Liberals gave us Trump, who gave us Biden — make it stop!

But when a free country like ours elects two of the most unpopular (and arguably, worst) presidents in our entire history — back-to-back, no less — then you have to wonder what the heck is going on.

Don’t hold your breathe, Buttcrack is leading likely Dems for POTUS right now and he couldn’t even run South Bend without screwing it up. ......

You mean Pete "Beaver Cleaver" Buttigieg?

Then they have nothing!

Reminds me more of Alfred E Newman.......

There is a great resemblance there and I'm sure both bought their clothes in the little boys department. I guess what sets Buttigieg apart is his ability to talk for hours without saying anything.

I guess what sets Buttigieg apart is his ability to talk for hours without saying anything.

   You've got that right. Could you imagine Pete and Kamala doing a joint presser? LMMFAO

But when a free country like ours elects two of the most unpopular (and arguably, worst) presidents in our entire history — back-to-back, no less — then you have to wonder what the heck is going on.

Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter say hello.

I’m surprised no one else has brought them up.

I suppose we’ll have to wait a couple of years to see, but it seems a good bet to me that they have them beat out.

news.gallup

Are you going by the numbers you posted?   If so, the lowest average approve rating % is as follows (showing the lowest 7):

Yes I was.

Doesn't your data suggest that Trump and Truman were the most unpopular presidents?

Yes, currently. That’s why I said…

I suppose we’ll have to wait a couple of years to see, but it seems a good bet to me that they have them beat out.

Le me clarify further, “they” would mean the subjects of the seed and “them” would mean the subjects of Jack’s post.

Okay.   So your position is that Trump and Biden have likely supplanted Nixon and Carter.    It seems that way to me too.

More unfunny satire?

Yes…

Trumpturd is the most unpopular and hateful/hated steaming pile of shit 'president' known.

President Biden is a decent and good person who is doing his best as President.  

Trumpturd is the most unpopular and hateful/hated steaming pile of shit 'president' known.

Weren't you whining this week about the nickname, Brandon?

When the shoe fits . . . 

Human fuck up machine it is for the asshole Democrats have currently residing in the Oval Office.

Glad you agree that the shoe definitely fits.

who is doing his best as President. 

That "best" really sucks

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I hold out hope that will not be the case in 2024 but I am not confident.

Wrong President ....

The Human Fuck Up Machine and Democrats are doing a fine job of destroying this country.

Sorry, no picture that has nothing to do with proof.

How about the misery index since Brandon took office?

ycharts

And we elected Donald Trump because of liberal condescension aimed at all sorts of people the elite left didn't think were worthy of their respect.

This is a new one.   People claiming that the GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump.

It is true. During the 2016 primaries, democrats were quickly changing parties to vote in Trump as the Republican nominee figuring Hillary was a show in and Trump was the easiest to bear.  Unfortuneately for the Democrats they nominated a candidate who was even less likeable and possibly the only candidate Trump could beat.  

The GoP is responsible for the nominee it chooses; same goes for every other party.   Give me (everyone) a break.

Yes they are responsible for nominating trump. The democrats are responsible for nominating the only person he could beat.

I guess you didn't read the whole comment. Seems you only read the parts you wanted . 

Yes they are responsible for nominating trump.

Yes the GoP is responsible for nominating Trump.   Glad that is settled.

You should consider not presuming to avoid getting things wrong.

Nothing in your comment @7.1 rebutted my comment @7.   So, again, give me a break with this nonsense that the GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump.  The GoP controls their nomination process and are responsible for their votes in the general election.   Ds, liberals, demons, etc.  do not force GoP voters to vote a certain way.

And dems got him elected president.

But nominating Hillary got independents to hold their nose and vote for trump which is one of the main reasons he won

And dems got him elected president.

Who nominated Trump;  who voted for Trump in the general election?    It was certainly not the typical D voter.   So why try to play these silly games?  

If you want to argue that Trump was elected because the Ds nominated a weak candidate then do so.   I would certainly agree.   But don't engage in ridiculous semantic contortions in an attempt to leave the GoP blameless for its nomination and election of Trump.

But nominating Hillary got independents to hold their nose and vote for trump which is one of the main reasons he won

Yes Hillary was a weak candidate and that helped Trump.   Trump was a weak candidate and that helped Hillary.   Both candidates sucked, in my humble opinion, and one of them managed to win (as we knew).

So if the D party had provided a candidate better then Hillary, then Trump would likely not have been elected.

Similarly, if the R party had provided a candidate better than Trump in 2020 then Biden would likely not have been elected.

This is obvious.

The GoP is responsible for the nominee it chooses; same goes for every other party.   Give me (everyone) a break.

Do you believe the following happened or is it just political propaganda?  

Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries • OpenSecrets

Political groups and nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns across five states’ Republican primaries to boost the profile of far-right candidates in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland.

Democrats strategy is rooted in the   belief   that these candidates — many of whom spread unfounded claims that the 2020 presidential race was stolen from former President   Donald Trump   — will be easier to defeat in a general election. 

Democratic spending has helped secure Republican nominations for candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

In Maryland, Democrats are spending on a Republican gubernatorial primary that is still ongoing and is viewed as a   tossup . But in California and Colorado, Democrats spent money elevating the profile of candidates who did not advance to the general election. 

Democratic spending helps Republican candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania

In Illinois, Democratic incumbent Gov.   J.B. Pritzker   and   the   Democratic Governors Association   dropped   $35 million   on ads attempting to influence Illinois’ Republican gubernatorial primary –   more   than any office is believed to have ever spent to meddle in another party’s primary – putting Illinois’ gubernatorial race on track to be the   most expensive   non-presidential election in United States history. 

Ads purchased by Pritzker allies   attacked   the more moderate Aurora Mayor   Richard Irvin   in the Republican primary and   drew attention   to the more far-right candidate, state Sen.   Darren Bailey . Pritzker’s ad buy for the primaries was more than   triple   what Bailey had raised for his own campaign.

Bailey, who was   endorsed   by Trump, rose to prominence in Illinois politics when he co-sponsored a bill that   proposed   allowing rural Illinois to separate from Chicago and form a “New Illinois” state. After a 2019 state legislative session over a bill guaranteeing Illinois residents abortion rights – which Bailey vehemently opposed – he   criticized   a fellow lawmaker for having “the gall to bring up the separation of church and state.” Painted on the door of his campaign bus is the Bible verse   Ephesians 6:10-19 , which calls for followers to wear God’s armor in a battle against “evil rulers.”

Bailey won the nomination with   55.2%   of the vote. Although Irvin was   leading   Bailey in polls as late as May, he came in second with only 18.6% of the vote. 

Since winning the nomination, Bailey, a staunch   gun rights activist , has already found himself embroiled in controversy after he   stated   “let’s move on” in a Facebook livestream hours after the Highland Park parade shooting. 

Shapiro’s ads  call  Mastriano, whose campaign  bused  rally-goers to the Capitol the day of the Jan. 6 riots and has been  subpoenaed  by the Jan. 6 committee, one of “Trump’s strongest supporters” and highlight his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

In Pennsylvania’s race for governor, Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Attorney General  Josh Shapiro   dropped  $840,000 on TV ads highlighting the stances of Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Sen.  Doug Mastriano  — more than double what Mastriano spent on his own ad buys. 

Democratic efforts prove unsuccessful in California, Colorado

In California and Colorado, Democrats spent millions of dollars in several Republican primaries in order to try and elevate more radical right wing candidates. In these instances, though, Democratic efforts did not succeed.

Long-term consequences for Democratic strategy loom

Funding more radical Republican candidates that Democrats think will be easier competition in the general election is not an entirely new strategy. Former Sen.   Claire McCaskill   (D-Mo.), who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2019, used the strategy with success in her bid for re-election in 2012. In the last two weeks of her campaign, McCaskill spent   $1.7 million   on ads that boosted radical tea party candidate   Todd Akin   in his primary election – more than Akin had spent on his candidacy in his entire campaign. 

The gamble paid off: Akin won the Republican nomination with   36%   of the vote. Akin then lost the general election to McCaskill.

Despite her victory, McCaskill warns that Democrats’ attempts to recreate her success should be approached with caution.

“There certainly are risks, and it’s certainly different today than it was a decade ago,” McCaskill told   NPR . “When Todd Akin said what I expected him to say, something that was off the wall in the general election, unlike today, the Republican leadership all came together and rejected him … I’m not sure you could count on Republican leaders to stand up and reject a candidate that said things that were abhorrent to most voters.”

McCaskill’s warnings evoke lessons from the 2016 presidential election. While Democrats did not spend money on advertisements in the same manner as these Republican primaries, then-Democratic presidential candidate   Hillary Clinton’s   campaign attempted to “ elevate ”   Trump’s   Republican primary bid through an intentional media campaign in hopes he would be an easier opponent in the general election. Trump went on to win the general election and became the 45th president of the United States.

Do you believe the following happened or is it just political propaganda?  

I fully expect crap like this taking place all the time.   I do not see this as making a significant impact and certainly would not use this (as some are) as an argument that the Democratic party is responsible for Trump's nomination.

The GoP nominated Trump and they need to own it.   Just like the Ds need to own the fact that they nominated Biden.   The Ds seem to own their nominee and the Rs should do likewise.

Do you believe the following happened or is it just political propaganda?  

Another source in today's news.

Democrats boosting John Gibbs over Peter Meijer is part of a reckless ad strategy (msnbc.com)

Democrats routinely — and correctly — warn the public that the Trump wing of the Republican Party poses an existential threat to American democracy. It may be surprising then to learn that they’re  also  spending tremendous sums of money quietly boosting Trump’s picks in Republican primaries out of the hope that they’ll be easier to beat in the general election. No matter the motive, it’s a reckless gamble, and it undermines the credibility of the party’s message that its base must mobilize against burgeoning authoritarianism.

The DCCC’s ad buy is a fantastic deal for Gibbs. But for the Democrats, it’s playing with fire.

In a best-case scenario under this strategy, Gibbs, with the aid of the Democrats, wins the Republican primary and then loses the general election to the Democratic candidate, Hillary Scholten, in a race that she might have otherwise lost to Meijer. One reason that the DCCC may feel emboldened to use this tactic is that recent redistricting has made Michigan’s third district significantly more Democratic, turning a once deeply red district to a toss-up race, and potentially making Gibbs’ politics less competitive in a general election.

Now in a worst-case scenario, Gibbs wins the primary  and  the general election, and ends up in Washington next year. This scenario isn’t that far-fetched — if Republican candidates were felled by promoting laughable conspiracy theories or making offensive remarks, then Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wouldn’t have become one of the most high-profile Republicans in Congress in the last couple of years. And keep in mind that between inflation, crime rates, and a general historical disadvantage for incumbent parties in midterm elections, Republicans are poised for a wave election, meaning that even if Gibbs’ extremism is a turnoff for some Republicans, exceptionally high Republican turnout could be enough to help him win anyway.

This is all to say nothing of the simple fact that the Democrats' money could otherwise be spent directly helping vulnerable Democrats ahead of a potential November bloodbath.

Michigan’s third district isn’t the only place where this risky strategy is being implemented. But the DCCC’s intervention in the Meijer race is particularly   infuriating to some House Democrats , who, as Politico notes, pay membership dues to the DCCC, and assume it reflects leadership attitudes about political strategy.

Many of them are concerned that the Democrats can’t back GOP extremists and say that they pose an existential threat to democracy at the same time. “Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla.   told Politico . She’s right.

The GoP nominated Trump and they need to own it.   Just like the Ds need to own the fact that they nominated Biden.   

This goes back to the 2016 when Clinton was handed the Democrat nomination before the primaries began.  This could have allowed Democrats to vote in Republican primaries to influence the GOP nomination of whom they viewed as the weakest opposition.  

I don't know all of the ways that Trump secured the GOP nomination.  I doubt that anyone does.  But I do remember it was extremely difficult for me to believe that there wasn't some underhanded stuff going on in order to have two of the least liked, least trusted people in politics, securing the nomination for POTUS.

At the beginning of 2016, I was expecting the fix was in for another replay of the 1992 election where there was another Clinton, another Bush and Trump standing in for Perot to split the vote.

In fact, I remember Trump spent most of his time saying he wasn't going to be the GOP nominee and was going to run as an Independent. The stale GOP nominees were not sure what to do and made a pitiful showing promising the same stuff that they never delivered on.  Clinton acted as if she was just waiting for her crown to be delivered.

Since I didn't have a dog (candidate) in the fight, I was horrified that the US considered either nominee to be the type of person they wanted on the world stage.  I thought the GOP insiders had scraped the bottom of the barrel with selecting Palin.  But at least those were GOP insiders. I still have difficulty understanding how either Trump or Clinton had that many supporters in the general public.  

After reading about how Democrats are spending tens of millions of dollars to try to nominate their approved opponent, it is definitely more than likely that the same thing happened during other elections.

The GOP could be doing the same. 

Hopefully, we'll be seeing more information on the people selecting the nominees that they allow us to vote for.

This could have allowed Democrats to vote in Republican primaries to influence the GOP nomination of whom they viewed as the weakest opposition.  

No doubt some of that happened.  

Since I didn't have a dog (candidate) in the fight, I was horrified that the US considered either nominee to be the type of person they wanted on the world stage.

The GoP establishment, if you recall, was doing their best to stop Trump from gaining the nomination.   Trouble is, the GoP voters gave him more votes than the other candidates and the GoP establishment was stuck.

The GOP could be doing the same. 

As I noted, I fully expect foul play by political parties.   They will push their advantage any way possible.   One can see this by simply observing the dishonesty at play.   'Winning by any means possible' is the theme of both major parties.

 'Winning by any means possible' is the theme of both major parties.

Doesn't that mean that most, if not all, of our political leaders are unethical people who shouldn't be in charge of our government?

The GoP establishment, if you recall, was doing their best to stop Trump from gaining the nomination

The Democrat establish should have been doing the same with Clinton instead of rigging the nomination so she was the candidate before the voters had a say.

Why ignore the fact that Clinton was one of the least liked, least trusted political candidates in US history?

Indeed

I think it boils down to 'it was her turn'.   She had built a machine and base of supporters that would drive her nomination.   She was nominated as a result of force and being, essentially, next in line.   Same with Bob Dole and John McCain (in terms of 'it is their turn' thinking).

Why ignore the fact that Clinton was one of the least liked, least trusted political candidates in US history?

I was unaware that I was ignoring that fact.   By the same token, I am not ignoring the fact that Trump was an asshole well before he ran for PotUS.

Try reading it one more time and tell me what part you didn't understand

I was unaware that I was ignoring that fact.   By the same token, I am not ignoring the fact that Trump was an asshole well before he ran for PotUS.

Trump was, is and probably always will be an asshole.  The same is true of Clinton.  They are basically the same side of the same coin.  

This is why I don't understand how anyone (other than a partisan) attacks one side for their piss poor choices for political office.

Is it any wonder that so many people are apathetic when it comes to politics?  Where is the motive for them to become involved as long as they are told they must choose between Asshole (R) and Asshole (D) because their lives depend on it?  

Isn't most legislation, in the US, written by corporate lawyers?  Our reps pass bills with 100s or 1000s of pages.  Do they even read the proposed legislation, or do they just receive their instructions from their corporate sponsor?

The only way the voters have any power is if enough of them unite.  So far, the main job, of our politicians, seems to be to keep that from happening.  It is a very easy job because they have heightened our fears of "others", painted "others" as the problem, then attacked us for segregating ourselves to feel some level of safety.

What is the job of our government leadership?  Are our leaders doing what is best for our citizens?  If so, are there any people in government that stand out as leaders who understand enough of the complexities of running a country as large as the US for today's needs with an eye to the future?

This is why I don't understand how anyone (other than a partisan) attacks one side for their piss poor choices for political office.

The nominees seem to grow worse each year.

Do they even read the proposed legislation, or do they just receive their instructions from their corporate sponsor?

Unfortunately I do not believe your comment is cynical.

Are our leaders doing what is best for our citizens? 

They are looking out for themselves (reelection to cushy jobs with less than ethical fringe benefits) and their parties (support for reelection).

Unfortunately I do not believe your comment is cynical.

The graft that is happening in our government would have never been possible on this level if bills were broken down into scrutable sizes that anyone could be held accountable for anything.

In other news, I am reading that Russia and China may have enacted a deal to move from using the US dollar as a reserve currency.  I won't pretend that I understand world banking, but our government leaders don't impress me as understanding it either.  Maybe, they do and have a plan on what to do when China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc. form a new banking system that is not based on the US dollar.   

from April 2022

China, Russia Develop Alternatives to the SWIFT Payment System (businessinsider.com)

If the dollar loses its dominance, it will hit the US economy.

"It would likely hurt the value of the dollar and create inflationary pressure on the prices of consumer goods,"  Allianz Global Investors   explained in a 2018 report. "Ultimately, the United States' loss of reserve-currency status may only limit any further decline in wages, and there is a good chance it would also make US consumers a lot poorer."

As it is,   US inflation rose 8.5%  year-over-year in March, according to the   Bureau of Labor Statistics   — the most rapid one-year price surge in about 40 years.

The USD falling out of favor has been the key risk.   Our national debt is sustainable only as long as the USD is sustained by our 'full faith and credit'.

The USD falling out of favor has been the key risk.   Our national debt is sustainable only as long as the USD is sustained by our 'full faith and credit'.

What options does the US government have to counter an economic alliance that doesn't use the USD?

The USA has no control over the preferred currency.   We must make the USD appealing.   It is much like selling a product ... one cannot make a customer buy, one must convince the customer that buying the product is best for them.

This is a key area where a competent, charming PotUS is critical.   Biden does not have the sophistication to deal with such matters and Trump would literally be a bull in a china shop (plus not having the sophistication).   If we keep on this path this is another area where our inability to elect good leaders hurts everyone.

It is much like selling a product ... one cannot make a customer buy, one must convince the customer that buying the product is best for them.

China product is going to compete with US product.

I guess it will depend on the whether the history of the benefits of using the USD outweighs the possibility that China's product might be better or just preferable because of the instability in US government and society.

The immediate advantage of the USD is that it is familiar and has an entrenched infrastructure.   There would need to be quite a good reason to overcome that.

The immediate advantage of the USD is that it is familiar and has an entrenched infrastructure.   There would need to be quite a good reason to overcome that.

I agree.

However, my agreement is based on not understanding the system in the first place.  So I will have to go with the limited info I know.

I remember watching hearings in Europe after the 2008 financial fiasco in the US.  European leaders were outraged and did everything except call the US banking system fraudulent.

It will be interesting to see if that has an impact on which system various countries choose.

Also, countries may have to choose to support the currency used by the countries they import from.

Could this be a bloodless coup of the world banking system?

This is a key area where a competent, charming PotUS is critical.   Biden does not have the sophistication to deal with such matters and Trump would literally be a bull in a china shop (plus not having the sophistication).   If we keep on this path this is another area where our inability to elect good leaders hurts everyone.

That is what I am thinking. I couldn't have worded it better myself.

Could this be a bloodless coup of the world banking system?

Another thing, China and Russia (circa former USSR) are not sterling world citizens.   

Another thing, China and Russia (circa former USSR) are not sterling world citizens. 

I completely agree.

However, these decisions are made by people I don't know, who have reasons for their decisions that will be based on factors that I know little, to nothing, about.

The instability, in the US society and government, would be a factor that I do know about.

Can the Chinese government be trusted?  The US government said so when it moved so much of our manufacturing to China and then encouraged other countries to do so or to buy goods manufactured in China.  

Can the US government be trusted?  Our government has made so many missteps on the world stage that the answer has become "maybe" depending on whom is in charge of the government from year to year.

Note:  I am seeing China in control with Russia as their puppet - now and in the future.  There is no way I can view the leadership of Russia in the same category as the leadership in China.  

Also, what bad timing for China.   Russia is certainly not held in high esteem in the world today.

Also, what bad timing for China.   Russia is certainly not held in high esteem in the world today.

Probably why the articles I have read have emphasized Russian membership.

I didn't even know the following existed.  It seems that China has already been more of a power player in the world banking than I was aware of.  

What is the purpose of Pelosi's trip to Taiwan at a time when China is gaining influence on the world stage?

Can the US government afford to saber rattle at China?

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank - Wikipedia

The   Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank   ( AIIB ) is a   multilateral development bank   that aims to improve economic and social outcomes in   Asia . ^[4]   The bank currently has 105 members, including 14 prospective members from around the world. ^[1]   The breakdown of the 105 members by continents are as follows: 42 in   Asia , 26 in   Europe , 20 in   Africa , 8 in   Oceania , 8 in   South America , and 1 in   North America . The bank started operation after the agreement entered into force on 25 December 2015, after ratifications were received from 10 member states holding a total number of 50% of the initial subscriptions of the Authorized Capital Stock. ^[5]

The   United Nations   has addressed the launch of AIIB as having potential for "scaling up financing for sustainable development" ^[6]   and to improve the global economic governance. ^[7]   The starting capital of the bank was   US$ 100 billion, equivalent to   2 ⁄ 3   of the capital of the   Asian Development Bank   and about half that of the   World Bank . ^[8]

The bank was proposed by   China   in 2013 ^[9]   and the initiative was launched at a ceremony in   Beijing   in October 2014. ^[10]   It received the highest   credit ratings   from the   three biggest rating agencies   in the world, and is seen as a potential rival to the   World Bank   and   IMF . ^{[11] [12]}

n June 2014 China proposed doubling the registered capital of the bank from $50 billion to $100 billion and invited India to participate in the founding of the bank. ^{[21] [22]}   On 24 October 2014, twenty-one countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the AIIB in Beijing, China: Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. ^[23]   Indonesia's joining was slightly delayed due to their new presidential administration not being able to review the membership in time. Indonesia signed the MOU on 25 November 2014. ^[24]

The U.S. allegedly tried to keep Australia and South Korea from becoming prospective founding members, after they expressed an interest in it. ^[25]   However, both Australia and South Korea applied to join the bank in March 2015. ^{[26] [27] [28] [29]}

Hong Kong's   Financial Secretary   John Tsang   announced in his budget speech in February 2015 that the territory would join the AIIB. ^[30]   It did however not become one of the prospective founding members and negotiated as part of the Chinese delegation.

In early March 2015, the United Kingdom's   Chancellor of the Exchequer ,   George Osborne , announced that the UK had decided to apply to join the Bank, becoming the third Western country to do so after Luxembourg and New Zealand. ^[31]   The announcement was criticised by the U.S.   Obama Administration .

 A US government official told  Financial Times , "We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power." The official further stated that the British decision was taken after "no consultation with the US." ^[32]  In response, the UK indicated that the subject had been discussed between Chancellor Osborne and US Treasury Secretary  Jack Lew  for several months preceding the decision. It was further stated that joining the bank as a founding member would allow the UK to influence the development of the institution. By encouraging Chinese investments in the next generations of nuclear power plants, Osborne announced that "the  City of London  would become the base for the first clearing house for the yuan outside Asia." ^[33]

Fostering long-term economic development [ edit ]

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank can be construed as a natural inter-national extension of the   infrastructure-driven economic development   framework that has sustained the rapid economic growth of China since the adoption of the   Chinese economic reform   under   Chinese leader   Deng Xiaoping . It stems from the notion that long-term economic growth can only be achieved through systematic, and broad-based investments in infrastructure assets – in contrast with the more short-term "export-driven" and "domestic consumption" development models favored by mainstream Western   Neoclassical economists   and pursued by many developing countries in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century with generally disappointing results. ^{[39] [40]}

n March 2017, 13 other states were granted prospective membership: 5 regional (Afghanistan, Armenia, Fiji, Timor Leste and Hong Kong, China) and 8 non-regional: Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Hungary, Ireland, Peru, Sudan and Venezuela. In May 2017, 7 states were granted prospective membership: 3 regional (Bahrain, Cyprus, Samoa) and 4 non-regional (Bolivia, Chile, Greece, Romania). In June 2017, 3 other states were granted prospective membership: 1 regional (Tonga) and 2 non-regional (Argentina, Madagascar). ^[45]  In 2018, 7 other states were granted prospective membership: 1 regional (Lebanon) and 6 non-regional (Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Serbia, Togo). ^{[46] [47]}  In 2019, 7 other states were granted prospective membership: 7 non-regional (Djibouti, Rwanda, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Tunisia, Uruguay). ^[48]  They become members after finishing their domestic procedures. As of 29 April 2022, the total number of countries approved for membership of AIIB is 105 (Regional Members: 46, Non-Regional Members: 45, Prospective Members: 14). ^[49]  Countries holding at least 2.0% of either the total subscriptions or voting powers are in  bold .

I don't see that claim being made. However I do see an opinion on why Trump was elected. A familiar one....

Enter Donald Trump, who was giving the elite establishment the middle finger, and so were his new acolytes.

Yes, I agree that much of Trump's original appeal was his anti-career-politician theme.

Okay. And what would you say Biden’s original appeal was the last election?

He was seen as the best candidate to beat Trump.

Why?

For the same reason Trump was seen as the best candidate to beat Hillary.    The established procedures elected both of them.

Do you think those established procedures have more to do with why a nominee is selected than their appeal to voters?

I do not know, that was not my position.

I suspect that his win in SC —which gave him major momentum— translated in D minds into the notion that he was the best to beat Trump.

Who knows?   Biden had the most experience and was considered moderate (not extreme).   He was a name brand.   Probably factors like that.    Do you know?

I do not. My opinion of why aligns with the seed, in that he was a moderate career politician who would calm the stormy Trump seas.....

Okay, so were you going somewhere with your questions?

No... simply asking for your opinions about subjects pertaining to the seed. 

The voters are part of the procedure in Primaries.    Granted, the RNC and DNC manipulate the process to some degree during and before that but in the end, it is the voters.

There goes that "freewill" thing they are always talking about 

Yup mass mind control in play.   Awesome!

The strange things people dream up when desperately attempting to defend a political party.

There goes that "freewill" thing they are always talking about

I didn't go anywhere, I'm right here.  And who is always talking about me?

I will say that I did find it strange after the primaries, how some of the other R candidates jumped on the Trump train after the way he treated them in the primary debates and on the campaign trail. He was about as un-presidential a candidate as I have ever seen.   As those debates wound down and it was clear that Trump was likely going to be on the R ticket, I parted ways with the GOP who I felt had lost their collective minds.  I don't know if that all came about via a grass roots effort or not, and I did not entirely disagree with his "drain the swamp" rhetoric, but there is no way in hell I could in good conscience vote for such a man.  As it turned out, he made the swamp even swampier and I don't understand how so few in the GOP didn't see that coming.  I don't care how odious Democrats had become, or how they were drifting to the extremes in their own party, there was no reason for the Republicans to swing it the other way by backing a man like Trump.  The party needed to contrast with the D's on rational/reasonable policy, but also on rational/calm demeanor, temperament, and intelligent focus.  Trump represented none of those things, yet still won the backing of the party.   Until that changes I will remain an independent.  

This is a new one.   People claiming that the GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump.

How can anyone not understand that?  Even I have pointed out the Trump was elected to deliberately and maliciously break status quo politics in Washington.  And that's the only reason Trump was elected.

So let's take your assumption as fact:

1. The GoP elected Trump to maliciously break status quo in Washington.
2. There is no other reason Trump was elected.

    ⛬   The GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump

Someone needs to learn propositional logic.

The GoP elected Trump to maliciously break status quo in Washington.

Not the GoP.  That's the flaw in your propositional logic.  Trump was elected by the grass roots and not by the Republican elite.  And the grass roots was motivated by a deep, abiding hatred of what liberals have been imposing onto the county.  The grass roots wasn't listening to the GoP.

Liberals are so entrenched in autocratic thinking that they cannot even consider that the grass roots elected Trump to repudiate the GoP.  Trump groin kicked the Republican Party before he even had a chance to run against Hillary Clinton.

So, yes, the GoP was forced to accept Trump because the grass roots has a profound hatred of liberals.  Trump was nominated by a bottom up grass roots movement which is such an alien concept for liberals that they can't wrap their heads around that reality.  Liberals are trapped in their world of top down politics.  Which is one of the reasons the grass roots has such a deep hatred for liberals.

Trump was elected by the grass roots and not by the Republican elite. 

I did not specify GoP elite, I stated GoP which translates into Republican voters.

Your argument is invalid.   It makes no sense.

So, yes, the GoP was forced to accept Trump because the grass roots has a profound hatred of liberals.  Trump was nominated by a bottom up grass roots movement which is such an alien concept for liberals that they can't wrap their heads around that reality.  Liberals are trapped in their world of top down politics.  Which is one of the reasons the grass roots has such a deep hatred for liberals.

The GoP elite being forced to accept Trump was not your contention.   I would have agreed with that because it has been my position that the GoP establishment resisted Trump's nomination (and even resisted him as PotUS for the first 18 months or so).   You are moving the goalposts.

And your new syllogism also make no sense (is invalid):

1. GoP was forced to accept Trump by grassroots
2. Liberals are trapped in their world of top down politics

    ⛬   The GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump

Good grief man, major league non-sequitur.

And your new syllogism also make no sense (is invalid):

1. GoP was forced to accept Trump by grassroots
2. Liberals are trapped in their world of top down politics

    ⛬   The GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump

Good grief man, major league non-sequitur.

Slicing, dicing, twisting, and misdirecting won't change the reality of what happened.  Apparently you cannot understand how the GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump because that reality is too alien to fit liberal conventional wisdom.

So you have given up trying to defend your nonsense argument and instead resort to simply declaring you are right.

I think you are the only one here who doesn’t see the pattern of your most your debates tig.    

Once again someone you simply disagree with is spot on and you insult their comments as nonsense.    

You must be a hoot at parties .

An argument that is unsound is not 'spot on', Sparty.    A syllogism that is logically not valid per propositional logic is nonsense by definition.    

His argument is spot on.     Just because tig sez it isn’t, doesn’t automatically make it so.    

That’s the part of your “logic” that is failing you but ..... nothing new there.

His argument is spot on.

Because you say so?   You offer no explanation but just declare.   I offered an explanation based on formal propositional logic.   You just 'say so'.

Futher, Sparty, are you unaware that your comments have a propensity to make things personal ... attacking the person instead of the argument?    Focus on the content instead of the person.   Make an argument.   

Why would I need to add to the excellent job Nerm has done outlining the position.    I don’t and anything more on the matter would just be “liking the sound of my own voice” a little too much.    Nothing more.

Not everyone has that problem here tig.

Of course, you deflect.   Snarky bullshit is not an argument.   You are simply trolling.

[Deleted]

So you have given up trying to defend your nonsense argument and instead resort to simply declaring you are right.

Defend?  You're so-called logic is premised upon the GoP electing Trump.  So, where do independent voters fit into your so-called logic?

I am not the one who posed the argument, you did.   

It is up to you to attempt to explain (fix) your logic:

1. GoP was forced to accept Trump by grassroots
2. Liberals are trapped in their world of top down politics

    ⛬   The GoP was forced by 'liberals' to elect Trump

This is a perfect example of a non-sequitur.