One of many problems with Trump is that he lowers the bar for future PotUS'. In the past, PotUS' would carefully consider every word before making a public announcement as President of the United States. This guy talks as though he is alone with an old fraternity brother just shooting the shit.
Actually T,G I'm more interested in the house an senate. If the Dems hold the house and take the senate even if Trump is re-elected he will be a lame duck for the four year term.
I like Bernie, if only for the reason that he is the way that humanity has to go to break from the current paradigm and grow. I know that nobody agrees with me, but I feel that a great opportunity has been horribly squandered. An opportunity in which humanity as a whole could come together even somewhat....
And here we have tribal factions still fighting it out , still oblivious to what really matters.
Yet again we have Trump vs. weak competition and it remains likely that he will be re-elected.
Well, before your theory was that Trump would be re-elected because most people were "satisified" with their lives and they would believe he was enough of the cause to keep him in office, now you say he will be re-elected because the opposition is "weak". Does it occur to you that Trump is "weak"?
I will stipulate that you don't like or approve of Trump, so why do you predict he will win? There is no evidence that he will win. Most of the candidates he has endorsed and campaigned for over the past few years in contested elections have underperformed or lost. His polling has never been good. He is the only president in history to not have hit 50% approval in his first term. Why would you think he is going to win?
Are people "satisfied" today?
I am not a big Joe Biden fan, but he is immeasurably better than Trump. They are not both "weak".
Actually T,G I'm more interested in the house an senate. If the Dems hold the house and take the senate even if Trump is re-elected he will be a lame duck for the four year term.
It is extremely unlikely the Democrats would retake the Senate if at the same time Trump wins re-election.
Well, before your theory was that Trump would be re-elected because most people were "satisified" with their lives and they would believe he was enough of the cause to keep him in office, now you say he will be re-elected because the opposition is "weak". Does it occur to you that Trump is "weak"?
Always on the attack, eh John?
First, I said that it is likely that Trump will be elected. That is different from claiming that Trump will be elected.
Second, the reason people liked Trump is because they were content. I suspect those same people think that Trump will return them to contentment after the coronavirus pandemic is under control. Thus the pandemic might not be enough to turn a sufficient number of Trump supporters away from him.
And now, fold in the weak candidate Biden. If there were a strong alternative to Trump, there would likely be more people turning from Trump to that candidate. People are going to turn to the candidate who they feel is most likely to return them to comfort. Because Biden has not turned out to be an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities, we have Trump running against weak opposition
I will stipulate that you don't like or approve of Trump, so why do you predict he will win?
Do you follow the evidence to where it leads or do you simply believe what you want to be true? I opine on what I suspect is most likely even if I do not like it.
There is no evidence that he will win. Most of the candidates he has endorsed and campaigned for over the past few years in contested elections have underperformed or lost. His polling has never been good. He is the only president in history to not have hit 50% approval in his first term. Why would you think he is going to win?
I think it is likely he will win for the reasons I just wrote above.
Are people "satisfied" today?
Of course not, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Under these unusual circumstances the proper question is: will people hold that Trump is most likely to return them to a state of contentment or Biden?
I am not a big Joe Biden fan, but he is immeasurably better than Trump. They are not both "weak".
Well, sorry, but Biden is a weak candidate. Trump is too; if the D's had put forth an impressive candidate then Trump would lose. For example, if someone like the 2008 Obama was running, that would be a strong candidate vs. a weak Trump. Biden is nowhere near candidate Obama2008.
So, see how this works? My comment about Biden being weak points out that the D party is likely to not capitalize on the tarnishing of Trump per the pandemic. Biden needs to stand up and demonstrate that he has the ability—better than Trump— to lead this nation out of a pandemic and the subsequent economic disaster it has caused. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.
Because Biden has not turned out to be an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities, we have Trump running against weak opposition.
So, do you think Trump is an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities? Since you think he is entitled to win for that reason maybe you do. If you dont think so, why would you predict he will win?
I read all of your response, and it seems like you are saying Trump will win and Biden is a weak candidate because you say so. Its kind of puzzling to me.
And I am not attacking you.
I am trying to understand why you predict Trump will win, even in the face of his atrocious performance during this medical emergency.
So, do you think Trump is an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities?
Read what I wrote John. I get tired of repeating myself.
Since you think he is entitled to win for that reason maybe you do. If you dont think so, why would you predict he will win?
A strawman now? Where do I argue that he is entitled to win?
I read all of your response, and it seems like you are saying Trump will win and Biden is a weak candidate because you say so.
Because I say so? Again, I am not making a claim, I have been expressing my opinion. Yes, my opinion is that Biden is a weak candidate and that (as of today) Trump is likely to win. I think I have been clear.
And I am not attacking you.
You routinely attack anyone who does not agree with your political analysis. Putting words in my mouth is a tactic that does not sit well with me.
I am trying to understand why you predict Trump will win, even in the face of his atrocious performance during this medical emergency.
Then read what I wrote @4.3.8. I made a serious effort to explain my position.
Bottom line, most people seem to vote emotionally. I do not think you factor that into your analysis. The winning candidate is not necessarily the logical candidate or even the better candidate (in objective terms).
Your argument is that Biden is weak and therefore Trump will win, sort of by default and people are more likely to believe Trump will get the economy back on track quickly.
I think that a president who has never had 50% approval in 3 1/2 years is a weak candidate. I think that a candidate that was justifiably impeached is a weak candidate. I think that a candidate who would have been subject to criminal obstruction of justice charges were he not the sitting president is a weak candidate. A candidate that has lied to the American people thousands of times since he became president is a weak candidate. And on and on and on. Yet you never say Trump is extremely vulnerable because of his obvious unfitness to hold high office. You say he is likely to win because of the Democratic candidate.
Your argument is that Biden is weak and therefore Trump will win, sort of by default and people are more likely to believe Trump will get the economy back on track quickly.
My opinion is that Biden is weak and therefore may not encourage enough people to turn away from the incumbent. And, yes, my opinion is that people will go with the candidate who they believe will most likely get the economy back on track.
I think that a president who has never had 50% approval in 3 1/2 years is a weak candidate. ... weak ... weak ...
Trump is a weak candidate. I have never argued that he is a strong candidate. Did you read this?:
TiG @4.3.8 ☞ Well, sorry, but Biden is a weak candidate. Trump is too; if the D's had put forth an impressive candidate then Trump would lose.
Read the part in blue.
Yet you never say Trump is extremely vulnerable because of his obvious unfitness to hold high office.
Are there special, specific words I am required to write, John? I would think most people would understand my position from this alone:
TiG @4.3.8 ☞ Trump is [weak] too; if the D's had put forth an impressive candidate then Trump would lose. For example, if someone like the 2008 Obama was running, that would be a strong candidate vs. a weak Trump. Biden is nowhere near candidate Obama2008.
This is why it is difficult to remain patient with you; no matter what I write you stretch my words to the extreme opposite of your position and then complain. It is as if you are trying to alienate those who agree with you in principle. And if you are not trying, let me tell you that you are inadvertently shooting yourself in the foot.
You say he is likely to win because of the Democratic candidate.
I have stated more than that, routinely, for months. Apparently there is no point in repeating myself since you are rewriting my words for me.
I know that nobody agrees with me, but I feel that a great opportunity has been horribly squandered. An opportunity in which humanity as a whole could come together even somewhat....
And here we have tribal factions still fighting it out , still oblivious to what really matters.
It is also possible that if Bernie were to be elected, you'd still have two factions fighting it out.
Often for totally new structures to be created, first the old ones must fall apart. Often total transformation isn't pretty. But for real change to occur...well, sometimes things have to get really bad to fully "wake people up". . . before people are willing to make deep changes.
It is also possible that if Bernie were to be elected, you'd still have two factions fighting it out.
Often for totally new structures to be created, first the old ones must fall apart. Often total transformation isn't pretty. But for real change to occur...well, sometimes things have to get really bad to fully "wake people up". . . before people are willing to make deep changes.
That's on the level of society as a whole.
But its really quite similar to what some stubborn individuals must undergo for deep,true and lasting change to occur. In The Twelve Step Programs, for example, there is a truisim: that for an Alcoholic [or any other addict] to change-- they must first "hit bottom"
Yet again we have Trump vs. weak competition and it remains likely that he will be re-elected.
He has a small loyal "base" that believes anything he says.
But other some people who voted for him last time are more flexible . . .
And while different people are swayed by different issues, many former democrats (particularly factory workers in the "Rust Belt" swing states voted for him because they lost their jobs...and believed Trump would fix the economy.
For many of these voters, its all about the economy.
And watch what happens next to the economy. (It won't be long now... )
I am gob-smacked that people take this blatant liar as a "treasure" to the country. I say treasure because he must have something of value that people want that they will accept al his flaws and arrows to get it! Why is anybody else "weak competition" to a man who will not allow deaths, ruin, and destruction of facts and critical thinking to distract him from making this great country into his 'poodle'?
I am not so partisan that I can see that four more years of Donald Trump will mean many more deaths from the coronavirus that is afflicting us all physically or mentally (at least) right now in the future! Trump does not do sickness or disease well. As we are seeing.
I am gob-smacked that people take this blatant liar as a "treasure" to the country.
When it comes to partisan politics I find it best to start the analysis with the basics. Partisanship seems more powerful than religion in terms of blind acceptance. I think many people support Trump simply because he is the R candidate. Many people seem to overlook his many flaws because the economy has been (sigh) good under his watch. It does not matter if he had anything whatsoever to do with that; the economy was indeed good and people were content. That is critical.
Partisan 'reasoning' is not typically based on facts and logic; it is intensely visceral — tapping into our biological core behavior of 'us vs. them'. As I have noted to one particularly extreme voice here on NT who deems Trump the best PotUS ever, if Trump had a D next to his name this individual would be seeding hit pieces on Trump on a daily basis.
It is not logical, it is not factual ... it is emotional and biologically based. IMO.
I think many people support Trump simply because he is the R candidate. Many people seem to overlook his many flaws because the economy has been ( sigh ) good under his watch.
No !
and
No !
Trumps caused the Dinosaur Politian's to show their true "Flawed" governance. Every time they come out against Trump and his supporters, "Dumb and Dumber" come to mind on those "panderers" ends. Now, since "Other" folks are really Digging into "The Usual Politics" that have been going on for "Decades", and finding …… shall we say …."Inconsistencies" …… One party has grown silent in most things, as they "Used to be seen on TV" blabbing incessantly, and used to cherish that opportunity !
It is just odd to me. I get that people like the 'not a typical politician' aspect yet I think, don't you (not you, just general) want a president that acts presidential? Maybe more suited for a congress person but not a leader of the free world.
It seems like a cult of personality. They seem to love how he sticks it to the Dems or tells it like it is, even if it is a lie. They seem to relish in the extreme.
I agree with you that if the roles were reversed and he had a D next to his name, they would be decrying his insanity. If he was using the same tactics to push a progressive agenda, they would be saying what he is doing is illegal.
Partisan politics seems to blind people.
Imo it ls all setting a dangerous precedence. What they are allowing him to get away with may be used at a later date by someone just as extreme, if not more so, that they do not agree with. By then it will be too late as some will just say, well you all did it. They let open a can of worms that they may one day regret.
America had decided to stand for something good. Granted, "big brother" to the world is a tall, enduring, position to find oneself in. But hiring a self-absorbed, self-deluded, loud-mouth lunatic to run this country, and "threatening" to provide four more years of the same treatment from the mind of the same person,. . . and worse is daunting.
Just how much more self-interested and self-deluded can Donald Trump get if he is 'persuaded' that we have given him a mandate to continue doing 'this'?
How unhinged can a lunatic get if he is encouraged by society to take the safety rails off?
That's the problem. We, democrats and republicans are shooting for the wrong end of the 'object.' This nation in this election needs to start the climb back up to a national standard of excellence in leadership based on established principles of wholesomely, determined, governance. I know that last is a mouthful. But it is defined by people.
Right now, Trump supporters are looking to other past administrations and using hook or crook they are saying, "See? We can be imitate the bad form and bad practices (or called so) of others. And, when liberals say anything we hold 'em up to themselves!"
In this, Bill Clinton really did do this country a disservice with Monica Lewinsky! Conservatives have been crucifying his 'example' ever since. It truly caused Hillary Clinton the presidency too. That and the fact that conservatives, since the Clinton years, never respected her level of professional ambition and desire to be sen as an equal woman.
Just so we can all know. The republicans are attempting to unplug and disconnect every liberal in governance from their career position. They do this by setting liberal federal workers up to expose themselves and then expelling them out on cause or expediency. This is by design. Why?
Because just like Mitch McConnell is doing to our court system; conservative think-tanks are restocking the federal system CHOCK FULL of career conservatives who intend upon using 'hook and crook' tactics and strategies to 'white-wash' our systems of government. That is, make government work for conservatives, as it was, in the 'ancient' days of our founding.
And yes, though the issue is 'dead' - slavery is still seered into the pages of the Constitution! And some conservatives yet consider that an amendment can be made to get back their families missing (human) property!
Well, TiG, I prefer to look at it this way: How Much Lower Can A President Possibly Get?
(Deleted), that is my new name for him, lest anyone thinks we have rouge moderators around, has set the bar lower. (Deleted) is the dumbest, most ignorant and without a doubt, stupidest president that I have ever had the misfortune of living through the presidency of. He makes stuff up out of whole cloth,. he lies, he stumble bumbles around, looking for the right words... and you almost feel sorry for him. Poor guy, he can't even say what he wants. You know sometimes even though he is trying to say the right thing, it gets perverted somehow like a schizophrenic butterfly to float off and land somewhere else, not really sure of where he is supposed to be....
It is embarrassing having him as PotUS. I never would have imagined such an individual being elected to that office much less (likely) being reelected.
At least he isn't a democrat that is enough for me any democrat would be far worse at this point.
I have voted for both parties. Good people come in both R and D. To not be able to recognize that means you are not taking the time to actually do your own research and just accept what your party says.
You cannot abolish the party system. There is no country in the world without political factions. To not have them would mean governmental chaos. We could have more than two parties, or we could build up the left center and right wings in the two parties we now have.
There is a very simple reason to vote Democratic. If you vote for a third party, you will be possibly re-electing Trump. Trump is going to get around 45% of the vote, or less. In order for him to win with that figure he is going to need third party candidates siphoning off votes from the Democrat.
Here in AR it won't matter if I vote 3rd party. It's more likely to take a vote away from trmp. Arkansas will go for trmp in November, there is no doubt about that
I am not talking about just Dems. There are republicans that cannot stand the direction the party has taken.
Imo telling people that if they stray from a party it would diminish votes and chances only exasperates the problem. Basically telling them they are trapped and there are no other options.
I am getting a little tired of people putting their party before their country. I'm a registered democrat, but I can't say I will never vote for a republican again. Somebody like Colin Powell could run
It is like people cheering for teams at a football game. They don't even seem to care about what a person stands for, they just look for the team logo. Cheer for the team even if they lie, cheat and steal. Just win at any cost.
Actually in all but a handful of states it doesn't matter who you vote for...at least in the Presidential Election your vote doesn't count!
(To cite but a few examples: if you live in HI, CA. MA, RI, VT, MD, NY, etc, it doesn't matter-- those states will vote Democratic. If you live in AL, AK, KY, WVA, OK, SC, WY, etc it doesn't matter-- those states will go Republican. And there are others).
In fact someone showed me a statistical analysis of one of GW Bush's elections-- he proved to me that the only two states that actyally mattered were Ohio and Florida! (Those were the only two that were too close to call).
There is no country in the world without political factions.
Why does this necessarily have to end up with the factions being expressed as political parties? Even more fundamentally, why are those political factions there to begin with?
Just because something was and is does not mean that it should continue to be so.
he stumble bumbles around, looking for the right words.
Roughly the same vocabulary as your average 3rd grader. That is part of the problem. Perhaps the same mentality and emotional maturity as well. That being the other part of the problem.
Almost hard to believe a grown man acting and talking like that. Maybe its one of those freaky Friday type situations where he has switched bodies with his teenage son or perhaps a younger nephew. Or perhaps he actually is a preteen kid who made a wish and became a billionaire adult sort of like in the movie Big. Christ! Hope we can find Zoltare soon to lift the spell. Anyone checked Coney Island?
Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he could very well have speech aphasia.
In my personal experience, aphasia can be compensated for by therapy and practice and, if it is really important to get a point across, rehearsal. He definitely gets enough practice, but when he just talks freely it comes out like confabulation.
Jim Webb seems like a stand-up person, at least from his wiki page.
Wealth redistribution,
Could you be more specific?
You say that wealth redistribution is one of the aspects of a candidate whom you will never vote for. Could you be kind enough to tell us what you mean by wealth redistribution? I mean, at the basic level, I would consider that the function of government: To take the tax money that they gather and distribute it as is best, and determined by their voters. I am getting the feeling that you think it is something else?
Tax policy: Again, I'm sorry, but I am going to ask for more specifics. Rather than ask what is wrong with the democratic tax policies, I am going to ask you what tax policies you would like to see?
I was referring to carefully chosen words designed to express a clear, unambiguous message. This is important because everything a PotUS communicates is heard and considered by the planet.
Do you recognize that it is problematic for a PotUS to make confused statements, ramble on, lie, contradict himself, etc.?
Do you recognize that it is problematic for a PotUS to make confused statements, ramble on, lie, contradict himself, etc.?
The so-called "Experts"....including those "As Seen on TV"....aren't any better !
The REAL problem is....EVERYONE expects perfection, and when they "Assume" they aren't getting that (Media Driven), everything is a lie, a ramble, and/or a contradiction.
We are talking about "Normal Folk" perceptions…. right ?
I was referring to carefully chosen words designed to express a clear, unambiguous message.
Who decides what's "Unambiguous" or not ?
IMHO...."ambiguous" in politics....is what the world "NEEDS" to hear for5 a change, not what they "Don't want to hear"....like "In your Face"...….You've fucked up......now fix it !
Trump going after the "World", for building that "Monument to themselves" (The New Beautiful Brussels HQ) ……Priceless !
What could have been accomplished with those Billions....for the masses.... We'll NEVER KNOW !
This guy talks as though he is alone with an old fraternity brother just shooting the shit.
Unfortunately, that is what some folks liked about him. Some folks were tired of the typical politician with the canned responses and carefully measured or choreographed media presentations. Some wanted a guy who would just speak his mind and not be hindered by "political correctness". While that might be a fine quality for one's poker buddies or one's crazy fun neighbor, it's probably not the quality you want to look for in the leader of the free world. Hopefully those folks can now look back on that way of thinking and go, "what the fuck was I thinking?".
Problem is he can't seem to string two coherent sentences together and he has absolutely no filter. I feel like I am getting cancer just listening to him. Ever hear the expression "diarrhea of the mouth"? Well there you go. But rather than burning your anus, this type burns your ears. Honestly, it is embarrassing. This is not and cannot be what the President of the United States, leader of the free world, should sound like.
While I really enjoyed having a beer or 8 with my frat boy roommates in college I could never have imagined calling any of them "Mr. President" while they belched their way through the A-B-C's. Let's just hope that going forward we can all think twice before voting for someone we think might be "just one of us regular guys (or gals)". There needs to be more than just that criteria at play.
Unfortunately, that is what some folks liked about him.
Clearly. It is a quality that I like about him — the anti-politician who does not emit carefully crafted lies. Trump makes no attempt to disguise his lies in political correctness. Further, I think he believes much of what he says (he might have actually believed he could get the wall built). But, ultimately, he is an incredibly dishonest person with a dangerous level of narcissism; he should not be PotUS.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
LIghten Up McFly!
If you note, in the beginning, there is only one book. Then There are two. Then There Are three... but never"
There are Four Books"
Three books and two kid wasps. LOL
This was painful to watch.
One of many problems with Trump is that he lowers the bar for future PotUS'. In the past, PotUS' would carefully consider every word before making a public announcement as President of the United States. This guy talks as though he is alone with an old fraternity brother just shooting the shit.
do they have special ed fraternities ?
I thought it was hilarious, if you can get beyond the "did he just say that?" type of feeling.
It is hard for me to understand just how seemingly Half the nation is oblivious to the fact that there is no there there.....
It's far beyond lowering the bar, the bar simply doesn't exist any longer.
You guys are depressing me.
Yet again we have Trump vs. weak competition and it remains likely that he will be re-elected.
it went subterrainian
Actually T,G I'm more interested in the house an senate. If the Dems hold the house and take the senate even if Trump is re-elected he will be a lame duck for the four year term.
I like Bernie, if only for the reason that he is the way that humanity has to go to break from the current paradigm and grow. I know that nobody agrees with me, but I feel that a great opportunity has been horribly squandered. An opportunity in which humanity as a whole could come together even somewhat....
And here we have tribal factions still fighting it out , still oblivious to what really matters.
Alright... Now you guys are depressing me..
Well, before your theory was that Trump would be re-elected because most people were "satisified" with their lives and they would believe he was enough of the cause to keep him in office, now you say he will be re-elected because the opposition is "weak". Does it occur to you that Trump is "weak"?
I will stipulate that you don't like or approve of Trump, so why do you predict he will win? There is no evidence that he will win. Most of the candidates he has endorsed and campaigned for over the past few years in contested elections have underperformed or lost. His polling has never been good. He is the only president in history to not have hit 50% approval in his first term. Why would you think he is going to win?
Are people "satisfied" today?
I am not a big Joe Biden fan, but he is immeasurably better than Trump. They are not both "weak".
It is extremely unlikely the Democrats would retake the Senate if at the same time Trump wins re-election.
Bernie has good intentions, but his proposals were unrealistic.
Always on the attack, eh John?
First, I said that it is likely that Trump will be elected. That is different from claiming that Trump will be elected.
Second, the reason people liked Trump is because they were content. I suspect those same people think that Trump will return them to contentment after the coronavirus pandemic is under control. Thus the pandemic might not be enough to turn a sufficient number of Trump supporters away from him.
And now, fold in the weak candidate Biden. If there were a strong alternative to Trump, there would likely be more people turning from Trump to that candidate. People are going to turn to the candidate who they feel is most likely to return them to comfort. Because Biden has not turned out to be an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities, we have Trump running against weak opposition
Do you follow the evidence to where it leads or do you simply believe what you want to be true? I opine on what I suspect is most likely even if I do not like it.
I think it is likely he will win for the reasons I just wrote above.
Of course not, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Under these unusual circumstances the proper question is: will people hold that Trump is most likely to return them to a state of contentment or Biden?
Well, sorry, but Biden is a weak candidate. Trump is too; if the D's had put forth an impressive candidate then Trump would lose. For example, if someone like the 2008 Obama was running, that would be a strong candidate vs. a weak Trump. Biden is nowhere near candidate Obama2008.
So, see how this works? My comment about Biden being weak points out that the D party is likely to not capitalize on the tarnishing of Trump per the pandemic. Biden needs to stand up and demonstrate that he has the ability—better than Trump— to lead this nation out of a pandemic and the subsequent economic disaster it has caused. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.
So, do you think Trump is an impressive candidate with inspiring leadership qualities? Since you think he is entitled to win for that reason maybe you do. If you dont think so, why would you predict he will win?
I read all of your response, and it seems like you are saying Trump will win and Biden is a weak candidate because you say so. Its kind of puzzling to me.
And I am not attacking you.
I am trying to understand why you predict Trump will win, even in the face of his atrocious performance during this medical emergency.
Read what I wrote John. I get tired of repeating myself.
A strawman now? Where do I argue that he is entitled to win?
Because I say so? Again, I am not making a claim, I have been expressing my opinion. Yes, my opinion is that Biden is a weak candidate and that (as of today) Trump is likely to win. I think I have been clear.
You routinely attack anyone who does not agree with your political analysis. Putting words in my mouth is a tactic that does not sit well with me.
Then read what I wrote @4.3.8. I made a serious effort to explain my position.
Bottom line, most people seem to vote emotionally. I do not think you factor that into your analysis. The winning candidate is not necessarily the logical candidate or even the better candidate (in objective terms).
Your argument is that Biden is weak and therefore Trump will win, sort of by default and people are more likely to believe Trump will get the economy back on track quickly.
I think that a president who has never had 50% approval in 3 1/2 years is a weak candidate. I think that a candidate that was justifiably impeached is a weak candidate. I think that a candidate who would have been subject to criminal obstruction of justice charges were he not the sitting president is a weak candidate. A candidate that has lied to the American people thousands of times since he became president is a weak candidate. And on and on and on. Yet you never say Trump is extremely vulnerable because of his obvious unfitness to hold high office. You say he is likely to win because of the Democratic candidate.
My opinion is that Biden is weak and therefore may not encourage enough people to turn away from the incumbent. And, yes, my opinion is that people will go with the candidate who they believe will most likely get the economy back on track.
Trump is a weak candidate. I have never argued that he is a strong candidate. Did you read this?:
Read the part in blue.
Are there special, specific words I am required to write, John? I would think most people would understand my position from this alone:
This is why it is difficult to remain patient with you; no matter what I write you stretch my words to the extreme opposite of your position and then complain. It is as if you are trying to alienate those who agree with you in principle. And if you are not trying, let me tell you that you are inadvertently shooting yourself in the foot.
I have stated more than that, routinely, for months. Apparently there is no point in repeating myself since you are rewriting my words for me.
James Cameron can save us. He just needs to dive down into the depths of the ocean and pull it back up.
Like oil prices went negative - you can't make this shit up...
I know that nobody agrees with me, but I feel that a great opportunity has been horribly squandered. An opportunity in which humanity as a whole could come together even somewhat....
And here we have tribal factions still fighting it out , still oblivious to what really matters.
It is also possible that if Bernie were to be elected, you'd still have two factions fighting it out.
Often for totally new structures to be created, first the old ones must fall apart. Often total transformation isn't pretty. But for real change to occur...well, sometimes things have to get really bad to fully "wake people up". . . before people are willing to make deep changes.
It is also possible that if Bernie were to be elected, you'd still have two factions fighting it out.
Often for totally new structures to be created, first the old ones must fall apart. Often total transformation isn't pretty. But for real change to occur...well, sometimes things have to get really bad to fully "wake people up". . . before people are willing to make deep changes.
That's on the level of society as a whole.
But its really quite similar to what some stubborn individuals must undergo for deep,true and lasting change to occur. In The Twelve Step Programs, for example, there is a truisim: that for an Alcoholic [or any other addict] to change-- they must first "hit bottom"
He has a small loyal "base" that believes anything he says.
But other some people who voted for him last time are more flexible . . .
And while different people are swayed by different issues, many former democrats (particularly factory workers in the "Rust Belt" swing states voted for him because they lost their jobs...and believed Trump would fix the economy.
For many of these voters, its all about the economy.
And watch what happens next to the economy. (It won't be long now... )
Totally agree. The economy is the key for Trump.
The economy is in bad shape and will worsen as we approach the election. What will be interesting is who the electorate trusts to fix the economy.
People are strange. Voters are stranger.
I am gob-smacked that people take this blatant liar as a "treasure" to the country. I say treasure because he must have something of value that people want that they will accept al his flaws and arrows to get it! Why is anybody else "weak competition" to a man who will not allow deaths, ruin, and destruction of facts and critical thinking to distract him from making this great country into his 'poodle'?
I am not so partisan that I can see that four more years of Donald Trump will mean many more deaths from the coronavirus that is afflicting us all physically or mentally (at least) right now in the future! Trump does not do sickness or disease well. As we are seeing.
When it comes to partisan politics I find it best to start the analysis with the basics. Partisanship seems more powerful than religion in terms of blind acceptance. I think many people support Trump simply because he is the R candidate. Many people seem to overlook his many flaws because the economy has been (sigh) good under his watch. It does not matter if he had anything whatsoever to do with that; the economy was indeed good and people were content. That is critical.
Partisan 'reasoning' is not typically based on facts and logic; it is intensely visceral — tapping into our biological core behavior of 'us vs. them'. As I have noted to one particularly extreme voice here on NT who deems Trump the best PotUS ever, if Trump had a D next to his name this individual would be seeding hit pieces on Trump on a daily basis.
It is not logical, it is not factual ... it is emotional and biologically based. IMO.
No !
and
No !
Trumps caused the Dinosaur Politian's to show their true "Flawed" governance. Every time they come out against Trump and his supporters, "Dumb and Dumber" come to mind on those "panderers" ends. Now, since "Other" folks are really Digging into "The Usual Politics" that have been going on for "Decades", and finding …… shall we say …."Inconsistencies"
…… One party has grown silent in most things, as they "Used to be seen on TV" blabbing incessantly, and used to cherish that opportunity ! 
What's shut them up ?
It is just odd to me. I get that people like the 'not a typical politician' aspect yet I think, don't you (not you, just general) want a president that acts presidential? Maybe more suited for a congress person but not a leader of the free world.
It seems like a cult of personality. They seem to love how he sticks it to the Dems or tells it like it is, even if it is a lie. They seem to relish in the extreme.
I agree with you that if the roles were reversed and he had a D next to his name, they would be decrying his insanity. If he was using the same tactics to push a progressive agenda, they would be saying what he is doing is illegal.
Partisan politics seems to blind people.
Imo it ls all setting a dangerous precedence. What they are allowing him to get away with may be used at a later date by someone just as extreme, if not more so, that they do not agree with. By then it will be too late as some will just say, well you all did it. They let open a can of worms that they may one day regret.
Probably the hobnailed boots and the gags...
America had decided to stand for something good. Granted, "big brother" to the world is a tall, enduring, position to find oneself in. But hiring a self-absorbed, self-deluded, loud-mouth lunatic to run this country, and "threatening" to provide four more years of the same treatment from the mind of the same person,. . . and worse is daunting.
Just how much more self-interested and self-deluded can Donald Trump get if he is 'persuaded' that we have given him a mandate to continue doing 'this'?
How unhinged can a lunatic get if he is encouraged by society to take the safety rails off?
That's the problem. We, democrats and republicans are shooting for the wrong end of the 'object.' This nation in this election needs to start the climb back up to a national standard of excellence in leadership based on established principles of wholesomely, determined, governance. I know that last is a mouthful. But it is defined by people.
Right now, Trump supporters are looking to other past administrations and using hook or crook they are saying, "See? We can be imitate the bad form and bad practices (or called so) of others. And, when liberals say anything we hold 'em up to themselves!"
In this, Bill Clinton really did do this country a disservice with Monica Lewinsky! Conservatives have been crucifying his 'example' ever since. It truly caused Hillary Clinton the presidency too. That and the fact that conservatives, since the Clinton years, never respected her level of professional ambition and desire to be sen as an equal woman.
Just so we can all know. The republicans are attempting to unplug and disconnect every liberal in governance from their career position. They do this by setting liberal federal workers up to expose themselves and then expelling them out on cause or expediency. This is by design. Why?
Because just like Mitch McConnell is doing to our court system; conservative think-tanks are restocking the federal system CHOCK FULL of career conservatives who intend upon using 'hook and crook' tactics and strategies to 'white-wash' our systems of government. That is, make government work for conservatives, as it was, in the 'ancient' days of our founding.
And yes, though the issue is 'dead' - slavery is still seered into the pages of the Constitution! And some conservatives yet consider that an amendment can be made to get back their families missing (human) property!
Sketchy law Mandated confinement and masks ?
Well, TiG, I prefer to look at it this way: How Much Lower Can A President Possibly Get?
(Deleted), that is my new name for him, lest anyone thinks we have rouge moderators around, has set the bar lower. (Deleted) is the dumbest, most ignorant and without a doubt, stupidest president that I have ever had the misfortune of living through the presidency of. He makes stuff up out of whole cloth,. he lies, he stumble bumbles around, looking for the right words... and you almost feel sorry for him. Poor guy, he can't even say what he wants. You know sometimes even though he is trying to say the right thing, it gets perverted somehow like a schizophrenic butterfly to float off and land somewhere else, not really sure of where he is supposed to be....
The party system in politics should be abandoned and abolished precisely because it causes people to make remarks like:
Why would you say that, MUVA?
It is embarrassing having him as PotUS. I never would have imagined such an individual being elected to that office much less (likely) being reelected.
I have voted for both parties. Good people come in both R and D. To not be able to recognize that means you are not taking the time to actually do your own research and just accept what your party says.
Because people support a party doesnt just mean that they accept everything the party says.
The Democratic Party and Republican Party have different broad agendas and appeal to different political mindsets.
And from what I can see, there are quite a few more moderate Democrats than moderate Republicans.
You cannot abolish the party system. There is no country in the world without political factions. To not have them would mean governmental chaos. We could have more than two parties, or we could build up the left center and right wings in the two parties we now have.
We need 2 more parties.
I totally agree.
The hard part is getting people past any stigma of thinking they have to vote for an r or d.
The extremes seem to be the loudest and running the show.
There is a very simple reason to vote Democratic. If you vote for a third party, you will be possibly re-electing Trump. Trump is going to get around 45% of the vote, or less. In order for him to win with that figure he is going to need third party candidates siphoning off votes from the Democrat.
Here in AR it won't matter if I vote 3rd party. It's more likely to take a vote away from trmp. Arkansas will go for trmp in November, there is no doubt about that
Well Arkansas will probably go red, but if you vote third party you are not taking a vote away from Trump unless he would be your 2nd choice.
He definitely is not any of my choices. Even if Biden were to not make it to November, I will write in somebody. trmp will never be one of my choices
I am not talking about just Dems. There are republicans that cannot stand the direction the party has taken.
Imo telling people that if they stray from a party it would diminish votes and chances only exasperates the problem. Basically telling them they are trapped and there are no other options.
It won't matter here either. They would vote for Ronald McDonald just because he is wearing a red wig.
I am getting a little tired of people putting their party before their country. I'm a registered democrat, but I can't say I will never vote for a republican again. Somebody like Colin Powell could run
I would vote for a liberal Republican over a conservative Democrat, but its been decades since that has been a reality here in Illinois.
It is like people cheering for teams at a football game. They don't even seem to care about what a person stands for, they just look for the team logo. Cheer for the team even if they lie, cheat and steal. Just win at any cost.
I think liberal republicans are an extinct breed in Arkansas. But we have plenty of conservative Democrats
I think that true in today's world.
But it wasn't always that way....
Actually in all but a handful of states it doesn't matter who you vote for...at least in the Presidential Election your vote doesn't count!
(To cite but a few examples: if you live in HI, CA. MA, RI, VT, MD, NY, etc, it doesn't matter-- those states will vote Democratic. If you live in AL, AK, KY, WVA, OK, SC, WY, etc it doesn't matter-- those states will go Republican. And there are others).
In fact someone showed me a statistical analysis of one of GW Bush's elections-- he proved to me that the only two states that actyally mattered were Ohio and Florida! (Those were the only two that were too close to call).
I think we need no parties
but Trout drinks like a fish, and luvs parties...
Why does this necessarily have to end up with the factions being expressed as political parties? Even more fundamentally, why are those political factions there to begin with?
Just because something was and is does not mean that it should continue to be so.
they're only there, a
faction of the time
Why not? What policies? What kind of candidate, not in reference to party, but what kind of candidate would be your "ideal"?
Roughly the same vocabulary as your average 3rd grader. That is part of the problem. Perhaps the same mentality and emotional maturity as well. That being the other part of the problem.
Almost hard to believe a grown man acting and talking like that. Maybe its one of those freaky Friday type situations where he has switched bodies with his teenage son or perhaps a younger nephew. Or perhaps he actually is a preteen kid who made a wish and became a billionaire adult sort of like in the movie Big. Christ! Hope we can find Zoltare soon to lift the spell. Anyone checked Coney Island?
Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he could very well have speech aphasia.
In my personal experience, aphasia can be compensated for by therapy and practice and, if it is really important to get a point across, rehearsal. He definitely gets enough practice, but when he just talks freely it comes out like confabulation.
Biden does not have speech aphasia. And it is not the message that speech aphasia affects, it is the listening and speech formation itself.
But he very well could have "IT" !
Jim Webb seems like a stand-up person, at least from his wiki page.
Could you be more specific?
You say that wealth redistribution is one of the aspects of a candidate whom you will never vote for. Could you be kind enough to tell us what you mean by wealth redistribution? I mean, at the basic level, I would consider that the function of government: To take the tax money that they gather and distribute it as is best, and determined by their voters. I am getting the feeling that you think it is something else?
Tax policy: Again, I'm sorry, but I am going to ask for more specifics. Rather than ask what is wrong with the democratic tax policies, I am going to ask you what tax policies you would like to see?
If you look, you will find no mention of Biden in the post that I was replying to nor my post.
(Deleted)
Those "careful words" may have contribute to ALL the problems we've had ….. Before Trump.
They do put a false sense of ….. "Everything's AOK" !
Folks seem to like that !
Just sayin'.
I was referring to carefully chosen words designed to express a clear, unambiguous message. This is important because everything a PotUS communicates is heard and considered by the planet.
Do you recognize that it is problematic for a PotUS to make confused statements, ramble on, lie, contradict himself, etc.?
The so-called "Experts"....including those "As Seen on TV"....aren't any better !
The REAL problem is....EVERYONE expects perfection, and when they "Assume" they aren't getting that (Media Driven), everything is a lie, a ramble, and/or a contradiction.
We are talking about "Normal Folk" perceptions…. right ?
Nope.
I don't.
(So therefore its not "everyone")
Who decides what's "Unambiguous" or not ?
IMHO...."ambiguous" in politics....is what the world "NEEDS" to hear for5 a change, not what they "Don't want to hear"....like "In your Face"...….You've fucked up......now fix it !
Trump going after the "World", for building that "Monument to themselves" (The New Beautiful Brussels HQ) ……Priceless !
What could have been accomplished with those Billions....for the masses.... We'll NEVER KNOW !
Then you don't have ANY problems what-so-ever !
He thinks everyone is like Howard Stern. He still hasn't realized that Howard plays him for the fool.
Unfortunately, that is what some folks liked about him. Some folks were tired of the typical politician with the canned responses and carefully measured or choreographed media presentations. Some wanted a guy who would just speak his mind and not be hindered by "political correctness". While that might be a fine quality for one's poker buddies or one's crazy fun neighbor, it's probably not the quality you want to look for in the leader of the free world. Hopefully those folks can now look back on that way of thinking and go, "what the fuck was I thinking?".
Problem is he can't seem to string two coherent sentences together and he has absolutely no filter. I feel like I am getting cancer just listening to him. Ever hear the expression "diarrhea of the mouth"? Well there you go. But rather than burning your anus, this type burns your ears. Honestly, it is embarrassing. This is not and cannot be what the President of the United States, leader of the free world, should sound like.
While I really enjoyed having a beer or 8 with my frat boy roommates in college I could never have imagined calling any of them "Mr. President" while they belched their way through the A-B-C's. Let's just hope that going forward we can all think twice before voting for someone we think might be "just one of us regular guys (or gals)". There needs to be more than just that criteria at play.
Clearly. It is a quality that I like about him — the anti-politician who does not emit carefully crafted lies. Trump makes no attempt to disguise his lies in political correctness. Further, I think he believes much of what he says (he might have actually believed he could get the wall built). But, ultimately, he is an incredibly dishonest person with a dangerous level of narcissism; he should not be PotUS.
It's amazing that he was asked a simple question about Mother's Day and he didn't mention Melania once.
Were there really 3 Thorn Birds books written? I only read one.
I think he wants to get her a Fighter Jet...
Too funny, thanks Thomas !
You are most welcome!
Thomas,
This is most certainly not on topic, but upon a closer look your avatar looks amazingly like Magnus Walker .
Do you by chance happen to drive a Porsche... or two?
A Porsche?
No, but I did briefly have a Karmann Ghia.... 
And my apologies to the gentleman and anyone else who receives comparison....