The Prez, Vice Prez and Speaker of the House walk into a bar….

[Will Robinson]

Anyone know who the President pro tempore of the Senate will be after inauguration?

[Vander]

Best case is some ghoul who makes mendacious, bad faith arguments about liberty and responsibility in an effort to expand corruption and accelerate the distribution of wealth upwards. Worst case is some ghoul who makes mendacious, bad faith arguments about how our blood is being poisoned by dark people and how teachers must face consequences for teaching civil rights in an effort to expand corruption and accelerate the distribution of wealth upwards.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm guessing it'll be someone who doesn't mind male leaders who have have sex with underage girls, which is statutory rape in most jurisdictions, or have an illegal drug habit, or both.

[Will Robinson]

Best case is some ghoul who makes mendacious, bad faith arguments about liberty and responsibility in an effort to expand corruption and accelerate the distribution of wealth upwards. Worst case is some ghoul who makes mendacious, bad faith arguments about how our blood is being poisoned by dark people and how teachers must face consequences for teaching civil rights in an effort to expand corruption and accelerate the distribution of wealth upwards.

Careful there, you are describing both heads of the Hydra that lords over us.
Next thing you know you’ll be calling for a third party or some other disrupting change that will threaten its masters.

[Will Robinson]

I'm guessing it'll be someone who doesn't mind male leaders who have have sex with underage girls, which is statutory rape in most jurisdictions, or have an illegal drug habit, or both.

That’s better…staying line behind the hydra. Following the assigned role. You will be allowed to continue providing for its masters.

[Tunnelcat]

What? Asking that my country's leaders should NOT be sex offenders, drug users, conspiracy theorists, greedy billionaires, and general criminal asswipes is just staying behind the hydra? No thanks. There are better ways to change a government than destroy it from within, taking us with it. I hope you like what a Trumpian government will look like and do to the American people because I sure won't. I'm betting a LOT of people won't either once the Orange Turd is inaugurated.

[Spidey]

Who hasn't had sex with a 17 year old?

[Vander]

Careful there, you are describing both heads of the Hydra that lords over us.

Yes, because Elizabeth Warren and Marsha Blackburn are basically the same.

[Tunnelcat]

Statutory rape Spidey. Do you have a daughter?

The heads of the hydra aren't really the problem Will. It's the rich overlords who have their puppet-controlling hands up it's ass directing it's heads.

[Will Robinson]

Statutory rape Spidey. Do you have a daughter?

The heads of the hydra aren't really the problem Will. It's the rich overlords who have their puppet-controlling hands up it's ass directing it's heads.

That was my point actually. As long as you pick one of two they can deal with they are happy. They don’t give a damn about the scoreboard of the contest they staged to keep you in line. They sponsor both teams…they win regardless.

Thus why I purposely misconstrued Vander’s comment to imply much of the same thing. He, I’m assuming, was describing two variations of republican but truly both parties are guilty of the wealth and power being transitioned upwards. The politicians/ puppeteers use rhetoric designed to pull at camps concentrated around one or the other poles so it looks like diametrically opposed sides in a fight but regardless of the final scorecard the money and power is always delivered to the same asshats at the top.

To use some verbiage you are likely to feel comfortable with, it’s time to actually get woke to understand how we lost. How we *all* lost.

They don’t have actual oligarchs with murderous thugs to shut you down. Not yet anyway. So a bloodless revolution is possible but it requires waking up and shaking up the process. Maybe the next 4 years can be bad enough to cause it.

[Tunnelcat]

There's so much acrimony in this country, I don't see a peaceful resolution. There will eventually be violence because neither side wants to work with the other to solve problems. Trump himself is driven by the lust for power and will work to cement his authoritarian agenda at all costs, abandoning the people who helped elect him and trashing the Constitution to do it. Most empires last around 250 years before falling. Our 250th anniversary is in 2026. Will we fall?

[Vander]

truly both parties are guilty of the wealth and power being transitioned upwards.

When was the last time Republicans proposed to raise taxes on the rich, or to provide some meaningful benefit/support/service to the poor? Raise minimum wages? Or really anything to attempt to rein in instead of exploit the disproportionate power of wealth?

I don't believe Democrats are pure as the driven snow, or that they did not play a part in the neoliberal hollowing out of the country over the last 50 years, or that they're not beholden to wealthy interests. But it's only Democrats that ever attempt to distribute wealth downwards, however ineffectual and limited, and then get called communists for it.

Only one party nominated the justices that gutted campaign finance laws and effectively legalized political corruption. 7 people spent almost a billion dollars on this past election. I don't think it's a coincidence that it all favored that same party.

[Will Robinson]

truly both parties are guilty of the wealth and power being transitioned upwards.

When was the last time Republicans proposed to raise taxes on the rich, or to provide some meaningful benefit/support/service to the poor? Raise minimum wages? Or really anything to attempt to rein in instead of exploit the disproportionate power of wealth?

When was the last time democrats delivered on what they proposed? I’m sorry but citing what one half of the problem makers ‘say’ as proof they are worse than the other half when the net result is always the same regardless of what either half has ‘said’ is not much of an argument.

I don't believe Democrats are pure as the driven snow, or that they did not play a part in the neoliberal hollowing out of the country over the last 50 years, or that they're not beholden to wealthy interests. But it's only Democrats that ever attempt to distribute wealth downwards, however ineffectual and limited, and then get called communists for it.

I think you are making far too much of a distinction without any significant realized difference.

Only one party nominated the justices that gutted campaign finance laws and effectively legalized political corruption.

And the democrats, with a Super Majority and the Presidency passed those laws, but made sure it passed in a form that maintained the major financial institutions were protected and smaller banks were left hanging out to dry. So even with what appeared to be ultimate absolute authority what they said and what they actually did was the result of their puppet masters not the democrats proclaimed virtuosity. The same dirty details are in that devils work in the affordable care act from that time…
The money flowed to the top during that time just as it always does.

7 people spent almost a billion dollars on this past election. I don't think it's a coincidence that it all favored that same party.

Harris spent over a Billion and managed to lose every demographic compared to the Alzheimer’s patient she dethroned. So I find myself once again pointing out that money doesn’t always solve problems when it is thrown around to make yourself feel/look good instead of cause real change. She had a billion dollars, Obama team and the mainstream media propping her up and couldn’t beat ★■◆●ing Donald Trump for fucks sake!

A partisan view is the micro view. You can focus in on stated intent, which rhetoric is more offensive etc and see great differences.
A non partisan view is the macro view, where you stand back and see the net results are the same with either team in charge.
Look at the stock market index over time. Trending upward always. It doesn’t change direction during times of democrat power.

The real power has fixed the game, picking a team to root for is ridiculous. Buying a ticket to go to the stadium is suicide.

[Tunnelcat]

I gather you voted for the authoritarian. What do you expect in return for your vote Will? Unfortunately, I will lose something very important to me if any of Agenda 47 or Project 2025 is implimented.

And unless the Dems grow a pair and use the power they don't seem to realize they have in the next 2 months, and quit being a bunch of pantywaste whining losers sulking in the corner playing by the old rules, they will never again regain any power. I mean Biden hosting Trump shaking hands at the White House like they're old friends. Geezus. If I were Biden, I would've taken the opportunity to knife the fat bastard in the gut and then claim dementia and presidential immunity AND gotten away with it. The Dems need to stop playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules and fight dirty. Losers.

[Vander]

When was the last time democrats delivered on what they proposed?

Off the top of my head: The biggest recently in terms of impact was probably the medicaid expansion in the ACA. The most recent was the IRA which included large health subsidies, and also would've kept in place the Covid era expanded Child Tax Credit if not for 2 Democratic Senators who aren't Democrats anymore. The Build Back Better plan would've kept in place a lot of the Covid era support, but failed because of the same 2 Senators. All with minimal to no Republican support.

Yes, these efforts had to make it through the gauntlet. They get hacked and sliced and carved out, and end up inexplicably weird, complex, means tested bull★■◆● that needs to be known about and applied for instead of easily accessible universal benefits. It's not great, but it's meaningful, and certainly not nothing.

*edit, I should also mention that Biden's FTC has been the most proactive in terms of anti-trust as well. This won't produce a flashy number, but it directly challenges the accumulation and consolidation of corporate wealth and power.

And the democrats, with a Super Majority and the Presidency passed those laws

I don't know what "those laws" are. My comment was in regard to Citizens United and Snyder v. US. The first invalidated parts of laws from 2002 and 1971. (McCain/Feingold, Federal Election Campaign Act). The second invalidated a change to the federal bribery law in 1986. (now only a bribe if you receive it before you do the act, if you receive it after it's a legal reward/gratuity)

Harris spent over a Billion and managed to lose every demographic compared to the Alzheimer’s patient she dethroned. So I find myself once again pointing out that money doesn’t always solve problems when it is thrown around to make yourself feel/look good instead of cause real change.

This seems to be a different discussion about the efficacy of what the candidates are buying instead of what the people funding them are buying. IMO it's probably too soon make definitive statements on what Harris did wrong, they're still counting votes. She lost, but from what I've seen, she did better on average in the places she targeted (PA/MI/WI) relative to across the board. (lost less relative support) I'm not convinced she didn't overperform in a 'throw the bums out' wave that wasn't limited to just the US. But like I said, probably too early to draw strong conclusions.

The real power has fixed the game, picking a team to root for is ridiculous. Buying a ticket to go to the stadium is suicide.

I don't disagree that the game is fixed, and that the rules are continuously re-written by those already winning the game. The problem is that we're all in the stadium whether we bought tickets or not. I'm not an optimist, but I'm not yet an accelerationist. I don't believe a quicker collapse will lead to some better future. I've flirted with such ideas in the past regarding climate change, but things are just as likely to end up being even worse.

10-15 years ago, I would've been more agreeable to the 'two sides of the same coin' argument, but the GOP has jumped the tracks, and their differences have only gotten more stark.

[vision]

When was the last time democrats delivered on what they proposed?

Jumping in to say the Biden Administration promised to cancel student loans and one of my loans got cancelled. That's a good thing because the school I went to was later determined to be a scam. I dropped out halfway through and most of my credits didn't transfer, which of course means the school failed the accreditation they claimed. I continued to make payments though. The feds closed the school down years ago, it no longer exists. In my opinion canceling that loan is a just action.

[Krom]

Democrats have frequently promised to do things and then actually done them. Most of the time they come up short is when they invariably try to work across the aisle with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship and end up passing some half-ass measure filled with conservative poison pills everyone hates.

On the same token, Republicans regularly promise government waste, wanton destruction, dysfunction, and corruption, and to nobody's surprise they also pretty much always deliver on their promises. The issue is conservatives are ★■◆●ing idiots who buy into the idea that destroying the government will produce some kind of magic utopia when in reality it is entirely for the benefit of the already wealthy and powerful interests who want even less government oversight as they rob you and the rest of the planet blind.

[Will Robinson]

Democrats have frequently promised to do things and then actually done them. Most of the time they come up short is when they invariably try to work across the aisle with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship and end up passing some half-ass measure filled with conservative poison pills everyone hates.

Your perspective there is reminding me of how religious leaders offer blame for the devil as an excuse for gods failing to deliver. Usually followed by a scolding for the faithful to be more determined and pure in their belief to help god beat the devil.

On the same token, Republicans regularly promise government waste, wanton destruction, dysfunction, and corruption, and to nobody's surprise they also pretty much always deliver on their promises. The issue is conservatives are ★■◆●ing idiots who buy into the idea that destroying the government will produce some kind of magic utopia when in reality it is entirely for the benefit of the already wealthy and powerful interests who want even less government oversight as they rob you and the rest of the planet blind.

A fine example of how the democrats lost control of so many ‘faithful’ in this last election. The electorate isn’t what you seem to think it is. They aren’t so easily controlled by ‘other side bad, this side good’ when they are actually seeing the crap on the street (both literally and figuratively).

Simple terms explanation: the democrats offered nothing that addressed the actual economic stresses the electorate faces. Instead they got to hear Harris say ‘Let me be clear’ followed by ‘I was born in a middle class family’ followed by complete gibberish laced with an attempt to stitch together bits of key word non sequitur hash.
They tried to lean on identity politics and fringe social issues that have insignificant importance to the 150 million or so voters in the country. So the swing voters swung away from the team offering the most intellectually offensive sermon.

TLDR: It’s pretty ★■◆●ing bad when your best effort to fool enough voters is weaker than what MAGA offers!

[Vander]

They tried to lean on identity politics and fringe social issues that have insignificant importance to the 150 million or so voters in the country.

This is like the opposite of what happened.

[Will Robinson]

They tried to lean on identity politics and fringe social issues that have insignificant importance to the 150 million or so voters in the country.

This is like the opposite of what happened.

I watched Harris and Trump a lot on every media source I could find and the subject matter was very light and vague from Harris compared to Trump. He may be a douche but he articulates his individual intentions in a description of specific actions.
She worked hard to avoid any definitive explanation. She merely offered nebulous end goals in between lots of ‘Trump is going to take away everything you love’.

If you are out in the world looking at things getting worse while the democrats are telling you they are not getting worse you start losing faith in her ability to deliver on anything. Contrast that with a guy who is absolutely sure of his every intention and almost always describes how he will do it.

Ask her about the border issues. She says there is no problem, then says she ‘will fix it but not like Trump will’. Ask her how and she dances around any kind of specifics. Refuses to acknowledge reality and tries to steer the conversation to what’s wrong with Trump.

Ask Trump about the border issue and he obviously has specific changes he wants to make and has specifics.

People react to a show of strength. People are easily rallied to an action versus accepting a sermon on what’s right and wrong by someone who doesn’t seem to be honest. Even though he is probably a bigger liar over all she made him seem more authentic and prepared to actually get things changed.

On the economy, same deal.

Those two issues alone were disasters for her and all the less weighty issues were never going to amount to enough to overcome her poor performance.
You can’t just virtue signal your way into the white house if you don’t have the guts to take a stance and share your details. It really was a very unimpressive albeit expensive tour she gave.


She literally told an interviewer she ‘doesn’t think on her feet well”!! WTF?!? That’s the one time you are candid?!? Game over.

[Tunnelcat]

So you say you watched both candidates a lot. So Trump's weird mental ramblings didn't cause you concern? Or the idea he actually said he'd be a dictator on day one and will pardon himself for any and all crimes he's commited and been convicted of, along with all those who took part in his Jan 6th insurrection? Or the fact he said he'd use the military to go after "the enemy within", which if you read it literally, means HIS enimies, not national enemies. Or the fact he likes other cruel autocrats like Putin and has been regularly taking to him on the phone, not in any presidential capacity either, even though there are rumors that Trump may have been compromised by Putin and can be blackmailed. So apparently you aren't concerned about our national secrets. Or the fact he wants to impliment tariffs on foreign goods, never mind that those corporations will just pass those taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, causing inflation take off again. Anyone who's ever taken Economics 101 would understand that concept, which you apparently are ignoring. You listened to Trump alright, but heard nothing and ignored everything. I voted for Harris not because she had a plan. I voted for her because Trump is a crazy lunatic who understands only how to blather insane platitudes to a bunch of hateful and angry people and I sure as hell wanted to keep him out of office. At least if she'd failed at the job in 4 years, we could vote her out. I seriously doubt we'll ever be able to vote Trump or his troupe of ass clowns out of office, ever again.

[Will Robinson]

I voted for Jill Stien.
So my vote was slightly less worthless than yours. You gave an invitation to the asshats in charge to comeback and screw you over again next time.
I told them I won’t volunteer to be a player in their game and seek to start a new set of rules for the next game instead.
They laugh at both of us but they hope I’m not part of a trend. They see you as duped and subservient.

I think the choice between Harris and Trump was between one entitled fool who’s screw ups can be mostly corrected by elections in 4 or 8 years except for the collection of misguided progressives she empowered will be there. Or, another entitled fool who will also have his screw ups largely erased *except* in his wake there will be a resurgence of racists in power that will be worse for our future than the progressive woke idiocy Harris would have empowered.

Of course Trump concerns me. I would gladly wave a magic wand and appoint President Obama to replace him for 8 years.
If I had one it would have happened already. It didn’t so I’m trying save as much wealth as I can to leave my daughters a way to get to New Zealand if need be.

And that is why I’m so hard on the Dems right now because they really screwed up. They should have gone right into Primary mode when Biden ‘stepped aside’ and put any number of people in that could have won. Governor of Pennsylvania for example. ‘ But…oh no…we can’t push the black woman aside….!’ So you live by identity politics and you die by them too.

She was so bad she was the first to lose in the primary against what? A dozen of her peers? The Dems knew it. They knew she rose up from nothing on appointments from her sugar daddy, was a decent prosecutor in a seriously extreme liberal environment any fool could play that game. And she was a token black woman for Biden to use as a badge of ‘woke’. It is just ridiculous. You probably think she only lost because of misogyny! lol!

[Tunnelcat]

38% of Trump's nominees are involved in some sort of sex or drug scandals. Now it's minus one.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/21/poli ... index.html

Will, I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 because I couldn't stomach either major party candidate. In 2024, I voted for Harris because she's smart, even though she's just another party offering that will perpetuate the usual dem platform. However, there was another more important consideration. I may not like our 2 party system, I'm an independent, but I sure as hell like having a Republic and a democracy. I'm also in favor of a strong leader who's not a delusional maniac.

What we're going to get now is a chaotic fascist autocracy lead by a vengeful insecure man that likes his ego massaged every day and eventually run by over 50,000 incompetent people with agendas and grudges selected by him personally using loyalty tests, many of them with criminal backgrounds or no experience whatsoever. One of those agendas is to destroy the government and every institution that's part of it. Trump wants to have our own military bow to his will and become his enforcer brown shirts. MAGAt's are actually dancing in the streets at the prospect.

But they don't realize what they're going to lose. I'm on both Medicare and Social Security. I can bet you my bottom dollar those will be gutted, as well as the ACA. I hope you like what's going to happen, because we're all going to be stuck in the resulting mess and a lot of people are or will wake up to it and get royally pissed off.

[Vander]

I watched Harris and Trump a lot on every media source I could find and the subject matter was very light and vague from Harris compared to Trump. He may be a douche but he articulates his individual intentions in a description of specific actions.
She worked hard to avoid any definitive explanation. She merely offered nebulous end goals in between lots of ‘Trump is going to take away everything you love’.

If you are out in the world looking at things getting worse while the democrats are telling you they are not getting worse you start losing faith in her ability to deliver on anything. Contrast that with a guy who is absolutely sure of his every intention and almost always describes how he will do it.

Ask her about the border issues. She says there is no problem, then says she ‘will fix it but not like Trump will’. Ask her how and she dances around any kind of specifics. Refuses to acknowledge reality and tries to steer the conversation to what’s wrong with Trump.

Ask Trump about the border issue and he obviously has specific changes he wants to make and has specifics.

People react to a show of strength. People are easily rallied to an action versus accepting a sermon on what’s right and wrong by someone who doesn’t seem to be honest. Even though he is probably a bigger liar over all she made him seem more authentic and prepared to actually get things changed.

On the economy, same deal.

Those two issues alone were disasters for her and all the less weighty issues were never going to amount to enough to overcome her poor performance.
You can’t just virtue signal your way into the white house if you don’t have the guts to take a stance and share your details. It really was a very unimpressive albeit expensive tour she gave.


She literally told an interviewer she ‘doesn’t think on her feet well”!! WTF?!? That’s the one time you are candid?!? Game over.

None of that has anything to do with "They tried to lean on identity politics and fringe social issues."

From what I can tell her campaign (really Biden's campaign) attempted to be as widely acceptable as possible. From Liz ★■◆●ing Cheney to antifa. This translates to bland, inoffensive, at times incoherent, and anchored to a status quo that nobody really likes. It's only real chance at working was getting enough people to agree that the status quo would be better than what Trump offered. Higher interest rates and inflation made that a tougher sell.

I think Harris is a decent person, capable politician, and likely would've been a fine President. But she's not a generational talent.

And that is why I’m so hard on the Dems right now because they really screwed up. They should have gone right into Primary mode when Biden ‘stepped aside’ and put any number of people in that could have won. Governor of Pennsylvania for example. ‘ But…oh no…we can’t push the black woman aside….!’ So you live by identity politics and you die by them too.

The ironic part here is that the faction that sought the 'delegate primary' was more aligned with who you were railing against earlier in this thread, wanting to depart from Biden's policy and rhetoric from his first 2 years. Would someone else have won a the backroom primary? I think Harris still would've won. She was best positioned as Vice President and had access to Biden's campaign money, not because she was a black woman. Would a different candidate have won the general? Who can say, and it's entirely possible this imaginary candidate could've done worse.

If we're wish casting, I'd have preferred Biden step aside before the primary and actually have one. That was the biggest mistake. The effects of Biden's age were obvious back in 2019, he was clearly diminished even then. I think his first 2 years were great. Not just good, great. But man, these past two years... Historic yard sale.

[Will Robinson]

…
None of that has anything to do with "They tried to lean on identity politics and fringe social issues."

From what I can tell her campaign (really Biden's campaign) attempted to be as widely acceptable as possible. From Liz ★■◆●ing Cheney to antifa. This translates to bland, inoffensive, at times incoherent, and anchored to a status quo that nobody really likes. It's only real chance at working was getting enough people to agree that the status quo would be better than what Trump offered. Higher interest rates and inflation made that a tougher sell.

Well I would think the campaign must have been aware of those issues at the time. You can rewind all Harris’ interviews and rally speeches and see that she talked about a lot of less weighty topics. Mostly touching on typical rally the base stuff, keeping it vague and safe. Like “losing our Democracy to hitleresque orange baby man’ is good for a few laughs from the people who will vote for you anyway but it doesn’t sway the people who are going to decide your fate.
In NFL parlance she was playing ‘prevent defense’ the whole time. Trying to run out the clock… note to Team Harris: you have to have a real lead for that to be a thing and even then it’s a big gamble! And it has to be a real lead, not just a celebration from a temporary bump post debate.She was told she needs to be more than 6 points ahead to be even based on previous polling forensics. I don’t think she was ever winning.

She offered no real plan of action to deal with inflation or high interest rates. I think that was usually her que to transition to mentioning price gouging grocers lol. Of course no real insight into what she was going to do even against that supposed evil menace.
She did mention first time home buyers getting gift. Although that was a Biden promise from his campaign. I don’t think it has even made it up to a vote in the House though. I understand inflation and interest rates aren’t really in a Presidents tool box but you would think they could have looked at polling and seen border and crime and economy should have been addressed every time she had a chance to talk. Instead she hid out in the locker room during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the game. Who the hell was running that ★■◆● show? I bet they are all pointing at each other right now when that question pops up.

[Vander]

I understand inflation and interest rates aren’t really in a Presidents tool box but you would think they could have looked at polling and seen border and crime and economy should have been addressed every time she had a chance to talk. Instead she hid out in the locker room during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the game. Who the hell was running that ★■◆● show? I bet they are all pointing at each other right now when that question pops up.

Eh, she talked about those things a lot. Believably to someone like yourself? Maybe not, especially when compared to a fascist demagogue. But it looks like you were indifferent between the two and maybe more worried about Harris longer term, so I guess this was the better result for you.

Personally, I think it's entirely possible breaking with Biden on Gaza or targeting the left more instead of squishy Republicans might have made a difference, but that's probably me saying "of course she would've won if she focus more on what *I* want." Low incumbent popularity, bad economic sentiment, and a rough information environment are tough to overcome, though.

And it was Biden's campaign team, run out of Delaware.

*edit - I thought this was pretty good: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 235176879/

[vision]

*edit - I thought this was pretty good:

That seemed like a pretty sober read on the matter, thanks.

[Will Robinson]

I understand inflation and interest rates aren’t really in a Presidents tool box but you would think they could have looked at polling and seen border and crime and economy should have been addressed every time she had a chance to talk. Instead she hid out in the locker room during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of the game. Who the hell was running that ★■◆● show? I bet they are all pointing at each other right now when that question pops up.

Eh, she talked about those things a lot. Believably to someone like yourself? Maybe not, especially when compared to a fascist demagogue. But it looks like you were indifferent between the two and maybe more worried about Harris longer term, so I guess this was the better result for you.

Responding to the question or talking about the subject isn’t enough if it is always the same five word response or buzz word list followed by changing the subject.
I’m reminded of David Lee Roth back when he was a A List Rock Star and explained how to do interviews you don’t want to do. She did a poor facsimile of it.
It was, (loosely paraphrased here):
“I have 3 answers to any question.
1 ‘I think what you’re trying to ask is’.. paraphrase question, then I can talk about whatever the ★■◆● I want to…
2 ‘Before I answer that let me say this’ then I talk about whatever the ★■◆● I want to…
3 ‘Let me answer that this way’ and then talk about whatever…”

re: is Trump winning a better outcome for me
Not the better result for me. I promise. I mean it sincerely when I say we can overcome the damage She would have done with an election. She would have empowered the remnants of the ‘far-too-woke-for-anyone’s-good’ that are apparently already being sent to the back of the bus by direction of the smarter members of their own party.

The damage Trump can do, and is doing, Is giving a sense of legitimacy and amplification to the voice of the worst of us.
You can’t correct that with the next election. It has been a long road toward diminishing the redneck peckerwood faction, the racism-has-a-place mob etc and this puts all of us back down that road. And that is just the domestic threat he poses. World stage? What easy target for an enemy with any skills. Putin loves him I bet. Probably a little scared trying to forecast how he will react in numerous scenarios but also smiling inside knowing he can play him in numerous ways.

I was a good bit disappointed in how I misread Obama, thinking he was going to be a great statesman type and instead he was very often a typical democrat politician.
But by comparison, with benefit of hindsight, Obama was a blessing compared to Trump.

[Krom]

[Tunnelcat]

It doesn't help that the Dems are either dumb as rocks or else don't give a rat's ass about the constituents they supposedly were elected by.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188693/15- ... ump-powers

While significantly lower than the 52 members who joined in last week’s vote to advance the bill, 15 Democrats is still a surprising number of representatives who seem to care more about wanting to neutralize irksome protesters than a fascist, authoritarian president targeting any nonprofit he doesn’t like.

[Will Robinson]

It doesn't help that the Dems are either dumb as rocks or else don't give a rat's ass about the constituents they supposedly were elected by.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188693/15- ... ump-powers

While significantly lower than the 52 members who joined in last week’s vote to advance the bill, 15 Democrats is still a surprising number of representatives who seem to care more about wanting to neutralize irksome protesters than a fascist, authoritarian president targeting any nonprofit he doesn’t like.

The cynic in me says it is a weapon that should be obsolete since there really is no entity that is both ‘non profit’ and a source of power/funding/influence for a political faction.
Just get real and revoke tax exemptions. Period. Voila! This becomes a non issue.

[Tunnelcat]

You think that will be satisfactory to Trump, who wants vengence, not just to inconvenience? Just removing tax exempt status isn't as satisfying as labeling them a terrorist organization, which would enable far harsher government actions and penalties. You just aren't imagining what fascists really love to do with their power, and that's hurt people they hate. The current Republicans I can see doing this, but for any Dem, it's being nothing but a wishy washy weasel. They just haven't figured out in their little pea brains what's really going to happen at the end of January in this country.

[Vander]

Not the better result for me. I promise.

My apologies, I must have misread.

She would have empowered the remnants of the ‘far-too-woke-for-anyone’s-good’ that are apparently already being sent to the back of the bus by direction of the smarter members of their own party.

I think I would sprain something if my eyes rolled even harder. What does this even mean? Chuck Schumer's crunching joints trying to kneel wearing Kente cloth? Cringey pronoun declarations or land acknowledgements?

[Will Robinson]

She would have empowered the remnants of the ‘far-too-woke-for-anyone’s-good’ that are apparently already being sent to the back of the bus by direction of the smarter members of their own party.

I think I would sprain something if my eyes rolled even harder. What does this even mean? Chuck Schumer's crunching joints trying to kneel wearing Kente cloth? Cringey pronoun declarations or land acknowledgements?

lol! Sometimes I guess I do things only to amuse my self.
I was contrasting the similar problems both Trump and Harris posed if they win… I tried to show that although they both would bring a rise in power to factions I hate, the group she was likely to empower is a temporary problem that is already weakened and largely manifests in a policy shift where as Trump will be giving power to a dangerous faction that can’t be revoked by policy corrections in a following administration.