Post New

“The 2024 election’s in full swing and yes, age is an issue,” he said. “I’m a grown man running against a 6-year-old.” Biden's joke at the White House Correspondents Dinner

"Being here is a reminder that folks think what's going on in Congress is political theater.
But if Congress was theater, they would've thrown out Lauren Boebert a long time ago." ~Joe Biden

LOL

Joe had a bunch of good ones. More importantly it's nice to have a normal President who keeps up American traditions like the White House Correspondents' Dinner!
Unlike Trump who, like a spoiled baby refused to attend when he was POTUS.

Banksy: Joe had a bunch of good ones.

Colin Jost had a sadly revealing summary of MAGAts and the 2024 presidential race in America:

"So let me see if I can summarize where this race stands at this moment: The republican candidate for president owes half-a-billion in fines for bank fraud, and is currently spending his days farting himself awake during a porn star hush money trial... and the race is tied?!!"

Insane, right?

Spiro Agnew resigned his vice presidency in disgrace and went on to plead no contest to a charge of cheating the Government of $13,551.47 on his Federal income tax payment for 1967, his first year as Governor of Maryland.

That ended his political career.

Gary Hart, the democratic frontrunner, dropped out of the 1988 presidential race after journalists reported on one of his many affairs. Donna Rice was pictured on the lap of Gary Hart on the cover of the June 2, 1987, issue of the National Enquirer. Wow, what a coincidence.

Hart would never run in another election. His senate career ended in 1987.

But MAGAts, formerly the party of law and order but now the party of grievance and revenge, want to reelect Trump, a president who attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by assembling a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol; conspired to create false electoral slates in key states; clearly bullied officials in some states to “find” more votes for him; urged his Vice President not to certify the legitimate results of the 2020 election; called American war dead suckers and losers; used illegal methods while president to pay off a porn star he was raw-dogging while his wife was home with their newborn son; and kept dozens of the nation's most sensitive military intelligence documents out in the open in an unlocked bathroom and on a ballroom stage at Mar-a-Lago.

The republican party is officially dead.




https://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/11/archives/agnew-...

https://www.history.com/news/gary-hart-scandal-fro...

An AI program responded to the simple question: "Is Donald Trump a compulsive liar?"

Donald Trump, the former President of the United States, was often accused of having a complete disregard for the truth. His propensity for falsehoods and misleading claims was a subject of much scrutiny during his tenure in office. Let’s explore different perspectives on this matter:

Pathological Liar:
Trump’s public behavior and available information led experts to characterize him as a malignant narcissist and a pathological liar.
He was obsessed with violence, easily swayed by praise and ego-stroking behavior, and indifferent to the suffering of others.
Some even considered him anti-social and anti-human in his values and behavior1.

Quantifying Falsehoods:
During his first 263 days in office, The Washington Post tallied 1,318 “false and misleading claims” made by Trump2.
His lies ranged from minor exaggerations to significant distortions of facts.

Psychological Assessment:
A psychologist noted that Trump knows what he’s saying is wrong; he doesn’t appear delusional. His behavior aligns with that of a pathological liar.

In summary, while opinions may vary, it’s evident that Trump’s relationship with the truth was complex and contentious throughout his presidency.

"So let me see if I can summarize where this race stands at this moment: The republican candidate for president owes half-a-billion in fines for bank fraud, and is currently spending his days farting himself awake during a porn star hush money trial... and the race is tied?!!"

Insane, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7QP9Zqge4s&ab_cha...

Yet lose he did. And Biden very well may lose. Because a lot of voters support the policies and positions of the Republican party. For them, electing even the very worst Republican nominee brings the country much much closer to what they think is good policy than would electing even the very best Democratic nominee.

albaby1: For them, electing even the very worst Republican nominee...

You keep repeating this as if repetition will justify the insanity.

Look, republicans could have nominated Nikki Haley (who, by the way, is still getting 15% of the republican primary vote in closed elections) and had a better chance at actually enacting some of "the policies and positions of the Republican party" rather than Trump, a guy who's dreadful at negotiating legislative wins.

This election is no longer about "the republican party" and its goals. That party is dead, is no more, has ceased to be, has expired and gone to meet its maker, is a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace! [Apologies to Monty Python.]

This is a cult of personality.

And no one is suggesting Orange Jesus cannot win. I hate to trigger Godwin's law but, umm, history shows...

Look, republicans could have nominated Nikki Haley (who, by the way, is still getting 15% of the republican primary vote in closed elections) and had a better chance at actually enacting some of "the policies and positions of the Republican party" rather than Trump, a guy who's dreadful at negotiating legislative wins.

That's not really as important as you think.

The President has a marginal - at best - role in legislation. The real import of the Presidency lies in running the Executive branch. And for the most part, it doesn't especially matter who the President is.

For example, if a Democratic President is elected, the head of the EPA will be someone inclined to read the environmental statutes broadly, place great emphasis on devoting resources to enforcement against pollution, and be very active in enacting new regulations to try to broaden the scope of environmental protection - and in modern times, especially as it relates to climate change. If a Republican President is elected, the head of the EPA will be someone inclined to read those statutes narrowly, devote resources primarily to the agency's permitting</b. functions and to culling regulations that they deem overbroad and outdated, and certainly not seeking to expand the agency's regulatory footprint.

That's got far more of an impact in what happens over the four years of an Administration than anything that the President does or doesn't do personally. It's baked in. The President will wiggle some stuff on the margins on high-visibility stuff (Keystone!), but that pales in comparison to the impact of having a Republican or a Democrat heading the EPA.

Trump's going to get the votes of all of the Republicans who don't esteem his personal qualifications, because 99% of the impact of him being elected will be not much different than what any other Republican would have. Because 90% of what any President's impact in office has almost nothing to do with who they are, and everything to do with what coalition they belong to. Trump might not even care about the EPA, or the Department of Energy, or HUD, or 90% of the rest of what government does - so it will mostly just run the way it would run under any Republican.

The 10% matters, but it's not the least surprising that most Republicans aren't going to refuse to back Trump based on that 10% - when the 90% impact is just about the fact that Republicans, and not Democrats, are in charge.

Yet lose he did. And Biden very well may lose. Because a lot of voters support the policies and positions of the Republican party. For them, electing even the very worst Republican nominee brings the country much much closer to what they think is good policy than would electing even the very best Democratic nominee.

Yeah, if you want to get really depressed watch this hour long interview with Batya Ungar-Sargon:


Hostess intro:

"WE ARE JOINED NOW BY BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, THE "NEWSWEEK" OPINION EDITOR AND AUTHOR OF "SECOND CLASS: HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN."

First response from Batya Ungar-Sargon

WELL, IT HAD BECOME CLEAR TO ME THAT A LOT OF THE POLARIZATION THAT WE HAVE SEEN CONSTANTLY, THE FIGHTING WE SEE IN CONGRESS AND THE FIGHTING IN THE MEDIA WAS REALLY A VERY MUCH ELITE PHENOMENON. I BECAME VERY CONVINCED THAT THE REAL DIVIDE IN AMERICA WAS NOT ACTUALLY BETWEEN RIGHT AND LEFT BUT BETWEEN AN OVER CREDENTIALED , MULTIPLE DEGREES, COLLEGE EDUCATED ELITE, AND THE VAT AMERICAN MIDDLE AND WORKING-CLASS. I SAW POLL AFTER POLL THAT SHOWED THAT AMERICANS WERE MORE UNITED THAN DENIED IT, AND I WOULD TURN ON MY TV AND SEE THE DIVISION, THAT DID NOT REFLECT WHERE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN WAS CUTE I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THIS PHENOMENON, I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHO IS THE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS, AND DO THEY STILL HAVE A FAIR SHOT A


https://www.c-span.org/video/?535221-3/batya-ungar...

Unlike Trump who, like a spoiled baby refused to attend when he was POTUS

The little man-boy with the monstrous but fragile ego.

That is why he has an aide who follows him around constantly to show him favorable news about him, which is easy to come by when there is so much right wing propaganda out there from far right media.

But MAGAts, formerly the party of law and order but now the party of grievance and revenge, want to reelect Trump, a president who attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by assembling a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol; conspired to create false electoral slates in key states; clearly bullied officials in some states to “find” more votes for him; urged his Vice President not to certify the legitimate results of the 2020 election; called American war dead suckers and losers; used illegal methods while president to pay off a porn star he was raw-dogging while his wife was home with their newborn son; and kept dozens of the nation's most sensitive military intelligence documents out in the open in an unlocked bathroom and on a ballroom stage at Mar-a-Lago.

It's as if nearly half the voters in this country have lost their minds.

Still, that wouldn't be enough to elect Trump if we didn't have the old kludge of the electoral college.

...electing even the very worst Republican nominee brings the country much much closer to what they think is good policy...

I realize they think that, but IMO they are not just wrong but disastrously wrong. They won't get what they are expecting or want. It's pretty obvious now that the main motivating factors are feelings of anger and victimhood, detached from reality and stoked constantly by right wing media.

I realize they think that, but IMO they are not just wrong but disastrously wrong. They won't get what they are expecting or want.

What? No, they'll get exactly what they are expecting and want.

To use the above example again, they want an EPA that doesn't try to expand the scope of existing pollution control regulations. They want an EPA that isn't trying to adopt new carbon dioxide emissions requirements. They want an EPA that isn't trying to promote green building standards or escalate CAFE requirements.

What they expect and want from a Trump Presidency - from any Republican Presidency - is an Administration that will not be pursuing progressive administrative policies, but rather an Administration staffed with secretaries and directors that want to restrain the regulatory state. They want the regulatory agencies to shift resources away from enforcement and into permitting, they want the entitlements agencies to adopt stricter standards for qualification of benefits rather than more expansive ones, they want the infrastructure agencies (like DOT and HUD) to stop linking grants and financing to pursuing progressive goals.

Across the board, they want the federal government to stop making judgment calls that land on the progressive/Democratic side of issues, and instead make those judgment calls on the conservative/Republican side. For example, instead of rulings that Title IX requires letting trans athletes compete on teams of their identification, or that the waters of the United States include isolated wetlands, or that the CAA requires regulating carbon emissions...they want the opposite calls.

And they'll get all that. And they'll be content with the trade-off of having a loutish and awful President, knowing they got the Administration they wanted.

And they'll get all that. And they'll be content with the trade-off of having a loutish and awful President, knowing they got the Administration they wanted. - albaby

---------------

Exactly.

Liberals take heed. Character matters, but it is not all that matters, and to a Trump supporter matters far than less policy.

Liberals take heed. Character matters, but it is not all that matters, and to a Trump supporter matters far than less policy.

When push comes to shove, folks are going to vote with what their eyes and pocketbooks are telling them. In the US today, what is that?

Let’s also note that Joe Biden is a plagiarist, has been accused of doing inappropriate things with relatives and staffers, is a blatant race hustler and is known for having his family peddle influence using his name with his consent. Let’s not pretend that Biden is some kind of high-character guy.

albaby1: The President has a marginal - at best - role in legislation.

Am I mistaken, or do presidents no longer have veto power? And are presidents no longer able to influence legislation, say, like Biden did with the Infrastructure bill?

But sure, you can go ahead and vote for the guy who says he'll get the trains to run on time (or build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it, or secure the border with EOs) even though he failed to do so when he held the office the first time around.

Me, I'm going with what George Stephanopoulos said when opening his show this morning:

Until now, no American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election, or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse.

Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined by what’s happening in courtrooms than by what’s happening on the campaign trail. Until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering, that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflexive habits, to treat this as a normal campaign, where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenants of democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.

Sorry, albaby1, but this ain't no normal campaign.

Am I mistaken, or do presidents no longer have veto power? And are presidents no longer able to influence legislation, say, like Biden did with the Infrastructure bill?

They do still have veto power, but it's exceedingly rare in today's age of deep partisan division, slim Senate majorities, and robust use of the filibuster. And they can influence legislation, but the import of that pales in comparison to their role in overseeing the Executive. Again, in an age of slim Senate majorities and partisan division, the shape of any legislation is going to be determined mostly by the preferences of the marginal Senators whose votes are needed, and not so much the preferences of the President.

But sure, you can go ahead and vote for the guy who says he'll get the trains to run on time (or build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it, or secure the border with EOs) even though he failed to do so when he held the office the first time around.

Oh, I'm not voting for Trump - but I think you underestimate how much your typical Republican preferred the Trump Administration to the Biden one. Just because, again, Trump's Administration was mostly a bog-standard Republican one for 80-90% of the stuff. The agencies mostly issued interpretations consistent with how conservatives view policy should be, mostly pursued projects consistent with what conservatives like (more highways, less transit, not as much trying to cut everyone's carbon emissions), and generally didn't try to "bend the arc of history" toward progressive goals.

Sorry, albaby1, but this ain't no normal campaign.

That's what Michael Anton said, too.

To use the above example again, they want an EPA that doesn't try to expand the scope of existing pollution control regulations. They want an EPA that isn't trying to adopt new carbon dioxide emissions requirements. They want an EPA that isn't trying to promote green building standards or escalate CAFE requirements.

If you're talking about certain upper echelon Republicans...OK.

But the average MAGA, the ones going to his rallies and confessing their undying love for him. No, I doubt that is what they are thinking about. And I do not think they will get what they deserve, which is decent and capable government that cares about average citizens, not the billionaires and large corporations. They'll get corruption and Executive Branch appointees who's main qualification is fealty to Trump. They'll get tax cuts that go to those at the top and corporations. But they may be satisfied with the charade of MAGA and revenge politics.

I really admire your view and your ability to express it, but I still think you're wrong about what Trump voters are going to get.

albaby1: That's what Michael Anton said, too.

Well, comparing me to Michael Anton is probably the worst thing anyone here has ever said to me.

Well, comparing me to Michael Anton is probably the worst thing anyone here has ever said to me.

Sorry - I meant only in the sense of characterizing campaigns in almost eschatological terms. Not in terms of worldview or anything else.

Regardless of whether Democrats view the campaign that way - regardless even of whether they're right to view it that way - that's going to be a very unhelpful frame if you're trying to understand why mainstream, normie Republicans are all going to vote for Donald Trump despite his many flaws. They'll vote for him not because they like those flaws. They'll do it because they think that it's much, much worse for the country to have a Democratic president than a Republican one. Any Republican one.

Exactly.

Liberals take heed. Character matters, but it is not all that matters,

Oh, yes, I've been watching you repeat what Albaby says, but take a look at it. Fearless leader kills a functional border bill, something you hold very dear, and you decide the bill was flawed if it doesn't allow closure of the border indefinitely. And you proceed certain that fearless leader will find the imaginary perfect pretext to close the border or that AMLO (or his successor) will cooperate withe Trump because Trump will rattle border-shut-down sabers, whereas AMLO and co. will never cooperate with weak Biden. There's no evidence that Stephen Miller's "tear families apart" tactic worked at the border. That was a real Trump tactic, not an imaginary one.

They'll do it because they think that it's much, much worse for the country to have a Democratic president than a Republican one. Any Republican one.

Oh sure, we have evidence of it right here. As noted upthread, for instance, LurkerMom, complains about Bill Clinton’s “zippergate” - and has for 20 years, while “not my business” the the reply to Trump banging a porn star, consorting with Jeffrey Epstein, walking in on half naked sub-teen beauty pageant contestants, “grab their pussy” behavior, rape and sexual harassment accusations and convictions, and now, paying huge money to Playboy models and hookers to cover up an affair he had while his wife was pregnant and on the way to the hospital to give birth.

The people who have one set for rules for thee and a different set for me are odious, but I’m sure there have been such odious people all throughout history. Luckily they often come to a bad end, and I hope the Donald, the contract stiffing, bankruptcy laden, bill avoiding, lying, cheating, swindling, charity robbing, pussy grabbing, racist, backstabbing, treasonist wretch gets there soon.

albaby1: ...normie Republicans are all going to vote for Donald...

Yeah, no. There aren't any "normie" republicans anymore. Just look at the "republicans" posting here. They repeatedly demanded Hillary be jailed for mishandling classified documents yet after it turned out that Trump removed more than 100 of the nation's most guarded sources and methods intelligence documents, they cannot write a single critical word.

"Normie" republicans are folks like Liz Cheney, Rick Wilson, Bill Kristol, and Michael Steele, people who say, "Wait a minute, the country can survive policies we do not support but it cannot survive a criminal, con man in the Oval Office."

And c'mon, they do like his flaws. The cult loves the grievance. The cult loves the revenge and retribution, the calls for executions, the lies.

So no need to keep explaining your reasoning to me but sorry, that dog don't hunt.

Which means governor Noem will soon me shooting her in the face and tossing her in a gravel pit in her backyard.

There aren't any "normie" republicans anymore. Just look at the "republicans" posting here. They repeatedly demanded Hillary be jailed for mishandling classified documents yet after it turned out that Trump removed more than 100 of the nation's most guarded sources and methods intelligence documents, they cannot write a single critical word.

So what? It's hardly unusual that folks criticize their political opponents for behaviors that they excuse in their own politicians - or that political partisans are hypocrites. That doesn't mean they're not "normie" Republicans. It's always been the case that most partisans will excuse failings in their "own team" that they would excoriate in the opposition.

There's a reason why DJT only pulled slim majorities (51% and 54%) in Iowa and New Hampshire among the Republican party, and 59% in South Carolina. A fair number of Republicans are "normie" - they'd prefer a different standard-bearer in the election than Trump. But they're not going to prefer a Democrat to Trump, so of course they're going to work to get him elected.

If Trump had run as a Dem, I would not have voted for him. And it was conceivable. He claimed to donate to both parties previously. But there is no way I would have voted for him, and that was before I knew about all his criminal activity. Now it's a slam dunk. I'd vote for a rabid weasel before I would vote for Trump. Doesn't matter to me which party he's in.

If Trump had run as a Dem, I would not have voted for him. And it was conceivable. He claimed to donate to both parties previously. But there is no way I would have voted for him, and that was before I knew about all his criminal activity. Now it's a slam dunk. I'd vote for a rabid weasel before I would vote for Trump. Doesn't matter to me which party he's in.

If you found out that Joe Biden had committed a crime back before he became President - say, there was conclusive proof that he committed bank fraud of some kind - would you still vote for him over Donald Trump?

albaby1: If you found out that Joe Biden had committed a crime back before he became President - say, there was conclusive proof that he committed bank fraud of some kind - would you still vote for him over Donald Trump?

Are you also pretending that Trump did not commit sexual assault, that Trump did not commit his own bank fraud, and that Trump is not facing 88 additional actual indictments in this hypothetical? What's the extent of this make believe silliness?

Are you also pretending that Trump did not commit sexual assault, that Trump did not commit his own bank fraud, and that Trump is not facing 88 additional actual indictments in this hypothetical?

If you like. Or just imagine that De Santis had won the nomination, if you prefer.

Would you be willing to vote for a Republican you despise for President, if the Democratic candidate had been credibly accused of a crime? Would you let that Republican run the country - and get the SCOTUS and other judicial appointments - rather than vote for an opponent who had probably committed an illegal act?

albaby1: Or just imagine that DeSantis had won the nomination ... probably committed an illegal act?

Now you're saying he probably committed an illegal act? Before you said there was "conclusive proof". Which is it?

Before you imagine something else, if there was indisputable evidence that my candidate committed a crime as you originally described it (a felony, such as bank fraud) and it was too late to replace him on the ticket, then I would not vote for him nor would I vote for DeSantis.

Would you be willing to vote for a Republican you despise for President, if the Democratic candidate had been credibly accused of a crime?

The democratic party has demonstrably rejected and prosecuted democratic suspects and proven miscreants promptly(Al Franken and Gary Hart come to mind) .

This Minnesotta state rep has been sidelined from her committees for suspected burglary of her stepmothers house (supposedly wanted her Dad's ashes, photos, etc).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/min...

Now consider the time it took for the ouster of George Santos, or Trump's pardoning of convicted thief Duncan scumbag Hunter, or the cotinued embrace of thief/arsonist Darryl Issa.

Anecdotes aside, Trump has a string of lost fraud lawsuits, a rape lawsuit, and a spectacular string of credible allegations, lies, reprehensible behaviors. Rejecting him isn't simply a matter of partisan 'despising'.

So, if the choice was Trump or a "Democratic candidate <that> had been credibly accused of a crime?", unless the crime was worse than the sum of Trump's C.V., it'd be the Democratic candidate, no doubt about it.

Now you're saying he probably committed an illegal act? Before you said there was "conclusive proof". Which is it?

Either one. I'm just chatting on a message board - I'm just using terms for "I'm pretty convinced he did it." Whatever you think the evidence against Trump qualifies as.

Before you imagine something else, if there was indisputable evidence that my candidate committed a crime as you originally described it (a felony, such as bank fraud) and it was too late to replace him on the ticket, then I would not vote for him nor would I vote for DeSantis.

Why wouldn't you vote for DeSantis? If you think what the Democrat has done is so bad that he shouldn't be President, why wouldn't you vote to prevent him from being President?

What if yours was the deciding vote? If you had to choose between the two - the criminal Democrat or the terrible Republican - which would you choose?

The democratic party has demonstrably rejected and prosecuted democratic suspects and proven miscreants promptly(Al Franken and Gary Hart come to mind)

Sure, when the stakes were low and the replacement was certain to be a Democrat. In other contexts, say Ralph Northam or Bill Clinton, they weren't able to toss the miscreant quite as promptly. I can't be the only old-timer who believes that if Clinton could have run again in 2000, he would have won the nomination handily.

So, if the choice was Trump or a "Democratic candidate <that> had been credibly accused of a crime?", unless the crime was worse than the sum of Trump's C.V., it'd be the Democratic candidate, no doubt about it.

What about De Santis, or a similar RWNJ that hadn't been convicted of any wrongdoing?

What about De Santis, or a similar RWNJ that hadn't been convicted of any wrongdoing?

Where the opposition is Trumper, ie a person who looks the other way or dismissesthe heinous nature of a christo-fascist, the nature of the Democrat's crime would have to be quantified.

Again,is the crime one that primarily benefits the criminals personal interests, part of a pattern of shady/criminal actions,like Trump..... or is it a debatable situation like Truman's foundry situation?

Again,is the crime one that primarily benefits the criminals personal interests, part of a pattern of shady/criminal actions,like Trump..... or is it a debatable situation like Truman's foundry situation?

Let's say the former. The sort of nastiness that you think Republicans should find disqualifies a candidate.

In that case, would you be willing to let a Republican like De Santis have control of the Presidency, rather than the terrible Democratic candidate? Another Supreme Court appointment, all the federal judges, control over foreign policy, all of the executive orders and administrative decisions - four years (or eight years given the advantages of incumbency) that the American people have to live under a right-wing Republican, rather than the terrible Democrat?

In that case, would you be willing to let a Republican like De Santis have control of the Presidency, rather than the terrible Democratic candidate? Another Supreme Court appointment, all the federal judges, control over foreign policy, all of the executive orders and administrative decisions - four years (or eight years given the advantages of incumbency) that the American people have to live under a right-wing Republican, rather than the terrible Democrat?

Ok. I'll bite. If this democrat, with all the same personal flaws as Trump, had Biden's record of the last 4 years, them damn right I'd still vote for him! The point is not only that Trump is a self-serving grifting lying conman with no concern for anyone but himself. It's also, and primarily, that Trump's "policies" were terrible for the future of the country, and detrimental to world order as a whole.

The tragedy is that so many republicans actually think Trump's policies were good for them and will continue to be good for them if they elect him again.

Oops, looks like I reversed Albaby's question. But I think you can still understand my point, which is that it's primarily the policies of the candidate and the history of the policies s/he had put in place before that matter, not s/he's personal flaws and "terribleness" that will sway my vote.

Oops, looks like I reversed Albaby's question. But I think you can still understand my point, which is that it's primarily the policies of the candidate and the history of the policies s/he had put in place before that matter, not s/he's personal flaws and "terribleness" that will sway my vote.

Right. And that's the exercise that many "normie" Republicans go through before deciding to pull the lever for Trump over Biden. They're not going to let someone's personal flaws - even terrible egregious personal flaws - dissuade them from choosing the person they think will be better for the country (and themselves) than the opposition.

Let's say the former. The sort of nastiness that you think Republicans should find disqualifies a candidate. In that case, would you be willing to let a Republican like De Santis have control of the Presidency, rather than the terrible Democratic candidate?

Basically you're flipping the current 'sitch'; Trump running as a Democrat versus DeSantis on the R side.

I'd go with DeSantis and trust in the American public to continue voting for candidates that are not poo-flinging agents of chaos; that absent a revenge-driven, narcissistic, compulsively lying, pandering conspiracy theorist in the Oval Office, the system will cycle back as it always does.

I'd go with DeSantis and trust in the American public to continue voting for candidates that are not poo-flinging agents of chaos; that absent a revenge-driven, narcissistic, compulsively lying, pandering conspiracy theorist in the Oval Office, the system will cycle back as it always does.

Are you sure? That's kind of brutal for a lot of people.

I mean, Ukraine's basically toast if that happens - lot of people getting killed there, and an expansion of Putin's power, that isn't "cycling back." Rough going for climate change, too, if you hand the Presidency to the GOP for four years; a fair number of regulations get undone (or never adopted), a lot of climate funding gets clawed back if the GOP gets Congress, etc. Four years of lifetime judicial appointments - including probably a SCOTUS justice - won't "cycle back." Lot of young gay and trans people end up having very different school experiences also.

It matters which party has control of the Presidency. A lot, and for a long time.

Rough going for <Ukraine &> climate change, too, if you hand the Presidency to the GOP for four years;

Agreed, but the climate is toast. It's baked into the overpopulation glitch. Ukraine, too, may be toast.

The thing is, if we elect a criminal king, the US is toast too.

Assumes the voters also emplace a GOP majority in the House and Senate. The '22 election suggests the Exec and Leg branches may not go the same way.

It'll be interesting to see how Florida women vote once the reality of the 6 week abortion ban takes effect tomorrow. Hard to imagine women having to drive 12 to 17 hours EACH WAY for healthcare, and liking it.

Probably not, because Trump has committed more crimes and corruption. Plus he is an incompetent moron (not being hyperbolic), and might well be mentally ill. So that's not really a fair comparison. But say Haley or Christie? Yes. I don't like either, but if Biden was a corrupt scumbag, I'd be forced to vote for -for example- Haley. If Trump were running against Saddam? Ok... I'd have to go Trump.

The thing is, if we elect a criminal king, the US is toast too.

Is it? Again, your thesis for electing a person who has terrible policies instead of the person who has committed a crime is that we'll be able to undo the damage of their four years. Why wouldn't that similarly apply to someone who was just personally terrible? It seems to me that if we elected a bank fraudster as President, but he mostly pursued good and beneficial policies, that it would be worse than having a non-bank fraudster as President....but not mean the U.S. was toast?

As for the Congress, the Presidency is important enough that even without having a trifecta it's still really consequential which party holds that office. They then get to control every judicial appointment, every policy decision from the executive, all foreign policy decisions (for the most part)....for four years, and in a lot of areas where the effects will linger for quite a long time.

So that's not really a fair comparison. But say Haley or Christie? Yes. I don't like either, but if Biden was a corrupt scumbag, I'd be forced to vote for -for example- Haley.

What about De Santis? Or Ted Cruz?

Again, your thesis for electing a person who has terrible policies instead of the person who has committed a crime

Mmm, no. In my initial response I stipulated that the nature of the crime had to be considered (Franken's alleged sexual harrassemtn or assault) and whether there was a pattern of narcissistic, unscrupulous criminality.

They then get to control every judicial appointment, every policy decision from the executive, all foreign policy decisions (for the most part)....for four years, and in a lot of areas where the effects will linger for quite a long time.

Yep. But again, the red wave didn't happen. It's hard to have principles.

Again, let's see how DeSantis fares after Wednesday sinks in.

If this democrat, with all the same personal flaws as Trump, had Biden's record of the last 4 years, them damn right I'd still vote for him! The point is not only that Trump is a self-serving grifting lying conman with no concern for anyone but himself. It's also, and primarily, that Trump's "policies" were terrible for the future of the country, and detrimental to world order as a whole. - g01

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

If, as you claim, policy is the "primary" reason to not vote for Trump, then why is 99% of the criticism of Trump concern his personal flaws?

If, as you claim, policy is the "primary" reason to not vote for Trump, then why is 99% of the criticism of Trump concern his personal flaws?

Perhaps it's because of his 4 lawsuits that are in everyone's face every single day?

Mmm, no. In my initial response I stipulated that the nature of the crime had to be considered (Franken's alleged sexual harrassemtn or assault) and whether there was a pattern of narcissistic, unscrupulous criminality.

Even so. Assume the Presidential candidate has a pattern of narcissistic, unscrupulous criminality. But in their policies, the general portfolio of their cabinet officials will be pretty much bog-standard for their party: that Departments like Labor, HUD, EPA, Commerce, DHS, Education will generally do the sorts of things a Republican Administration would do, and not do the sorts of things that a Democratic Administration would do. And that the lifetime appointments similarly reflect that switch. No matter how personally criminal someone might be, 90% of their administration is still going to end up being more or less what a Democratic Administration would look like - pushing forward Democratic goals and preventing GOP rollback of past accomplishments. And you trade that for the vice-versa - four years of a Republican Administration pushing forward Republican goals trying to roll back everything that the Democrats have done.

The effects of that four years - the flip from a potential Democratic Administration to a Republican one - are enormous, and many/most of them don't just "disappear" when the government reverts back.

albaby1: "If you found out that Joe Biden had committed a crime back before he became President... would you still vote for him over Donald Trump?"

Ooh Socratic hypotheticals, fun!

If I found out that Joe Biden was a 6X bankruptcy claiming, draft dodging, science denying, 88X felony indicted, proven-in-court rapist who lied to the American people over 30,000 times AND stole money from a children's cancer charity...

No I would NOT vote for him. Home Depot wouldn't hire that guy, why would America?

"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." ~Socrates

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24...

Dem Trump vs Cruz? Yeah, I'd have to go with Cruz. To my knowledge he is only stupid, not a criminal. And he actually cares about this nation. I may not agree with him on anything else, but I can agree about carrying about this nation. Trump does not. Clearly. You'd have to come up with someone equally odious to Trump for me to even consider Trump, no matter which party. Plus he appears to be a Manchurian candidate for Putin.

As another poster said, there are two more branches of government, and the voters. To me, there is almost no justification for Trump.

No I would NOT vote for him. Home Depot wouldn't hire that guy, why would America?

Because Home Depot isn't hiring someone for the Presidency - and thus constrained to a de facto choice of two candidates.

Suppose Home Depot was choosing their CEO, and the choice was between that guy or a another person who would pursue policies that would make Home Depot much worse. The other person would be cruel and terrible to the workers, ruin the stores, and make customers lives terrible. Perhaps they might then prefer hire the first guy, the one with the terrible record, instead of the other person? They might not prioritize the purity of the candidate, but try to avoid the one that they know would do terrible things to the company (in their eyes)?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.