This is where the analogy ends. For all the things Donald Trump is, he is certainly no Luke Skywalker.
There has been increasing rumblings as of late from the GOP mainstream that it has had it with Trump's endless supply of bull$hit.
Senator McConnell, otherwise known "affectionately" as the"Old Crow" in Trump circles, an apt description if I can say so, myself, is no longer willing to "kiss the ring"? Trump is still cross with McConnell for his tepid support of his infrastructure plan while supporting the one put forth by the Democrats. I understand that he has demanded that he be removed from his leadership post as Senate Minority Leader.
Former VP Mike Pence, who may well have presidential ambitions of his own, has found a bone or two to pick with Trump.
"Former Vice President Mike Pence vowed last week to support sitting Republican governors against primary challengers backed by former President Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal."
"Trump has raged in recent months against Republican governors who he believes were insufficiently loyal, or did not do enough to help him overturn his election loss, backing primary challenges to former close allies like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp. But Pence, himself the former governor of Indiana, told the Republican Governors Association (RGA) last week that he plans to back sitting governors that drew his former running mate's ire."
Hmm, Trump did not bother to disavow the rallying cries of the rightwing mob, last January 6th, to "hang Mike Pence", the very thought of this mad dog mob with him in the crosshairs must have made him wet his pants. Trump is still mad at Pence for performing his duties as prescribed in the Constitution, rather than to listen to him. Yet, the Rightwinger sees this man as a great leader. Quite frankly, I could do well without either one.
"A new name to surface on Trump's hit list is Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, according to the report. Trump blames Ivey — a staunchly conservative Republican — for a state commission decision that prevented him from holding a rally last July at the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park. The commission said it canceled the rally because the facility, which houses a World War II battleship and other historic military aircraft, cannot be used for political events."
Seems like the Governor has a reasonable enough explanation to me. Who does Trump think that he is, and why does he persist like a bad penny?
Here is more
"But some Republican incumbents are instead trying to distance themselves from Trump. A growing number of Republicans view Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin's victory earlier this month, in which the Republican refused to campaign with Trump or endorse his false claims about the 2020 election, as a sign that they don't need the former president's support to win."
Youngkin's victory in Virginia and Chris Christie's admonition about Trump needing to keep a low profile fell on deaf ears. Is anyone surprised, Trump's ego is insurmountable.
As nice as possible within polite GOP establishment political circles, Trump is being told to "drop dead".
Reminds me of the presidential race in 1912. You had the mainstream GOP faction represented by William Howard Taft verses the offshoot led by one giant of man named Theodore Roosevelt, splinting the GOP ticket with his "Bull Moose" party. The schism was enough to permit Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, to win the presidency. History does have a way of repeating itself in the strangest ways.
Again, that is where the analogy ends, Donald Trump is no Theodore Roosevelt. But, I think that if you change Bull Moose to Bull $hit, you would be "spot on".
I would grab a front row seat in this match between GOP factions, I might even come out from retirement to help with ticket sales.
Ironically, Abe Lincoln's admonition has contemporary significance " a house divided against itself cannot stand"
The "establishment", whether Democrat or Republican, did not support Trump the first time. You remember, the time he won, when everyone on the Hill pooh poohed him...right up until he won the office?
It is the people that elected Trump, not McConnell, not Pence and not Ivey. If he is elected again it will once more be the people that do it.
Yes, I do remember that this long shot managed to become the front runner for the GOP in 2016.
In 2016, he won only through the Electoral College, losing the popular vote. He lost by 7 million votes and the electoral college in 2020.
The people that you refer to may well be "your people". 2024 will probably prove to be unlike the previous contests. Will there be enough of your people to sustain Trump in the next round? That is what we will have to see, and bucking the GOP establishment as the vehicle from which his candidacy will be promoted certainly is not going to help.
It will certainly be an interesting campaign season. I expect (and hope) that "my people" (I don't actually have a group I identify with) will choose someone else for their candidate.
But if not I am almost certain to vote for Trump again. Democrat policies are destroying our country and must be halted. I am not appreciative of the highest inflation in 30 years OR of indiscriminately bringing in illegal aliens and spreading them through the country under the cover of darkness. I don't even think much of once more being dependent on foreign oil or high gas prices and I don't use but very little gasoline and no natural gas.
Generally things have double price since Biden taking over. The economy and free speech is falling apart.
I find it haliarious that people think we can save humanity by poli- tricks and billionaires. It just the opposite.
That's why you can't call the US a democracy. In an honest democracy, the president is voted in by the majority of votes.
It hasn't been a democracy since Abraham Lincoln was killed and Marsail law there after. Mix social and capitalist is better. Individual independent , free market without fear of Government as they take care of the small stuff, is better still.
"In an honest democracy, the president is voted in by the majority of votes"
You are right. The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. There is a big difference.
We have something called the "Electoral College." This eliminates the "Tyranny of the Majority."
Here is a good article about it.
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c … e-majority
This prevents population centers in small areas of the country from controlling elections. This makes it possible for states with even small populations to have influence in every election.
Yes I understand the problem that people in Nebraska don't want to be ruled by LA or NY. But to my knowledge, the states have a lot of independence. In one state things are forbidden what is legal in another state.
The Electoral College seems to me just doing that. Giving states with a small population disproportionate power. And actually influencing the country more than the states with a big population.
Looking at a country as a whole it should be ruled by the "Tyranny of the Majority" and not the "Tyranny of the Minority". The Minority or Elite have a tendency to cling to the power position for ages. The "flavour" of the majority changes more rapidly, which is a much healthier in the long run I think.
We are a union of states. We've had one Civil War when states broke away from the union. Should the urban populations centers have ultimate power, and states with less population feel they have no say in how the country is run, we could face states again leaving the union.
The one thing preventing this from happening right now is the electoral college. If you were to look at the counties where they voted red as opposed to voted blue, you would be shocked at how much area is covered with red voters as opposed to blue voters.
"Were it not for the Electoral College, presidential candidates could act as if many Americans don’t even exist. They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations. Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations?"
Here is the 2020 election broken down by county.
And conversely, by where the people actually live.
You tell it, Valeant, it is people who are voting not territorial regions.
By that logic, all people are the same? Same values and desires?
I think that thought is for a discussion of state sovereignty, not national sovereignty. Then the actions of the tail will be where they should be.
I have heard that in Wyoming there are counties without even 100 people.
Do they really expect to have the say and influence of Los Angeles county? For example.
In national elections there can't be "state sovereignty" the desires majority of the voters must prevail and if these outlying regions want a change in fortune let them increase their populations for just that much more influence. It was much like the situation I spoke to you about a few years ago. In Colorado, where rural counties on the Kansas boundary complained about the influence of laws and the political direction of the state by Denver and Boulder counties. Well, numbers are the numbers and the will of the greater number must prevail or we no longer have democracy.
Why are the majority of voters the tail, instead of the head?
In a national election; yes, those Wyoming folks should have an equal say as the folks in L.A. county. And yes, there must be state sovereignty in national elections. It is the states that do the electing.
I don't think one could disagree with that unless they disagree with our concept of a Republic—a union of states. Do you disagree with our structure as a Republic?
The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have nearly four times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy.
I think you are wrong, (and of course, you must think I am wrong), and my response will probably sound like a trite `so what', but your thought is misplaced. The people of California and Wyoming do not elect presidents, their states do.
So, if you want to compare the value of votes, (4 times the power), then you must compare the votes of the states. California gets 55 votes and Wyoming gets 3.
And then there is the worn-out correction that I think you must know but are ignoring; We are not a democracy. we are a Republic. It is the members of that Republic that are the voters for the Republics' leader.
No, it is the people that do the electing, not the states. The Electoral College has to reflect of the majority of the vote for any one state. Since, we did get rid of the silly ideas of electors voting contrary to the popular vote tally.
I was gracious in saying that everybody is entitled is a voice, but disproportionate influence is not acceptable. One man, one vote must be the overriding principle. As a result, the will and the relative weight of the will of the people of California MUST dwarf that of the people of Wyoming.
Why do you think that conservatives were so angry during the 2020 presidential election. In Michigan, they could not abide in the idea that Wayne County, Detroit, could with sheer population override the votes of other more conservative counties in the state. But why shouldn't it, numbers matter.
I don't care about regional distinctions and designations, the greater population must come first or this system is on the way to unraveling.
I bet that if conservatives had their way, they would prefer the apportionate arrangement based on the Senate rather than that of the House for the Electoral College, one state, two votes. California and Wyoming would be equal. Fortunately, that is an ugly mind picture that I won't have to deal with.
We disagree. I think you are as wrong as you think I am. And, we, (all of us here), have had many discussions about this overall point, and the points of your comment. We would just be rehashing stuff to get into the meat of them again.
Simply put; how can you support your statement, "No, it is the people that do the electing, not the states. "? You know that is factually and constructionally incorrect?
How would you explain Pres. Trump's win if I am wrong?
I can understand why you think each state having an equal number of votes is an ugly picture. Democrats would never win a national election if that were the case. ;-)
You have to deal with what is, and not what you want.
"I can understand why you think each state having an equal number of votes is an ugly picture. Democrats would never win a national election if that were the case. ;-)"
I am glad you do because it is simply not fair. Because the political desires of the desolate regions of the country cannot supersede the will of the populated areas.
States thru the Electoral College, which it is obvious from our discussions that I am going to have more problems with than otherwise, make the choices thru electors. But, where we have our sticking point is the foundation of the College, which still require the will of the majority of the population in the state be reflected in the Electors, which is a rough equivalent to the popular vote. While, I lament the times when the Electoral College tally was contrary to the popular vote, I accept this system for reasons you and I spoke of before.
I say, that I am the "state". As the very entity of being a state has no meaning without the will of the majority of the residents that reside there. What beyond that can be considered?
Thus, I cheered when the 17th Amendment required that Senators be chosen by popular vote rather than appointed by State Legislators, which has a stench of elitism.
As I alluded to Wilderness, I get this ill feeling that in conservative circles some people are intrinsically more equal than others and as a progressive I loathe such thinking.
If this idea of a Republic mean that the votes of some are given more weight than the votes of others, we have sold out democracy for something far more sinister.
Off topic and no expert here, yet I see the threat more is gerrymandering causing unequal representation of the populace. I feel their is more power with the house and senate. Maybe I am wrong.
That is true as well, a sinister attempt to have a minority of the state's residents obtain political hegemony over the will of its majority, by nullifying and neutralizing votes likely to support opposing party.
It is definitely a well worn tool in the Republican toolbox.
You do realize that gerrymandering is something that is done equally by both parties?
There are many articles about Democrats gerrymandering. I picked this is one from the liberal "Daily Beast"
"Democrats Hate Gerrymandering—Except When They Get to Do It"
"Of course, even if 2020 is an especially good year for Democrats, giving them control of the House of Representatives and the state legislatures that draw the congressional boundaries, gerrymandering won’t end—it will just shift to benefit them. If you don’t believe me—if you think this is a sin exclusive to Republicans—consider the places I have lived.
It’s asking a lot for a political party, having finally regained power, to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. But if Democrats really mean what they say about how bad gerrymandering is, they will run on platforms for impartial line-drawing. Sadly, that’s the opposite of what at least some of them are hinting at."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats … t-to-do-it
No worries tsmog. It doesn't take an expert to see the harm caused by gerrymandering.
You are right, you are the "state." Just as I am in mine. And you are also right that a state should vote as the majority of its citizens do. They do. meaning that on the state level we do abide by the rule of pure democracy—the majority rules.
We do the same thing on the national level. States cast their votes and the majority rules—again, pure democracy. So what is your beef?
As has been mentioned, this system can be changed. It just needs to be a majority, (more or less, it's a 2/3 thing which is a majority), decision. Again, pure democracy, the very thing you say should be the rule. So, where is your beef?
I think I know what your beef is. You want a homogeneous nation of citizens, you don't like the concept of states or state sovereignty. Right?
If I had my druthers, I think that apportionment for Electors for all states should be adjusted to better reflect actual population per elector. It should not be one elector per 500,000 in Texas and 1 per 175,000 in Wyoming.
That is a "beef" that I am not going to realize, unfortunately.
Now you are just playing with me. Surely you know that a state's number of electors is already determined by population—via its number of Congress members. (notice that I didn't use that sexist term "Congressmen")
So you have your druthers. So where is your need?
You are exactly right. The votes given to each state is based on its population. Do New York and California have more influence in an election than Utah? Yes. The Electoral College is a brilliant system.
mm. Is this system not more vulnerable to political interference. Is it not far easier to simply count all the votes together instead of counting them by state?
I can imagine that it wasn't technically possible back then. But today you can do it. I can't see a reason why not.
It's easier and more transparent.
Interesting article Readmikenow,
As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.... - But imagine that the sheep had the power and the wolves were only allowed to eat grass?
No, What we really have is tyranny of the minority. Rank choice voting is an interesting way to go. Our electoral college needs to be overhauled to be more representative of the people.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
It is a system that was developed in ancient Greece and has been perfected.
You might want to consider reading John Adams writings on it.
The Electoral College representatives all people in the United States in the best way possible. It is what has held our republic together for centuries.
IF it is such a problem, then get 2/3rds of the states to vote to change it as per the Constitution. So, if it needs to be changed, there is a way.
By 2040, if population trends continue, 70% of Americans will be represented by just 30 senators, and 30% of Americans by 70 senators.
I suggest you then start speaking with your elected representatives to begin the process of amending the Constitution. You will have to have the amendment approved by the US Congress, Senate, signed by the president and then voted for by 2/3rds of the states.
I won't participate as it I feel the Electoral College is just fine the way it is right now.
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.
Well, if you want to change the US Constitution, I suggest you contact your Congressman and ask them to draft legislation to abolish the Electoral College. They may want to know what you could do for them in terms of support. If you can bring them votes for their next election, you may get more attention. If you can tell them about holding fundraisers for their next election, you will really get their attention.
Then the legislation your Congressman drafts will be sent to committee. If it makes it past THAT hurdle, then it will up to the Speaker of The House to see if it gets voted on by Congress. Then the Senate, then the president. And if it makes it past ALL of that, it will then have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.
So, change is possible. It will only take an amendment to the Constitution.
Most recently if we can amend the Constitution (1992) to determine When members of Congress can grant themselves pay raises then I think the overhaul of the electoral college is quite worthy of a constitutional amendment.
Well, you know what has to be done to make it happen. Gather those who believe in this and make an appointment to meet with your Congressman to get the process started.
Step 1: The Electoral College is enshrined in the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore requires a constitutional amendment, outlined in Article 5.
Step 2: Congress can propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
Step 3: It must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths.
You wrote in another thread...
" Democracy is hard work [-] It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false. It requires thoughtfulness, discipline and logic. "
The truth is more than half the people who vote likely vote against their best interests, they are unable or unwilling to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false... they do not have the requisite thoughtfulness, discipline or logic of which you speak.
And with the new Vote by Mail-In-Ballot system they devised for PA, well, its just so easy to find the required mail-ins you need after the election is over, the establishment will never have to worry about deplorable types ever getting some "F U" type person elected again.
Not "honest" democracy, but "true" democracy. Either way, neither apply to the U.S. We are a representative democracy. With only the election of our president as the exception, we do use true democracy, (majority decides), to elect all of our representative leaders.
In our system, it is the states of our republic that elect our president—the leader of our republic, not the popular vote. But, I think you know that and are just making a correct point. It is only the choice of "honest" that creates the misconception.
Corrected. Yes, honest is perhaps a badly chosen word.
And to be fair, Spain, the country where I live in has more or less the same system in a sence that the "states" have a lot of independence.
And the majority voting system is also not properly working here. (in my opinion - But that's seen from a Dutch perspective.) - giving some areas with a small population more power.
In my opinion, every vote should be the same.
I guess, every country has it's own way of dealing with making a country work. But I think a voting system should be update now and then as we do live in a different time than when the "Founding Fathers" organized the country. (In my case, the time Franco died. At this time there were far fewer parties than today for example)
If every vote is weighted the same the inevitable result is that any and all minorities are stamped out in favor of the majority ruling everything.
We see that in America in states with a large rural area being dominated by one or two large cities. Rural people, with a very different philosophy and style of living are forced to take up the same concept as those in the concrete jungle. This is a huge loss as we lose diversity in favor of a "one size fits all" demand regardless of circumstances or anything else.
But which minorities are we talking about? A Buddhist living in New York? (Buddhism only being 1% in the US)
Or a farmer family (only 2% of the U.S. population)
The Buddhist don't have a special vote as they live mostly in the cities. The farmers do, however...
The more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes....
And the more complicated, the more the rules can be bent...
And I think that's the problem. Go back to a simple voting system without a Electoral Collage (Who is electing them....?)
And I can imagine that the freedom this gives will open up the possibilities for more parties to arise, erasing the deadlock of a 2 party system.
(just a thought)
I accept the Electoral College as the compromise necessary to appease the smaller states during the founding of the Republic.
I am concerned that this electoral college may get to the point where sodbusters and goatropers of the flyover states can have a disproportionate influence in elections, while, yet, they are still entitled to a voice.
For the aforementioned reasons, I tolerate the Electoral College and rest my case, for now.
Geez. Is that your view, that Middle America, (I think that covers a lot more than just your "flyover" regions) is nothing more than "sodbusters and goatropers"?
And bless your heart, I know it must have been hard to say that "they are still entitled to a voice."
Are you sure you don't mean that votes can be given to those sodbusters and goatropers as long as the termites and cockroaches living in the slums of concrete jungles still get to make all the rules?
Those "termites" and "cock roaches" rule the roost as long as they have the numbers. Why should your vote as a country mouse be the equivalent of two of mine? Why would you think that anybody would accept that idea?
Because you have no ethical or legal right to make all the decisions on how I live. Our constitution was built on the idea of protecting the minority from the ravages of the majority, after all, and most of us recognize just how bad a taskmaster the majority can be.
What the hell, Wilderness, why should I let you country folks decide how I should live?
You can't have two results for a national plebiscite. One to be agreed upon by country people and one by city folk?
We compromise by letting the majority rule, what is the alternative? Letting a smaller faction rule over a larger one when their numbers don't support it?
What is your solution to your problem which almost by design has to be anti-democratic in nature? You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too, none of us do.
You are probably not very involved with Republican politics other than what you read.
As someone who is a very active member, I can tell you, President Donald Trump remains quite popular with Republicans. He has quite a bit of power and influence in the Republican party.
The majority of Republicans believe the last election was stolen. This is a major rallying cry in many Republican circles. You can argue with it all day long, this is the reality of the situation.
The anger about the stolen election has now morphed into calm resolve. There is a level of determination I've not seen before and I've been with the party for decades.
I think you will be surprised at what happens in 2022.
There has even been the idea floated that when the Republicans take back the house in 2022, to make President Donald Trump the speaker of the house. Attorneys have poured over the laws and nothing says the speaker of the house has to be an elected member of congress.
IF that happens, and the Republicans control the senate, the fantasy it that they could impeach Biden and Harris, then President Donald Trump would be made president. Technically, this could occur.
It will never happen, but I've never seen thinking like this before.
This is true, Mike, I have not been an avid follower of GOP politics.
I don't doubt that Trump remains popular among die hard Republicans, but not with anyone else. There are plenty of good RINOs to dilute their influence. People voted differently in 2016, when Trump,was an unknown quantity. Die hard Republicans may not be enough. It wasn't enough in 2020.
The thinking that you have never seen before borders on despotism and tyranny. I can't understand what you see in this cowardly jerk of a man?
All this over the big lie that none of you have even come close to providing proof for, or it it just about "your way or the highway"?
"I don't doubt that Trump remains popular among die hard Republicans, but not with anyone else. There are plenty of good RINOs to dilute their influence."
I don't agree with this. The popularity of President Donald Trump was evident in the last election. He supported five candidates, and all five of them won. He held five rallies that were attended by tens of thousands of people.
"Despotism and tyranny?" I would submit, these words can be best applied to the Biden administration. Everything from vaccine mandates to abusing the right of making executive orders and more.
I look forward to DeSantis getting Trump's endorsement...from jail.
A fair and accurate statement.
I long ago said what Trump was... in fact no one said it better than Moore:
Trump was every down-trodden FORMER Middle Class American's FU to the DC elites, the Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden types.
The DC Establishment that told them NAFTA would make things even better, that allowed China to gut every worthwhile business out of America for itself, that told them the Affordable Care Act would make their insurance bills more affordable ... the DC politicians that for decades now have screwed the working class of America over, again, and again, and again and still do so today as small businesses close... some of them having operated for generations, unable to survive a government that forced them to shut down for a "pandemic" while Walmart and Amazon made more than ever before.
The DC establishment that bailed out the banks, and failed companies like GM, while allowing Middle Class Americans to lose their pensions, their homes, their jobs after the 2008 meltdown.
Trump was the people's FU to the corrupt system.
And for that... the establishment will make them pay dearly in the years ahead.
You need to remember, many in the Republican party fought Trump and hoped he would not win the primary. Just consider who initiated Russia Russia Russia, and dropped it when they could see he was doing well in his campaign. There are many Republicans that never cared for Trump and still don't.
I don't think we can predict if he would win in 2024, it depends on what's going on at the time. He does have a base and those of us that just want the Democrats out due to not appreciating their ideologies. Many of us liked the path Trump had us on prior to COVID.
For me, if I had my way I would like to see a young candidate that offers Trumpisium, but keep personal views to himself. A straight common sense no-nonsense president. I don't care for and never have the phony speeches many American's look for. I like results.
Just a person that will do the job they were hired for.
The country is divided, this is part of how we have evolved. The population has divided due to a difference in ideologies. Neither side is willing to give up their beliefs or views. It seems illogical to think either would.
Both parts are fractured.
Sharlee, will the Trump base be enough to overcome Democrats, Independents, and establishment Republicans who just as soon see him take a hike? It wasn't in 2020.
The common sense for conservatives is usually not so common and not worth 2 cents, in my opinion.
Results are not the sole property of conservatives candidates. Depends on how you look at things.
Taking on the personality engrams of Trump, selfishness, cowardless, vengeful and pompous nature cannot be concealed indefinitely, but will ooze for all to see like the contents of a broken bottle. You can't think like Trump and act like Trump yet try to hid that from public knowledge.
Many of you like the Trump path, but again, many of us did not.
Yes, I will agree that we are strongly divided, may heaven help the Republic.
"Sharlee, will the Trump base be enough to overcome Democrats, Independents, and establishment Republicans who just as soon see him take a hike? It wasn't in 2020."
This will depend on how all is going in the country. To be honest, in my view people vote mainly on the economy. I can't see Biden repairing the damage he has made in three years. He came in like a bull in a china shop, should have cooled his jets just for a bit before skrewing with the economy.
Yes, it is true many liked just Trump's agenda, will they be ready to have it back? I think if things continue as they are, oh yeah they will.
"I can't see Biden repairing the damage he has made in three years."
He has only been in office for one year, and yes, I can see Biden repairing the damage within his term by bringing things around and not relying on tiresome Republican philosophies and principles, as that was not what the majority voted for.
I guess I must disagree if I want to be honest. I predict we will go on seeing more and more problems created by Biden. Like this ridiculous hit on the oil reservice. This was nothing but a political bandaid, that economists jumped on immediately to explain that 50 million barrels are what America uses in a couple of days and that even at that, they claim OPEC will just cut back 50 million or more barrels, just to show him who has the upper hand. Like I have been saying he just makes very poor decisions. The world is also being hurt by many of his poor decision-making. not sure if many realize that.
Shar, it's important to realize his mistakes are being noticed by the majority of Americans.
There is a prediction of a red tsunami in 2022. I've seen some of the polling data and the democrats are in serious trouble. They behave as if they have no idea there is anything wrong. Republicans are crushing democrats when it comes to fundraising. It's been like this for the past six months.
What Biden is doing will have a painful ripple effect to all democrats running for any office. I scratch my head and wonder if any of the democrats realize what Biden is doing to their party.
I very much agree I have been doing some reading this morning in regard to Bidens latest decision to tap US reserves. This move seems to be a great Gamble, that could really backfire, and end up costing the US citizen plenty in energy costs. I just posted a thread on the subject and offered a bit of what I picked up in my reading.
It appears this man is single-handedly ruining America, almost looks to be purposeful. Hard to watch this go on. I as you believe 2022 will crush the Democrats, we certainly will have an uphill battle trying to fix all Biden has torn down.
It would seem bad decisions... if he were actually trying to solve the problem.
A problem that he created on day one, restricting federal reserve lands, shutting down pipelines, etc. this in turn gave the power to OPEC to do what it pleased.
You work under the assumption that he didn't want this to occur, or that releasing some reserves isn't just a PR gimmick to make it appear as if he is trying to do something.
I don't really understand you Sharlee, you see as well as anyone what is going on, but fail to realize that it is deliberate, not a mistake.
Biden shut down the American pipelines, while removing sanctions from Russian and allowing them to open up their pipelines to the EU.
Biden deliberately has an EV day at the White House, and just happens not to invite or even mention Tesla... these things are deliberate, not mistakes.
You make a good point. It certainly is more than possible he did know what he was doing and hoped to deliberately set out to cause an energy crisis.
I am not sure of his motive. If he planned to cause an energy crisis for some crazy reason, it would seem it has backfired. My point is, he makes these very kinds of decisions that do backfire. It much appears he causes his own problems. I think much of what he does start out as political ploys and they leave him with egg on his face.
So, do you feel he is purposely trying to ruin America or do you think he really believes in his own BS and hopes to just change the country to what he feels it should be? My view --- I think him a shallow man, with little intelligence, that is just listening to the wrong people.
American pipelines? Keystone is a Canadian pipeline that wasn't even functional, so it had zero effect on current supplies.
And there were more than enough drilling rights to last years without opening up bidding on new leases. Again, that had zero effect on supply.
https://americanprogress.org/article/oi … eral-land/
In the next election cycle I'm counting on citizens who can be reasonable and unbiased along with seeing the good the bad and the ugly of both parties. I think a lot of us have had enough already of identity politics.
The danger of mega-partisan identity is that it encourages citizens to care more about partisan victory than about real policy outcomes. We find ways to justify almost any governmental policy as long as it is the policy of our own team. What is best for America, Americans or even small children is secondary to whether our party’s team gets what it demanded.
So we are in a situation where Americans have sorted themselves into two parties along not just ideological lines, but also by geographical, religious, racial and other social and cultural differences. At the same time, we've adopted inaccurate, caricatured views of both parties that overstate these already sizable demographic differences. And we've started taking positions on issues based on whatever stance your chosen party adopts which leads us into choosing sources of "news" and information that just confirm our biases.
The fact that so many people talk about this subject with passion shows that the voting system is not ideal and should be a subject of concern.
When you have a good working voting system, you don't talk about it.
I think that one of the main reasons why the US is in such a political crisis is because it is a two-party system. You vote black or you vote white. yes or no, life or death. in fact, it is not a proper choice at all. And many people vote for a president, not because they like him/her, but simply because it's not the other. It's a negative vote.
I think getting rid of the electoral college opens up the possibility to start new parties. (but this of course is a fear for dem. and rep. alike.)
Agreed. Our political system has been hijacked by the antics of the far right and far left alike and media fuels it along. This is leaving centrists/moderates ( who in my opinion represent the majority) feeling disillusioned and unheard. Many people are feeling as if their concerns aren't represented in either wing. We are left to believe that all we have are far right or far left politicians and choices. Our voices are rarely heard above the din of partisan fire and brimstone.
Given multiple dimensions of political conflict — economic, cultural, international — it is simply impossible for two internally homogeneous parties to represent the variety of viewpoints present in a large heterogeneous democracy.
A ranked choice voting system could be an alternative. I believe the emergence of a third party is inevitable. Will it be viable though is the question.
I have no problem with the introduction of third parties in American politics. As much of Europe works with a Parlimentary system, are most satisfied?
The Electoral College can only be seriously modified or abolished based on a Constitutional Convention having the approval of, I believe, 3/4 of the states.
There is no way all the dinky little states are going give up disproportionate political power even when they recognize it as such. Why should they?And they would constitute more than 1/4 of the total.
The potential environmental impacts of Keystone XL could have been substantial.
Tar sands oil (which is the type of oil coming from Canada) is thicker, more acidic, and more corrosive than lighter conventional crude, and this ups the likelihood that a pipeline carrying it will leak. One study found that between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average for pipelines carrying conventional crude. Since it first went into operation in 2010, TC Energy’s original Keystone Pipeline System has leaked more than a dozen times; one incident in North Dakota sent a 60-foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air. Less than two years before the project was finally pulled, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 383,000 gallons in late October 2019. And the risk that Keystone XL would have spilled was heightened because of the extended time the pipe segments were left sitting outside in stockpiles. A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on the project’s pipes was damaged from being stored outside and exposed to the elements for the last decade.
Complicating matters, leaks are appently difficult to detect. And when tar sands oil does spill, it’s more difficult to clean up than conventional crude because it immediately sinks to the bottom of the waterway. People and wildlife coming into contact with tar sands oil are exposed to toxic chemicals, and rivers and wetland environments are at particular risk from a spill. (For evidence, note the 2010 tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo River, Michigan, a disaster that cost Enbridge more than a billion dollars in cleanup fees and took six years to settle in court. Tar sands oil apparently isn’t your average crude. Keystone XL would have crossed agriculturally important and environmentally sensitive areas, including hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers, and water bodies. One was Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions as well as 30 percent of America’s irrigation water. A spill would have been devastating to the farms, ranches, and communities that depend on these crucial ecosystems. I can't see how this was worth the risk.
"I can't see how this was worth the risk."
It is not, conservatives are all for development as long as the environmental degredation outcome is not in their backyards. "Indian Country" had been hit hard as the Government did not see fit to discuss anything with them, prior. As a result, the Department of Interior has been sued. The "forked tongue" thing never really goes away.
Thurston Howell cAn only be interested in lining his own pocket at the expense of everbody else. Biden was correct in calling it off.
This pipeline thing caught my interest again. So I browsed a bit.
I think some might find much to argue with in your comment, but based on what I looked at I think you described the gist of one perspective. But I also think there is more that should be mentioned.
On this particular pipeline, I am tending to think it isn't a great idea, but I am not married to that position. That's why I think more should be mentioned.
One example might be the statements about the dangers of this oil's corrosiveness. It appears those basic statements are true, it is more corrosive. However, different sources—at least a couple we might consider as semi-reliable—have made the claim that none of the spills, such as your listing, (it seems familiar like it came from one source), have been caused by the oil's corrosiveness. And if the counterclaim is true; that the leaks were caused by malfunctions, breaks, and faulty valves, etc., then how much credibility do the other claims lose by being tied to such misleading settings?
If one really wants a mystery to solve, try to find out how many jobs were lost, or would have been created. I have stumbled across numbers from 2000 to 42,000, and from temporary or part-time to well-paying and permanent.
I am not interested enough to go down that rabbit hole.
Corrosiveness, faulty valves, leaks or otherwise are enough for me to support the position that keystone XL and the number of jobs it may have brought is not worth the trade off in potential harm to the environment & humans in it's path.
That could be said for all oil production and drilling.
There was of course more than just that pipeline.
Aug 12, 2021 · In the same Executive Order on Day 1, Biden placed a “temporary” ban on drilling in ANWR which would have increased the use of the Alaskan pipeline. He also halted energy development on federal land and shut down the 80 million-acre oil lease sale putting the Louisiana oil and gas industry in danger. The result has been skyrocketing gas prices.
Nov 09, 2021 · The Biden administration is reviewing the possible ramifications of shutting down a key pipeline transporting crude oil and natural gas from Canada into the Midwest. The White House recently initiated a study of the economic impacts of closing the Line 5 pipeline
I agree with the GOAL of doing away with as much Oil production as possible, AFTER you recover from the Pandemic and AFTER you have developed the alternative sources of energy... be they Nuclear, Solar, and for Transportation EVs and upgrading the Grid and Infrastructure,
You do not destroy your cheap sources of power... cheap power is what drives an economy more than anything, expensive power or no power cripples an economy and causes inflation across the board.
Unless of course... your goal is to cripple the American economy, if that is the case then what you do is cut off all supplies of cheap energy, and you force your workforce to be vaccinated or be fired, and you increase taxes on small businesses and the working class... do these things at the same time and your country's economy is certain to spiral into a recession.
A lot has changed in the many years since the Keystone XL controversy began. This sums it nicely. Fair reporting in this article also.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/keystone … -1.5882313
"So the U.S. has just really weaned its way off of global imports in a really big way during that period," Tran said. "The domestic shale revolution has completely altered the U.S. landscape and its dependency on foreign oil.
"The U.S. need for Canadian oil is not to the same urgent degree as it has been in the past."
In reality, we've managed for almost 40 years now ( since it was proposed) WITHOUT Keystone XL.
"Force your workforce to be vaccinated or be fired" Really?? Not according to OSHA.
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is announcing the details of a requirement for employers with 100 or more employees to ensure each of their workers is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that these employers provide paid-time for employees to get vaccinated.
It won't help, the testing kits don't work. For a minimum wage person hardly can afford the test kits, they must pay for.
I don't see totally lockdown vaccines mandate for US. Although much more damaging, poverty and death are in store.
Again a bit cut and dry. most states -- between 30 and 40 --- already have laws on the books that will put the onus on the employer to pay for testing costs, in part because it would become a requirement of a person's job to get one should they choose not to be vaccinated.
As a side note, 2 weeks ago I was able to get a free covid test at a local grocery store!
Is it the weekly testing option that makes the OSHA rule not a mandatory vaccination requirement?
Does the Federal worker and contractor also have the testing option?
I think the testing option is a `technical escape hatch', in a reality that does make the two orders operate as mandates.
My understanding is that the mandate is an "either /or"
(get fully vaccinated or get tested weekly) situation encompassing individuals who work for companies with a hundred or more employees including federal workers.
Let's all remember that the vaccine mandate doesn't apply to 70% of us. Actually our vaccination rate just creeped over 70%. It's an issue for a minority of people who, in my view, are blowing it out of proportion.
I also see this as an "either/or" choice, but I don't see it as an innocent choice. I feel comfortable with getting vaccinated, but I do not feel comfortable being mandated to get vaccinated. At least not in this instance.
You mention that it only affects 30% of us, and I say `for now' but what about later? First, it was one shot, then it was two shots, and now it is two shots plus a booster, (or boosters), shot. I don't intend that as criticism because I think our medical scientists, and our government, are doing the best they can and are having to adjust, (almost weekly), when something new is learned.
I don't think we know enough to warrant mandates.
I think we have to have continued faith in our scientists. I also think that there should be more pride in the fact, in actual reality, that the majority of citizens have come together to do what needs to be done to gain better odds at beating this virus down. It may be cheesy but there's more that unites us than divides us.
My wife and I got the J&J shot (non-experimental vaccine) so that we could attend a wedding.
We also had the immediate results test taken hours before the wedding to be sure.
While there we found out that 3 cousins that had been vaccinated all tested positive for covid, when they tested the day after the wedding. In essence, they exposed hundreds of people to the virus that evening.
Vaccinations are not going to keep you from getting, or from spreading the virus. They help strengthen your system to prepare to fight the virus should you become infected, nothing more.
Mandates would only be effective if they forced people to get 'boosters' every few months, as a vaccine's effectiveness will wear off. Three times a year perhaps? More for when they develop a new vaccine to fight a new variant?
Vaccines continue to reduce a person’s risk of contracting the virus that cause COVID-19.
Vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. Additionally,
fully vaccinated people with breakthrough infections from this variant appear to be infectious for a shorter period.
Finally, experts agree that a higher vaccination rate slows mutations.
Also, Technically, mRNA vaccines are not new. They, along with other RNA therapeutics, have been in development for decades, and many mRNA vaccines were in phase 1, 2, and 3 trials before the COVID-19 vaccines were created. There simply has not been the level of urgency to produce them to combat a virus as we have seen in this pandemic. (New England journal of Medicine)
Many people have already gotten their booster. If you have initially gotten the vaccine I think it's sort of logically follows that you will get additional boosters if needed.
Right... as I said, experimental, without long term research and long term side effects known.
I have done research myself, some of the most concerned perspectives about these experimental vaccines come from the scientists and doctors that have spent their lives developing them.
Right... as I said, experimental, without long term research and potential long term side effects known.
I have done research myself, some of the most concerned perspectives about these experimental vaccines come from the scientists and doctors that have spent their lives developing them.
With that said... its most likely that the majority of people will have no negative effects from the vaccine. However, I also think that chance rises drastically for people under the age of 18, in a way that is uncharacteristic of other vaccinations.
It is the fact that most of the people suffering from severe adverse effects are male and below the age of 18 that I find disconcerting, especially considering there is almost a 0% fatality rate among people under the age of 18 (who do not suffer from other severe health issues) from contracting Covid.
Have we ever made a vaccine generally available that we had 20 years or more researching the long term affects? I can't think of a single one.
Good question. Here's an interesting article on the subject. It seems all of them have taken years to develop.
"To gain some perspective on the complexities of vaccine development, here's how long it took to develop vaccines for other infectious diseases throughout history."
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-lon … smallpox-1
I keep seeing this; that vaccines to not keep people from getting the virus. And yet the large majority of people that do get the virus are not vaccinated even though they are in the minority. While nothing short of death will guarantee one from not getting any disease when exposed, it is clear that vaccination, on a statistical/probability basis, goes a long way to preventing the disease in vaccinated people. Perfect? Of course not - nothing in biology is - but it certainly helps decrease the probability of getting sick when exposed.
I am sure you keep seeing it because it is true.
It is what all vaccines do, that, and nothing more.
And if you seek out reliable sources of news, the truth is, being vaccinated hasn't prevented people from contracting the virus.
45% Covid cases in Madhya Pradesh in Sep-Oct were fully vaccinated
CDC study shows 74% of people infected in Massachusetts Covid outbreak were fully vaccinated
I am not in favor of mandates for getting the vaccine, yet I am all for getting the vaccine.
Here is a link to the White House Fact Sheet (Nov 4, 2021). It does say a test can be used. Medical workers where Medicare or Medicaid is used have to get vaccinated the way I read it. Below that is a link for Federal employees (Sept 9, 2021) that as I read are required to get the jab.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … -policies/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … employees/
I'd go out on a limb and guess that healthcare professionals are probably vaccinated at a higher rate than the general public. Which makes sense seeing they sought such professions. So any mandate will affect a very small minority of those in that line of work.
Mandates are more along the lines of get vaccinated or get fired.
Just ask the more than 1,400 nurses that were fired for not complying with NY's vaccination mandate.
Staff who were dismissed for failing to comply with the mandate had since been vaccinated and returned to their jobs. The spokesperson said that terminated workers were given 30 days to interview for reinstatement.
And not all 1,400 were nurses in your claim, some were management.
There are different requirements for healthcare professionals that work in settings that accept federal dollars (medicare/medicaid). Yes, it reads as a vaccine mandate for these workers. No option to test out weekly as are the choices given for working within a company with more than 100 employees. These are 2 separate branches of the mandate. But again, in the overall picture, these healthcare employees who refuse or will refuse vaccinations are very much in the minority. I'm sure that I could find or someone could find some good statistics on the number of healthcare providers are currently fully vaccinated. I have a strong feeling it's even higher than our general population right now. What are you proposing? I for one don't want to see the minority having a majority influence in this area either. The majority has spoken and we're fully vaccinated. If people feel oppressed by the government then possibly do like so many others have done across the globe and head for places where your views are the majority. If not, staying and participate in democracy which is based on compromise.
I don't imagine 90% of the world fully vaccinated. Exspeically with most of the world not fully vaccinated now. Plus the greatest pushback protests worldwide the conrupted media has not ever seen is happening. To many news networks say, brought to you by Pfizer.
Austria is the only totally vaccines mandated country in the world right now. One third population unvaxxer are in total lockdown except 5 essentials as accepted. Prior to having covid infected persons they are allowed to have their freedom passports to do anything they want like a normal person. Once gotten covid one is 13 times more protected than a person's vaccinated. Then why not get covid because one has 99.98 chance of survival. Lift covid restrictions like many other countries have,with already better results than most.
Or is this too logical. Not political and billionaires power and controled enough,?
The American Medical Association (AMA) released a new survey among practicing physicians that shows more than 96 percent of surveyed U.S. physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no significant difference in vaccination rates across regions. Of the physicians who are not yet vaccinated, an additional 45 percent do plan to get vaccinated.
The American Medical Association (AMA) today released a new survey (PDF) among practicing physicians that shows more than 96 percent of surveyed U.S. physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no significant difference in vaccination rates across regions. Of the physicians who are not yet vaccinated, an additional 45 percent do plan to get vaccinated.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/p … t-covid-19
This is higher than I thought.
by John Wilson 5 years ago
Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes. Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide. The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing it's will on the rest of the nation - which is why it was put into place when the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Who will WIN the American Presidency- Clinton OR Trump?
by Credence2 3 years ago
I been hearing "things" about Pence regarding his continued usefulness for Trump and the GOP. Trump,having little loyalty, was considering Nikki Haley of South Carolina for VEEP in 2020. If Trump is nothing else, he is expedient, this might help the GOP with so many disaffected female...
by ptosis 10 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … e/GZQtFSPVCheck out...
by Readmikenow 16 months ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Now that the Electoral College has confirmed Trump, can the nation start to heal and work together?The Electoral College has confirmed Donald Trump as the next President. Faithless Elector counts were 2 from Trump's totals and surprisingly 4 from Clinton's totals. Even arch-rival John...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|