surprised it took you over two whole days to figure out that ya ought not go for those gratuitous shots, especially when you fuel 'em with your own "whole cloth" lies (PeteS @ Fri M11 08, 09:08:18 PM, prior thread) But, ya figured it out eventually.
All ya gotta do is not take the cheap shot. (Wish I had faith in your ability to follow through.)
PeteS: I can think of multiple reasons to not want Trump for president. But your list doesn't contain any of them.
Well, of course, there are many more, but space is limited.
I am sure there are many reasons why people voted for Trump, but it does seem some of those people did not consider enough the reasons not to. Obviously, there are those who are perfectly fine with his behavior, as you said. Although I think the "all men are pigs" defense is not going to work with me. At some point in time being a responsible person is a must and having a 12 year old in the office of president isn't a desirable outcome. But having said that I doubt you will see some kind of large movement by women in the United States to withhold sex like an off offshoot of the 4B movement that began in South Korea. I think what is more likely, and we already see it now, is that people will use a person's political views as a criteria of whether or not they want to become involved with them. This could lead to a further polarization of society.
As for leaving the abortion issue up to each state, I guess time will tell whether or not Trump is true to this idea. There were, I believe, at least 7 states that had abortion on their ballot which decided that it should be legal. Making abortion illegal and also making it illegal to help a woman cross state borders to acquire one where it is legal, threatening health care providers if they provide that care, is kind of like forcing a woman to have a baby, I would say.
Of course cruelty isn't the accepted norm. You are accusing more than half your compatriots of being sadists.
No, I think I am accusing them of being indifferent to other people's suffering, kind of like that 12 year old boy who is also a bully. As for what people may see on YouTube or the internet in general I don't think they have learned to parse what is real and what is not. There have always been extreme views on both sides. But the level of disinformation has been amplified by those who seek to interfere in our internal affairs, for whatever reason.
The tragedy of all this polarisation is that it detracts from your important first question: who has the best ideas on managing the economy and affairs of state.
I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, if a person does not understand completely the functioning of economics or foreign affairs, then their choices may be poorly made. It is easy to let the fox in the henhouse and get fleeced.
Lee: I gotta wonder why Lynnette still engages with you, why she hasn't thrown you back already.
I do not believe in bans. I believe in civil discourse, as much as possible anyway, to exchange thoughts and ideas. The only person I ever deleted was Zeyad, and that was only once.
One of the things that has saddened me so, is that people here cannot talk anymore. We have serious issues facing us and it will take a united front to deal with them. We need all of our ideas, not just some. Having said that, I still doubt that Trump will do much of anything to unite us. He has been content to use division to gain power and will not change now.
I didn't mean to suggest a ban. I was addressing PeteS' lack of good faith in so many of his arguments (relying on a supposed finding of credibility in Trump's arguments--really now?), and there's PeteS' predilection for word games in addition to his promoting arguments clearly made in bad faith. I was just wondering aloud, so to speak, that you still indulge him in those pretenses--not suggesting a ban. But, it was intended as a rhetorical question--something for PeteS to ponder. I didn't intend to draw an answer from you. (I didn't imagine that you'd read a proposed 'ban' into it either.)
Lynnette: "There have always been extreme views on both sides. But the level of disinformation has been amplified by those who seek to interfere in our internal affairs, for whatever reason."
I think social media provides a megaphone for anyone who wants to say anything. But you make a good point -- it also allows foreign actors to muddy the waters and there's incontrovertible evidence of that happening. Just how much it has influenced things is hard to know.
Unfortunately, if a person does not understand completely the functioning of economics or foreign affairs, then their choices may be poorly made. It is easy to let the fox in the henhouse and get fleeced.
It's not clear to me if you are talking about politicians here or the people who vote for them. I'd probably agree in both cases. None of your politicians of either persuasion show much interest in tackling your deficit or debt problems. I'd have thought it would be right up there on the list of most pressing problems facing the country.
As for the voters, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to understand the intricacies. But you can be pretty sure they understand the issues they face in everyday life. The rent and groceries are coming out of their wallets. Keep telling them that they are too stupid to understand why the Dems are the best show in town even though things haven't been improving, and they are likely to eventually tire of being told they are ignorant yahoos.
"One of the things that has saddened me so, is that people here cannot talk anymore. We have serious issues facing us and it will take a united front to deal with them. We need all of our ideas, not just some. Having said that, I still doubt that Trump will do much of anything to unite us. He has been content to use division to gain power and will not change now."
I agree with you but I also think it's where the Dems have their major blind spot. They are equally adept at leveraging division. How do you think people felt about being told they weren't black unless they voted for Biden? Might blue collar workers have gotten just a tad fed up being expected to vote Democrat when things were obviously disimproving for them? I'm not blaming Dems for all their ills: as far as I can tell these are all fruits of the 2008 GFC and subsequent QE, expansion of the money supply, and financialisation of housing assets -- all policies which have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Just don't go telling the people who have noticed it that they are uneducated yobs, or blame them for grasping at any alternative. Maybe that sort of snobbishness actually drives them into the arms of Orange Cheeto man.
"…as far as I can tell these are all fruits of the 2008 GFC and subsequent QE…"
PeteS again falls into the cracks. He still seems to believe that memorizing jargon means he's conquered the concepts that give rise to the jargon terminology.
The "2008 GFC" is jargon for the general financial collapse of 2008. "QE" stands for "Quantitive Easing", a new term that meant the Fed had increased the money supply by purchasing government bonds (which they booked as 'assets' in the federal reserve banks) and then loaning out money to the private sector totalling several times the book value of government bonds--federal reserve banks are allowed to loan out money against assets maybe only 5% as large as the loans--you can do the math yourself). It was a fancy new term designed to provide cover for a very old practice of money control--they thought they could get around the customary political accusation of "printing money" if they came up with a new term for it this time, a boon to people like PeteS who believe memorizing the jargon is the same thing as learning the concepts at play. The "expansion of the money supply" is the same thing as the "QE", PeteS has just counted it twice without knowing what he's doing there.
And the "financialisation of housing assets" wasn't a matter of public policy. It was merely a new way for the very rich to gamble with their money (one of the most popular ways for the ultra-rich to vastly increase their wealth in a world which is no longer creating vast amounts of new wealth is to gamble with the money they already got, and impoverish one another along with the damage done to lower classes. Fewer players in the game as losers cash out and go home broke means more money in the pots of the fewer players still at the table.) It coincidentally also meant that single family housing was becoming the property of corporate interests as people got foreclosed out of their homes. And they quickly discovered that housing was an available market for exploitation. So, now big financial corporations are buying up houses (old and new) all across the country, secure in the knowledge that they can charge sufficient rents to cover their investments short term, and charge ever increasing rents long term.
And the rich get richer same way as always, by owning the things the poor need.
Trump claimed he would "fix" this. The Trumpkins have no idea of how (nor does Trump--he was never required to think it that far). And they won't hold him accountable when he doesn't do anything 'bout it after all, 'cause that's not the basis for their allegiance.
Yes, that date does look funky. I tried playing with it but that extra "m" doesn't seem to want to go away. Blogger may have did away with the preview function in the comments section as they think you can just read what you have written before publishing. However, that doesn't help if you want to check out a link. We might be stuck with this.
Petes: None of your politicians of either persuasion show much interest in tackling your deficit or debt problems. I'd have thought it would be right up there on the list of most pressing problems facing the country.
Oh they make noises about it once in a while but they never want to actually do the heavy lifting. To get the debt under control means both raising taxes and cutting spending. Not something that appeals to either side.
We are also facing a crisis in our Social Security fund, which is set to run short of money in about 10 years. The easy fix would be to simply eliminate the wage cap, as we did for Medicare, but that is not something the Republicans are willing to do. They would rather cut benefits by 20% then raise the tax on the wealthy. Something that those collecting Social Security, and with no other savings, will be hit hard with if actually enacted.
As for the voters, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to understand the intricacies. But you can be pretty sure they understand the issues they face in everyday life. The rent and groceries are coming out of their wallets.
Inflation has come down, but that doesn't mean that the prices that were raised in response to high inflation have done so. Oh yes, a few businesses like Target have lowered prices, but most have not. Once the price is raised it usually doesn't come back down again, unless people stop buying the item. So despite the lower inflation rate people are still feeling the pinch and believe the economy is still doing badly. As for Trump, if he imposes more tariffs on goods from overseas we will see higher prices here as that is passed on to consumers.
The thing I do not understand is why Biden never removed or lowered the earlier Trump tariffs? At least I never heard that he did. Maybe Lee can answer that.
Maybe that sort of snobbishness actually drives them into the arms of Orange Cheeto man.
I think assuming that only Democrat elitism is what is causing this cult of Trump may not be quite correct. I think it is a whole basket of things, not least of which is that the extreme right has found a conduit for their wants in Trump. The social issues loomed large as well. I spoke with someone the other day who talked about being forced to learn Spanish or about some kind of transgender operation Kamala Harris allowed for an inmate. Gender identity seems to be a real fear of conservatives. I also seriously believe that there are people in my country who will never vote for a woman.
There also were quite a few people who did not vote as well as those who couldn't vote for either Harris or Trump and voted third party. I spoke with someone who wrote in a candidate, Nikki Haley.
"The thing I do not understand is why Biden never removed or lowered the earlier Trump tariffs"
Tariffs, once enacted, have a 'protectionist' constituency that doesn't want to see them go away. Biden wanted to win the 2024 presidential race. He needed Pennsylvania (and the 'rust belt' in general). Lowering the price of foreign steel wasn't a good way to get those votes. And he already had trouble there on account of their general distaste for environmental protections he wanted to keep in place.
"Trump is angling to get his nominees in without Congressional approval"
Yep, saw that. Elon Musk in the office next to the Oval Office, on an "acting" basis. How's that make ya feel?
Meanwhile, back in Ukraine, it seems that Putin has a specific task for those North Korean soldiers. It sounds like they are part of the troops massing, around 50,000, to retake the Russian territory the Ukrainians snatched earlier.
I'm not sure Ukraine has the manpower to deal with an additional 50,000 concentrated into one battlefield. They may find themselves simply outmanned in the Kurst region.
*sigh* It looks like I grabbed the wrong link. The drawback of this new comments section where I can't review. But that link does include the Musk appointment synopsis as well as all of the other poor choices Trump is making. At least from where I stand, not from his fascist supporters viewpoint, although even they may find what comes not to their liking. But I have no sympathy for them. Only the 70 million people who voted for Harris.
"So maybe they withdraw and attack somewhere else…"
I would expect a 'fighting' withdrawal, where they try to cost the Russians as many men as possible for each yard they advance and each position they take. (By then it may be whole new war due to Trump's influence.)
"…although even they may find what comes not to their liking."
They're not likely to enjoy the results of his economic policies, although those will take awhile to kick in. It's even possible they'll hold him accountable for any quick economic reaction to his tariffs. Those might incite economic movement in time for Trump to take the blame before this term is scheduled to expire. In that case the Trumpkins may demand a new presidential election in 2027 in spite of his plans.
I would expect a 'fighting' withdrawal, where they try to cost the Russians as many men as possible for each yard they advance and each position they take.
Yes, that sounds like what they may do. A good plan all in all.
From what I'm hearing it looks like they are all going to roll over for Trump, so I suspect he probably does expect all of his nominees to be confirmed. Ain't Trumplandia grand?
62 comments:
The blame game has begun. As of now, in the smoke-filled back rooms of the Democratic Party's opening review process, Joe Biden has moved from lauded patriot, sacrificing his own ambitions to the greater good, moved now to 'arrogant' old man hanging on long after his day had passed, and forcing the Party to try to deal in short-shrift with the problems of substituting a candidate at the last minute. Politico
(I think the truth is probably somewhere in between. Biden had to be convinced by metrics he trusted--in this case his own private polling numbers--that he'd fatally blown it with the disastrous opening performance in his debate with Trump. Once he was convinced that he couldn't win, then he 'did the right thing' and withdrew from the contest for the Democratic nomination.)
By the way, Putin still hasn't bothered to call and congratulate Trump on his election win. It is possible that Putin has grown completely contemptuous of him. (Gotta wonder what Putin thinks about the average American voter who put Trump back into power.)
I would guess Putin thinks of Trump voters as suckers and easily manipulated. Like their Orange Leader.
If I were Joe Biden I would seriously consider giving the Ukrainians as much as we can before his Orangeness ascends the throne.
I don't know if you looked at any of those videos, but the comments are interesting. The blame game is not just for what the Dems did or did not do. It trickles down to this voters who are MAGA. This election will not unite the country.
"The" not "this".
Word is the Biden administration was front-loading the supply pipe to Ukraine even before the election returns came in. (To help take the Trumpkin heat off of a newly elected Harris if for no other reason.) And that effort has already accelerated (as soon as Trump's win became known).
"It trickles down to [the] voters who are MAGA."
Always did. They put up with the obviousness of his lies and ugliness of his personality because he read them back the stories they'd been wishing were true.
And then he promised them the outlets for their malice that they'd longed for.
↑↑ Not all of them, of course, but a high enough percentage of new voters came in from the far right to allow the old Reaganite Republicans to make common cause and replace the moderates they'd been slowly losing for years.
Putin has said he's ready to receive a call from President-Elect Trump, should Trump choose to call on him. (He also made a formal public congratulatory statement, but nothing that takes away from the power play he's made in publicly setting out the demand that Trump has to seek an audience with him instead of the other way 'round.)
Just makin' sure all of Europe understands who's the big dog in this Putin/Trump relationship, and who's the subordinate puppy Politico.EU
I wonder if Trump will realize that at this time Putin needs him more that he needs Putin.
I don't know that that's necessarily true. Putin certainly wants us to abandon Ukraine. But he shows no immediate need for that to happen. He's filling his needs adequately from an ad-hoc rival alliance of China, India, Iran, North Korea, Brazil, UAE, South Africa (among several African nations), and various lesser known supporters.
Lynnette, I'm not surprised that the losing side insist on still not getting it. Even your own video choices include three where people wring their hands about the forces of darkness that are about to descend, and one where Americans settle their differences the good ole' fashioned way -- by beating seven shades of shitake out of each other.
There's a lot to dislike about Trump, most especially his persistent challenges to the 2020 election outcome. But Democrats have done themselves no favours by amplifying his faults beyond any semblance of reality. If they'd stuck to "Orange Man bad" they'd had gotten more traction. But no, they had to make him Satan incarnate. And by doing so they managed to airbrush their own failings, because "what's a little economic hardship compared to keeping the devil out of power?".
Their constant refrain was that Trump is going to be a fascist dictator because he told us so himself. Well, it turns out that when you engage in such hyperbole people are just going to stop believing you. And there were lots of things that Dems claimed Trump said that he simply didn't. Like support for a federal abortion ban. Kamala honestly believed that she'd garner a huge vote on the abortion issue alone. Turns out that when you are on the radical left of that issue, you're prone to believing things that aren't the case.
A majority of Americans support abortion, but it's often cited as "in all or most cases" (language used by Pew Research). In fact, almost two thirds do not support abortion after the first trimester, and four fifths do not after the second trimester (according to Gallup). I think Hillary was the last high profile Democrat to use the words "safe legal and rare", a term introduced to Democrats by her hubby back in 1992. But rarity implies stigma and that is anathema to Democrat radicals like Kamala. She thought American women would be abortion extremists like herself (and Tim Walz). She was wrong.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
On the immigration issue she was caught between a rock and a hard place. Even Democrats could not play the ostrich and pretend it was not a high profile issue with the electorate. But she could not disown the Biden administration which undermined any claim that she would be effective on the issue going forward.
She was ridiculously lightweight on the economy. She needed something to counter Trump's claims about tax reductions so she trotted out some word salad about tinkering around the edges with Child and Earned Income tax credits. She blamed grocery costs on price gouging by big bad corporates. She made some noises about affordable health care, a topic I can't really comment on because US health care looks so fantastically dysfunctional to most of the rest of the developed world. Her $25k down payment for first time home buyers was for the birds. Nobody who has ever seriously looked at housing market dynamics thinks that putting free money in the hands of buyers will make things more affordable. And you just had to smile at her energy economics. She literally published graphs of how oil and gas extraction had expanded to record highs under the Biden admin. And yet she was still all about green tech which, she claimed, Trump was setting out to wreck.
But then, how many Americans actually read her policy document on the economy? 0.1%? 0.001%? If you're going to paint your political opponents as Orange Satan-loving morons, don't be surprised when their economic calculus is simplistic. It amounts to comparing the first three years of the Trump admin to three years under Biden -- a comparison that may be trite but is nonetheless stark. It's undoubtedly true that overspending on the pandemic is Trump's fault and that global headwinds contributed to inflation, but Biden's laughably titled "Inflation Reduction Act" threw petrol on the fire. Presidential candidates love to claim (mostly erroneously) that they can directly impact the economy. This one happened on the Biden / Harris watch so they get to own it.
Kamala also suffered from the lateness of her foray into the presidential race. Biden is squarely to blame for that one. As much as ole' Lee continues to claim he stepped down gracefully for the sake of the country after carefully discussing his options with the party (LOL), that doesn't hold water. Even Pelosi has now taken the gloves off in public and blamed him for his intransigence. But I think we'll be seeing a lot of Democrat internal self-recrimination. Can't remember which member I saw the other day blaming the party for being a bunch of elitist snobs. That's probably close to the mark. Trump got no more votes than he did in 2020. But ten million less people voted for Harris compared to Biden. Even that is being blamed in some Democrat quarters as MAGA hats refusing to vote for a black female president. The delusion is palpable. It's the economy, stupid. But no, the Dems can't / won't accept it was anything other than a bunch of morons in thrall to the Orange Satan. They can't see that the caricature they've built has become comical to a lot of voters.
The American body politic is seriously sick. But it's got two arms that each think the other is a diseased limb that needs to be lopped off. I genuinely think that Democrats are going to have a bigger problem rising above their holier-than-thou attitude. After all, they are cleverer, more educated, better off. How dare that Orange Cheeto and his garbage followers complain about the impoverishment of the working classes! I look at the CNNs of the world and see that they have less than zero clue about their own elitism.
"As much as ole' Lee continues to claim he stepped down
gracefully for the sake of the country after carefully discussing
his options with the party (LOL), that doesn't hold water."
I never said anything even close to that. That's a complete and utter fabrication. (No doubt being a pious Catholic gets you off the hook for that with a Hail Mary or two.)
It wouldn't be worth denying (you've become an occasional misinformation here, usually worth ignoring) except I do want Lynnette to notice you're making shit up out of whole cloth, even as you're accusing the Harris campaign of doing just such politicking. It might make a difference in how serious she treats your assertion that "it's the economy". That was merely a fabricated tale of the supposedly wonderful Trump years (in comparison), built up out of whole cloth to hide the very real politics of social backlash that are so very appealing to rather broad swathes of the American population.
By the way. We got the Latino immigrants who lost their political wars back home when the Socialists/Leftists/Communists (depending on the country of origin) took power back home. The conservative and ultra-conservative elements made up the backbone of the migrations to America. (That may be less the case these days, but I'm talking 'bout Latino immigrant populations who've been here long enough to become citizens and vote.)
Trump represents a political pattern they recognize and with which they are comfortable. He's a right-wing autocrat. It's the good ol' days all over again. He's what they would have had back home if the left-wing autocrats hadn't pulled more public support.
They support Trump, they got another crack at taking power and persecuting their enemies instead of being among the persecuted, and this time in a richer country, with more power.
Changing subjects somewhat…
I'm becoming curious. S'pose Trump will be prepared to begin rounding up Hispanics come early January?
Ole' Lee, August 1st: "Biden held in, held on until the polls solidified a few weeks after his debate fiasco, and during that weekend he when had covid and went into isolation he reviewed the polling numbers and trends with his most trusted advisors. They came to the conclusion that Biden was gonna lose. ... The Democrats' internal "Dump Biden" movement didn't get him to quit... In the end, they failed, but Biden quit anyway ... "
Funny, lots of Dems don't remember it that way. They seem to think Biden caved to intolerable pressure. That said, there's plenty of different recriminations floating around.
Pelosi: ""had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race".
Unnamed Harris aide: "We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president. Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight."
An unnamed Biden aide says Harris is making excuses: "How did you spend $1 billion and not f*$&ing win?"
Another Biden aide blames Obama because he "publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out".
John Fetterman: "For those that decided and moved to break Biden, and then you got the election that you wanted, it’s appropriate to own the outcome and fallout".
Congressman Tom Suozzi blames "being politically correct" and failing to counteract Republican claims of "anarchy on college campuses, defund the police, biological boys playing in girls' sports, and a general attack on traditional values".
Ritchie Torres blames "the far left [who] managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx’".
Bernie Sanders: "While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right". He argued Democrats probably wouldn't learn from the election outcome.
(All as reported by the BBC)
"Funny, lots of Dems don't remember it that way. They seem
to think Biden caved to intolerable pressure."
That's how they claim to remember it anyway. But they had, and still have, their own political fortunes to burnish. If Harris had won they'd share in her glory if they claimed credit for getting Biden out (whether she wanted to share or not). Pelosi still isn't up to admitting the Biden ignored her---he didn't take her calls; she did not handle that well; they still haven't talked (to the best of my last info on that particular subject).
And, there were several media outlets which also wanted to puff up their own importance. They'll go along with the "lots of Dems" who remember their fantasy instead of what really happened.
You've a barely functioning grasp of American politics, so I'm not gonna bother you with the details of how what happened, did actually happen. It's enough that you've obviously read my short-version summary.
You can continue to drag up other Democrats though, I won't mind.
"victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan."
John Kennedy upon the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion--it was old even then
So now we got a lot of Democrats trying to preëmptively blame some other Democrats and not get their own agenda compromised in what's gonna be the infighting to come over the failure to keep Trump out of the White House.
Were it Harris who'd won it would instead be the Republican who would be trying once again to get shed of Trump, and undercut one another.
PeteS,
What is the situation with immigration in Sweden these days?
Jeffrey -- Chisinau, Moldova
PeteS,
Ah, sorry. I was thinking of Marcus just then.
Hey, I hope Marcus does stop by.
Jeffrey -- Chisinau, Moldova
Lynnette: I wonder if Trump will realize that at this time Putin needs him more that he needs Putin.
Lee: I don't know that that's necessarily true. Putin certainly wants us to abandon Ukraine. But he shows no immediate need for that to happen. He's filling his needs adequately from an ad-hoc rival alliance of China, India, Iran, North Korea, Brazil, UAE, South Africa (among several African nations), and various lesser known supporters.
Maybe, maybe not. There is a reason Russia is desperately interfering in US and other's internal affairs. There is a reason they have reached out to various foreign countries, including North Korea, for fighters. There is a reason Putin has not called for a new internal mobilization. I can't imagine that Putin is doing those things from a position of strength, despite outside help from the countries you mentioned. You can only stand to lose so many workers to death or disability because of a war you started. How long can you spend a large portion of your budget on a never ending war? Raising taxes continually to support a war you started is not conducive to happy citizens.
I suspect Russia's economy is hurting far more than they are letting on. After Trump caves on Ukraine how long will it be before he lifts any sanctions the US has put on Russia?
Btw, how strong is China's economy, really? I just read somewhere that the CCP is injecting more money into their economy to encourage bank lending. If Trump actually raises tariffs on China how will that help their economy?
Petes: Lynnette, I'm not surprised that the losing side insist on still not getting it. Even your own video choices include three where people wring their hands about the forces of darkness that are about to descend, and one where Americans settle their differences the good ole' fashioned way -- by beating seven shades of shitake out of each other.
The second 2 videos really expressed my feelings, so I placed them in the post. Yes, we are concerned about the future of this country. But it is more than that for me, I can't speak for them. There is a show on CNN hosted by Michael Smerconish who is always polling his audience regarding various issues. His question this morning was whether Trump's win has changed America or revealed it? The majority of the respondents, over 80%, said that he has revealed it. I came to believe the same. So for someone like me who truly believes that democracy and the rule of law are the foundations which have made this country great and have created the environment for all that comes after, including a health economy, the thought that so many of my fellow citizens do not feel the same is extremely depressing. Perhaps that is why I placed the video with Liz Cheney first, because despite my disagreements with her over policy, I admire her stance on this issue.
The last video is from the movie "Giant" which came out in 1956. I used to watch re-runs of that when I was a kid. Okay, I admit that Rock Hudson was part of the attraction, but I put it here because sometimes you can see the development of a society through its entertainment. It will appear very dated to people today, because of the norms of that era. I put up the fight scene not because of the fight itself but because of what it represented to the main character. In the beginning of the film he, like so many of that era, exhibited the xenophobia that was so endemic to various areas of the country. But because of his son's relationship with a Mexican woman he comes to know her as a person and not as the "other". In that scene his character stands up, not just for her and his grandson, but for strangers. He came to understand that he was wrong in his original idea about people from other countries, legal or illegal.
I will have to continue my responses later. I have to be somewhere...
I did read an article the other day expounding on Russia's "overheating" economy.
Difficulties finding employees--difficulties in paying wages competitive with the signing bonuses for the military. Shortages piling up, etc.
None of this raises up a challenger for Putin's chair. He's been most careful to see that there was no credible challenger waiting in the wings for unhappy citizens to rally 'round.
But, I was about to raise a related question. I think I'll go 'head and do it…
Ya s'pose Trump will be ready with a string of Chinese tariffs come early January?
Here's a real head-scratcher.
Team Harris day before election: Trump is Hitler
Team Harris day after election: Let’s make the transition to Hitler as smooth as possible.
Hold it, what?
Jeffrey -- Chisinau, Moldova
PeteS: I look at the CNNs of the world and see that they have less than zero clue about their own elitism.
I look at the people who voted for Trump and see people who think it's okay to mock disabled people, grab women by the pussy, vilify anyone who has a differing opinion, force women to have babies, and try to force people to believe as they do. I see Putin lite. Because that is the man they elected to the highest office of the land. We can argue until the cows come home on who has the best ideas to create a healthy economy, deal with the border, provide quality healthcare and other bread and butter issues, but bottom line is that cruelty is now the accepted norm in America. We will regress back to the era of "Giant". That is the time period MAGA is dreaming about.
Lee: The conservative and ultra-conservative elements made up the backbone of the migrations to America. (That may be less the case these days, but I'm talking 'bout Latino immigrant populations who've been here long enough to become citizens and vote.)
I thought about your comment from long ago about how many migrants are bringing their societal beliefs along with them, and they may not really be democratic in nature, when I saw how the Latin community broke for Trump. You may have been spot on,.
Jeffrey,
Hey, I hope Marcus does stop by.
I haven't seen him for a while now. Wasn't he talking about moving to Canada or something?
Here's a real head-scratcher.
Team Harris day before election: Trump is Hitler
Team Harris day after election: Let’s make the transition to Hitler as smooth as possible.
Hold it, what?
I know! A peaceful transition, as in following the law, does seem rather odd now, doesn't it? How quickly things change when flouting the law, as Trump does, becomes the norm. It comes as a shock when there are still government officials that try to adhere to it, despite the fact that they are turning the keys over to someone less than worthy.
Lee: Ya s'pose Trump will be ready with a string of Chinese tariffs come early January?
Businesses here are not waiting to find out. They are ordering as much stock from China as they can to try to get ahead of the price increases they will be forced to pass on to the American consumers. Ain't Trump grand?
Okay, I'm starting to get a little snarky here. I will have to go wallow in a few Netflix shows for a little bit to refresh my mood.
A comment I found laying around somewhere. It kind of dovetails with Jeffrey's observation about the transfer of power.
America proclaimed a king.
You could cry foul but thats the final truth.
The slaves voted for their masters.
One of the reasons I vote is due to my experiences in countries that can't.
Another reason was a conversation I had while on deployment to Europe.
An old WW2 German veteran, told me of how the German people were "hungry and hopeless." In the 1930s
He said
"We young men were angry. No work, no pride, no hope"
"Then a man stood up and told us it wasn't our fault. It was the government, the lazy, the foreigners, the others. But he had a plan to sweep away the old boring politicians and make Germany great again. Food and honor"
The trains would run on time.
It didn't start with tanks and soldiers, it started as an idea, an excuse to allow you to do all you wanted to do. "Freedom for us, the rest must go"
And the rest is, history
As a point, it may be a good idea when trump gets in for Americans to ask who is on those trains and where they are going before they find themselves in a box-car or servicing the ovens.
Sorry to sound grim, but I looked into that German veteran's eyes.
Ignoring your responsibility as a citizen to vote and to know what the policies of the party are is a sure road to slavery.
"I thought about your comment from long ago about how
many migrants are bringing their societal beliefs along with
them…"
I am not opposed to allowing Muslim immigrants, nor against Hispanic immigrants, nor against Black immigrants, nor am I in favor of selecting out any group for disfavor.
However, I am opposed to allowing immigrants en masse because of their status as refugees from their own civil wars, environmental predations, or etc., or just because they have a family member who's already been allowed residency.
I've long believed that immigrants should be approved on an individual basis, after an individual evaluation of their application. None of this bringing them in by groups stuff. (That gets us blocks of Arab-Americans voting for Trump en masse to punish America because the Democrats had proven less pliable on the issue of punishing Israel than the Arabs had hoped.)
Post Script:
I'm also not in favor of us allowing dual citizenship. I don't object to other countries doing as they please on that subject, but I don't think the United States should participate in that practice. If you're allowed to vote in America, your allegiance should be to America undiluted. (Elon Musk is another example of why I object to the dual citizenship concept.)
Lynnette: "I look at the people who voted for Trump and see people who think it's okay to mock disabled people, grab women by the pussy, vilify anyone who has a differing opinion, force women to have babies, and try to force people to believe as they do. I see Putin lite. Because that is the man they elected to the highest office of the land."
I can think of multiple reasons to not want Trump for president. But your list doesn't contain any of them. Those are mostly inventions or embellishments by the vitriolic left. I genuinely don't believe Trump mocked that disabled reporter. He has mocked a lot of people and, being a mean SOB, he's generally been prepared to double down on it rather than deny it. He says he didn't know who Serge Kovaleski was and was trying to mimic a flustered reporter. That is very credible if you are not seeing Orange Satan behind every corner.
"Grabbing women by the pussy" is a very unfortunate term. It's also the sort of thing that a large fraction of men on the planet have said or regularly heard throughout their lives. Sorry to break that to you if it's news. I probably started hearing terms like it around age ten to twelve. Of course, one wouldn't say them in polite company. It was a topic for immature boys on their own together. It turns out there are lots of men who never get beyond it. I don't like it but I understand it. Integrity demands that what you think and say in private and how you act in public ought to be aligned, but it takes a bit of mature self-reflection to realise it. I've no idea how many men never take that leap. But I'm pretty certain if every man was subjected to secret recordings of their unguarded comments you'd find a lot of Trump-like comments. It's unpleasant but simply not surprising. JFK was quite likely a bigger philanderer than Trump. I'm pretty sure his secret recordings would raise eyebrows.
Trump hasn't forced anyone to have a baby. Abortion legislation has gone back to the States where it used to be and arguably should have remained. The original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision centred around a supposed relevant right to privacy discovered in the 9th and 14th amendments. It took a great deal of philosophical contortion to turn this discovery into a right to abortion in early pregnancy, but allowing the state's "compelling and legitimate" interest in pre-natal life to apply the brakes on later term abortions. By all means let any argument for abortion be taken on its merits. Roe v. Wade was a case of superficial reasoning and amateur philosophising.
(cont'd ...)
(... cont'd)
"We can argue until the cows come home on who has the best ideas to create a healthy economy, deal with the border, provide quality healthcare and other bread and butter issues, but bottom line is that cruelty is now the accepted norm in America. We will regress back to the era of "Giant". That is the time period MAGA is dreaming about."
Of course cruelty isn't the accepted norm. You are accusing more than half your compatriots of being sadists. The fact is there is are radical minorities at the left and right wing extremes whose voices are amplified out of all proportion by the new media and their algorithms. That has a polarising effect on everyone else, including the legacy media. It's not too late to wake up and realise that Twitter and Instagram are not necessarily representative of the real world.
I'll let you in on a secret. I've watched a bunch of YouTube videos about "liberal" reactions to the Trump win. They range from people giving advice on how best to flee the country, to women vowing to withhold sex for four years, to those wishing all rightwingers to die (and even offering to expedite them), or just plain unhinged screaming into the camera. Some of these may be sincerely felt views, but I suspect most are attention-seeking nutjobs. They come pre-packaged in ten-minute chunks of hilarity and fed to me by an algorithm that knows I'll get a kick out of them. If I thought they represented average Democrat voters I would despair. Just as I would despair if QAnon or Pizzagate conspiracies were mainstream beliefs on the right.
The tragedy of all this polarisation is that it detracts from your important first question: who has the best ideas on managing the economy and affairs of state. The one thing I can say fairly certainly is that they weren't running in the 2024 presidential election. I'm still trying to figure out how such a great country fielded such awful candidates.
"He says he didn't know who Serge Kovaleski was…"
He also said he'd never met E. Jean Carroll. A jury decided that question otherwise, to the tune of over $88 million in damages.
And Kovalski has claimed otherwise, the he and Trump had been on a first name basis for years from back in the days when Trump was courting all the headlines he could get. Kovalski was one of those whom he cultivated for publicity.
And you have previously acknowledged Trump to be a pathelogical liar. (I may have picked the wrong adjective, maybe it was compulsory liar, or something else along those lines, but you've made the claim when it suited you.) Now that is suits you to argue from a different perspective you suddenly have become incredibly gullible, finding Trump credible on the basis that his own lyin' self has made a dubious and self-serving claim.
I gotta wonder why Lynnette still engages with you, why she hasn't thrown you back already.
Yore wonderin' sounds more than a little weird and creepy. Maybe focus on your own apparent addiction to engagin' with me. Fortunately I can help y'all out with that.
I'm actually surprised it took you over two whole days to figure out that ya ought not go for those gratuitous shots, especially when you fuel 'em with your own "whole cloth" lies (PeteS @ Fri M11 08, 09:08:18 PM, prior thread)
But, ya figured it out eventually.
All ya gotta do is not take the cheap shot. (Wish I had faith in your ability to follow through.)
"But, ya figured it out eventually."
At least I'd hoped, you'd figured it out. If ya hadn't I probably gave it away right there. Which is as good a way for you to learn as any I guess.
Ciao for now.
PeteS: I can think of multiple reasons to not want Trump for president. But your list doesn't contain any of them.
Well, of course, there are many more, but space is limited.
I am sure there are many reasons why people voted for Trump, but it does seem some of those people did not consider enough the reasons not to. Obviously, there are those who are perfectly fine with his behavior, as you said. Although I think the "all men are pigs" defense is not going to work with me. At some point in time being a responsible person is a must and having a 12 year old in the office of president isn't a desirable outcome. But having said that I doubt you will see some kind of large movement by women in the United States to withhold sex like an off offshoot of the 4B movement that began in South Korea. I think what is more likely, and we already see it now, is that people will use a person's political views as a criteria of whether or not they want to become involved with them. This could lead to a further polarization of society.
As for leaving the abortion issue up to each state, I guess time will tell whether or not Trump is true to this idea. There were, I believe, at least 7 states that had abortion on their ballot which decided that it should be legal. Making abortion illegal and also making it illegal to help a woman cross state borders to acquire one where it is legal, threatening health care providers if they provide that care, is kind of like forcing a woman to have a baby, I would say.
Of course cruelty isn't the accepted norm. You are accusing more than half your compatriots of being sadists.
No, I think I am accusing them of being indifferent to other people's suffering, kind of like that 12 year old boy who is also a bully. As for what people may see on YouTube or the internet in general I don't think they have learned to parse what is real and what is not. There have always been extreme views on both sides. But the level of disinformation has been amplified by those who seek to interfere in our internal affairs, for whatever reason.
The tragedy of all this polarisation is that it detracts from your important first question: who has the best ideas on managing the economy and affairs of state.
I agree with you on this. Unfortunately, if a person does not understand completely the functioning of economics or foreign affairs, then their choices may be poorly made. It is easy to let the fox in the henhouse and get fleeced.
Lee: I gotta wonder why Lynnette still engages with you, why she hasn't thrown you back already.
I do not believe in bans. I believe in civil discourse, as much as possible anyway, to exchange thoughts and ideas. The only person I ever deleted was Zeyad, and that was only once.
One of the things that has saddened me so, is that people here cannot talk anymore. We have serious issues facing us and it will take a united front to deal with them. We need all of our ideas, not just some. Having said that, I still doubt that Trump will do much of anything to unite us. He has been content to use division to gain power and will not change now.
"I do not believe in bans."
I didn't mean to suggest a ban. I was addressing PeteS' lack of good faith in so many of his arguments (relying on a supposed finding of credibility in Trump's arguments--really now?), and there's PeteS' predilection for word games in addition to his promoting arguments clearly made in bad faith.
I was just wondering aloud, so to speak, that you still indulge him in those pretenses--not suggesting a ban.
But, it was intended as a rhetorical question--something for PeteS to ponder. I didn't intend to draw an answer from you. (I didn't imagine that you'd read a proposed 'ban' into it either.)
Lynnette: "There have always been extreme views on both sides. But the level of disinformation has been amplified by those who seek to interfere in our internal affairs, for whatever reason."
I think social media provides a megaphone for anyone who wants to say anything. But you make a good point -- it also allows foreign actors to muddy the waters and there's incontrovertible evidence of that happening. Just how much it has influenced things is hard to know.
Unfortunately, if a person does not understand completely the functioning of economics or foreign affairs, then their choices may be poorly made. It is easy to let the fox in the henhouse and get fleeced.
It's not clear to me if you are talking about politicians here or the people who vote for them. I'd probably agree in both cases. None of your politicians of either persuasion show much interest in tackling your deficit or debt problems. I'd have thought it would be right up there on the list of most pressing problems facing the country.
As for the voters, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to understand the intricacies. But you can be pretty sure they understand the issues they face in everyday life. The rent and groceries are coming out of their wallets. Keep telling them that they are too stupid to understand why the Dems are the best show in town even though things haven't been improving, and they are likely to eventually tire of being told they are ignorant yahoos.
"One of the things that has saddened me so, is that people here cannot talk anymore. We have serious issues facing us and it will take a united front to deal with them. We need all of our ideas, not just some. Having said that, I still doubt that Trump will do much of anything to unite us. He has been content to use division to gain power and will not change now."
I agree with you but I also think it's where the Dems have their major blind spot. They are equally adept at leveraging division. How do you think people felt about being told they weren't black unless they voted for Biden? Might blue collar workers have gotten just a tad fed up being expected to vote Democrat when things were obviously disimproving for them? I'm not blaming Dems for all their ills: as far as I can tell these are all fruits of the 2008 GFC and subsequent QE, expansion of the money supply, and financialisation of housing assets -- all policies which have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Just don't go telling the people who have noticed it that they are uneducated yobs, or blame them for grasping at any alternative. Maybe that sort of snobbishness actually drives them into the arms of Orange Cheeto man.
"…as far as I can tell these are all fruits of the 2008 GFC and
subsequent QE…"
PeteS again falls into the cracks.
He still seems to believe that memorizing jargon means he's conquered the concepts that give rise to the jargon terminology.
The "2008 GFC" is jargon for the general financial collapse of 2008. "QE" stands for "Quantitive Easing", a new term that meant the Fed had increased the money supply by purchasing government bonds (which they booked as 'assets' in the federal reserve banks) and then loaning out money to the private sector totalling several times the book value of government bonds--federal reserve banks are allowed to loan out money against assets maybe only 5% as large as the loans--you can do the math yourself). It was a fancy new term designed to provide cover for a very old practice of money control--they thought they could get around the customary political accusation of "printing money" if they came up with a new term for it this time, a boon to people like PeteS who believe memorizing the jargon is the same thing as learning the concepts at play.
The "expansion of the money supply" is the same thing as the "QE", PeteS has just counted it twice without knowing what he's doing there.
And the "financialisation of housing assets" wasn't a matter of public policy. It was merely a new way for the very rich to gamble with their money (one of the most popular ways for the ultra-rich to vastly increase their wealth in a world which is no longer creating vast amounts of new wealth is to gamble with the money they already got, and impoverish one another along with the damage done to lower classes. Fewer players in the game as losers cash out and go home broke means more money in the pots of the fewer players still at the table.)
It coincidentally also meant that single family housing was becoming the property of corporate interests as people got foreclosed out of their homes. And they quickly discovered that housing was an available market for exploitation. So, now big financial corporations are buying up houses (old and new) all across the country, secure in the knowledge that they can charge sufficient rents to cover their investments short term, and charge ever increasing rents long term.
And the rich get richer same way as always, by owning the things the poor need.
Trump claimed he would "fix" this. The Trumpkins have no idea of how (nor does Trump--he was never required to think it that far). And they won't hold him accountable when he doesn't do anything 'bout it after all, 'cause that's not the basis for their allegiance.
Yes, that date does look funky. I tried playing with it but that extra "m" doesn't seem to want to go away. Blogger may have did away with the preview function in the comments section as they think you can just read what you have written before publishing. However, that doesn't help if you want to check out a link. We might be stuck with this.
Petes: None of your politicians of either persuasion show much interest in tackling your deficit or debt problems. I'd have thought it would be right up there on the list of most pressing problems facing the country.
Oh they make noises about it once in a while but they never want to actually do the heavy lifting. To get the debt under control means both raising taxes and cutting spending. Not something that appeals to either side.
We are also facing a crisis in our Social Security fund, which is set to run short of money in about 10 years. The easy fix would be to simply eliminate the wage cap, as we did for Medicare, but that is not something the Republicans are willing to do. They would rather cut benefits by 20% then raise the tax on the wealthy. Something that those collecting Social Security, and with no other savings, will be hit hard with if actually enacted.
As for the voters, it's unreasonable to expect everyone to understand the intricacies. But you can be pretty sure they understand the issues they face in everyday life. The rent and groceries are coming out of their wallets.
Inflation has come down, but that doesn't mean that the prices that were raised in response to high inflation have done so. Oh yes, a few businesses like Target have lowered prices, but most have not. Once the price is raised it usually doesn't come back down again, unless people stop buying the item. So despite the lower inflation rate people are still feeling the pinch and believe the economy is still doing badly. As for Trump, if he imposes more tariffs on goods from overseas we will see higher prices here as that is passed on to consumers.
The thing I do not understand is why Biden never removed or lowered the earlier Trump tariffs? At least I never heard that he did. Maybe Lee can answer that.
Maybe that sort of snobbishness actually drives them into the arms of Orange Cheeto man.
I think assuming that only Democrat elitism is what is causing this cult of Trump may not be quite correct. I think it is a whole basket of things, not least of which is that the extreme right has found a conduit for their wants in Trump. The social issues loomed large as well. I spoke with someone the other day who talked about being forced to learn Spanish or about some kind of transgender operation Kamala Harris allowed for an inmate. Gender identity seems to be a real fear of conservatives. I also seriously believe that there are people in my country who will never vote for a woman.
There also were quite a few people who did not vote as well as those who couldn't vote for either Harris or Trump and voted third party. I spoke with someone who wrote in a candidate, Nikki Haley.
Lee: And they won't hold him accountable when he doesn't do anything 'bout it after all, 'cause that's not the basis for their allegiance.
And thus a strongman is born. In the end America failed to meet the moment.
Oh, Lee, did you see that Trump is angling to get his nominees in without Congressional approval?
"The thing I do not understand is why Biden never removed or
lowered the earlier Trump tariffs"
Tariffs, once enacted, have a 'protectionist' constituency that doesn't want to see them go away. Biden wanted to win the 2024 presidential race. He needed Pennsylvania (and the 'rust belt' in general). Lowering the price of foreign steel wasn't a good way to get those votes. And he already had trouble there on account of their general distaste for environmental protections he wanted to keep in place.
"Trump is angling to get his nominees in without Congressional approval"
Yep, saw that. Elon Musk in the office next to the Oval Office, on an "acting" basis. How's that make ya feel?
"And thus a strongman is born. In the end America failed to meet the moment."
Beginning to look that way.
Meanwhile, back in Ukraine, it seems that Putin has a specific task for those North Korean soldiers. It sounds like they are part of the troops massing, around 50,000, to retake the Russian territory the Ukrainians snatched earlier.
50,000 soldiers should make a nice big target.
I'm not sure Ukraine has the manpower to deal with an additional 50,000 concentrated into one battlefield. They may find themselves simply outmanned in the Kurst region.
Yes, you could be right. Unfortunately. So maybe they withdraw and attack somewhere else that is now more lightly defended?
It looks like Trump has picked Elon Musk to co-head a new department of Government Efficiency
So one wonders exactly where those cuts are going to come from?
*sigh* It looks like I grabbed the wrong link. The drawback of this new comments section where I can't review. But that link does include the Musk appointment synopsis as well as all of the other poor choices Trump is making. At least from where I stand, not from his fascist supporters viewpoint, although even they may find what comes not to their liking. But I have no sympathy for them. Only the 70 million people who voted for Harris.
"So maybe they withdraw and attack somewhere else…"
I would expect a 'fighting' withdrawal, where they try to cost the Russians as many men as possible for each yard they advance and each position they take. (By then it may be whole new war due to Trump's influence.)
"…although even they may find what comes not to their liking."
They're not likely to enjoy the results of his economic policies, although those will take awhile to kick in. It's even possible they'll hold him accountable for any quick economic reaction to his tariffs. Those might incite economic movement in time for Trump to take the blame before this term is scheduled to expire. In that case the Trumpkins may demand a new presidential election in 2027 in spite of his plans.
Trump has just named Matt Gaetz as Attorney General. ROFL! Talk about fox in the henhouse! Ain't Trumplandia grand?
I would expect a 'fighting' withdrawal, where they try to cost the Russians as many men as possible for each yard they advance and each position they take.
Yes, that sounds like what they may do. A good plan all in all.
The GOP has retained control of the House. And so it goes...
…Matt Gaetz as Attorney General".
I interpret that as a middle finger to Trump's 'enemies'. He probably doesn't expect Gaetz to be confirmed.
Inflation, which had been trending down, took an about face and ticked up a little in October, perhaps anticipating Trump's election.
He probably doesn't expect Gaetz to be confirmed.
From what I'm hearing it looks like they are all going to roll over for Trump, so I suspect he probably does expect all of his nominees to be confirmed. Ain't Trumplandia grand?
Post a Comment