1 1
billvon

Trump wants election delay

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The biggest thing about Biden is that he’ll choose advisers who are actually knowledgeable, and he’ll likely listen to them. 
The actual choice this year is between someone with a proven track record as president (an awful track record), and someone who’s less than dynamic and energizing, and who is way more old-school-white-guy than we need. 
Not what I’d’ve preferred, but not a difficult choice, either. 
Wendy P. 

I love how you have this sugar coated.

Seriously.. Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a spoonul of sugar makes the medicine go down...

You'll recall I wasn't complaining about the world ending when Trump was elected, too. But he's shown his presidential stripes now. No way to sugar coat what's left, without coating it with molasses.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You'll recall I wasn't complaining about the world ending when Trump was elected, too. But he's shown his presidential stripes now. No way to sugar coat what's left, without coating it with molasses.

I posted this four years ago:

===========================

The smarter right wingers know that while a Clinton presidency will be bad for them, a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. If Clinton wins, they can cry and wail, do nothing and then blame the lack of progress on her, spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, and work to sabotage foreign policy gains the US has made. They know how to do that; they've been doing that for years.

But Trump? They'd have to support him. If they refused to do their jobs and then blame the guy they supported, their opponents would merely have to say "Joe Republican supported Trump. I didn't." and all those people would be out.

That puts them in the position of supporting every harebrained scheme Trump comes up with. Default on US loans? "Well, uh - maybe that's not so bad, if we don't have to pay them." Spend trillions on a wall? "Hey, it will increase employment. And if we don't have to pay those loans back . . ."

===========================
And now, four years later, Republicans are trying to make that exact decision.  Support pushing the election back?  Few Republicans want to go with something so nuts and anti-American.  Split from Trump?  They lose that 38% support - which for some, is all they have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

I posted this four years ago:

===========================

The smarter right wingers know that while a Clinton presidency will be bad for them, a Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. If Clinton wins, they can cry and wail, do nothing and then blame the lack of progress on her, spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, and work to sabotage foreign policy gains the US has made. They know how to do that; they've been doing that for years.

But Trump? They'd have to support him. If they refused to do their jobs and then blame the guy they supported, their opponents would merely have to say "Joe Republican supported Trump. I didn't." and all those people would be out.

That puts them in the position of supporting every harebrained scheme Trump comes up with. Default on US loans? "Well, uh - maybe that's not so bad, if we don't have to pay them." Spend trillions on a wall? "Hey, it will increase employment. And if we don't have to pay those loans back . . ."

===========================
And now, four years later, Republicans are trying to make that exact decision.  Support pushing the election back?  Few Republicans want to go with something so nuts and anti-American.  Split from Trump?  They lose that 38% support - which for some, is all they have.

 

And you were spot on. Isn't the 38% number remarkable? That's just 10% away from an electoral college victory and 13% away from a senate seat. No wonder they do the despicable things they do to hold on the the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The biggest thing about Biden is that he’ll choose advisers who are actually knowledgeable, and he’ll likely listen to them. 
The actual choice this year is between someone with a proven track record as president (an awful track record), and someone who’s less than dynamic and energizing, and who is way more old-school-white-guy than we need. 
Not what I’d’ve preferred, but not a difficult choice, either. 
Wendy P. 

Why is the US system so skewed towards “old” white guys? Surely the demographic of the USA should support more diversity?

Maybe the wave of younger people in politics and rise of social media campaigning will shift the balance.

I’d be interested in your views?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The biggest thing about Biden is that he’ll choose advisers who are actually knowledgeable, and he’ll likely listen to them. 
The actual choice this year is between someone with a proven track record as president (an awful track record), and someone who’s less than dynamic and energizing, and who is way more old-school-white-guy than we need. 
Not what I’d’ve preferred, but not a difficult choice, either. 
Wendy P. 

Biden will be 78yo at the time of inauguration. If he follows through on choosing a female of color as running mate, we could possibly see her take over before the term ends. I've had an admiration for Kamala Harris ever since I saw her grilling a witness in a congressional hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Old white guys hold power; they're the patriarchs in a white-dominated patriarchal society. When one talks to you, you say "sir." It's a double whammy -- they're male, and they're white. And "they've gotten us this far and we're the best country in the world!!!" :blank:

All specious reasons, but many people are change-averse, and defining it this way highlights what the change is. This won't last forever, but I won't be alive to see a majority-majority world (i.e. where positions of power are occupied relatively proportionate to their population). As long as poverty skews minority and female, and education and opportunity can be bought, it's going to continue. Eroding, I hope.

Wendy P.

Edited by wmw999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Old white guys hold power; they're the patriarchs in a white-dominated patriarchal society. When one talks to you, you say "sir." It's a double whammy -- they're male, and they're white. And "they've gotten us this far and we're the best country in the world!!!" :blank:

All specious reasons, but many people are change-averse, and defining it this way highlights what the change is. This won't last forever, but I won't be alive to see a majority-majority world (i.e. where positions of power are occupied relatively proportionate to their population). As long as poverty skews minority and female, and education and opportunity can be bought, it's going to continue. Eroding, I hope.

Wendy P.

Jacinda Ardern. bbbbbut she banned Ar-15s

Why Are Women-Led Nations Doing Better With Covid-19?

Margaret Thatcher

Germany’s coronavirus response is a master class in science communication. Led by Merkel of course.

If the US popular vote determined the US presidency I wonder how many more Americans would be alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1