A Better Democrat President Would Have Been ....
_______________________________?
What if there had been no Joe to elect in the last election?
Who would have been a better choice?
... and would Trump have lost?
What does this country really really want as far as a President in this time in History?
Would any of the other Democrat nominees be dealing with our current affairs better than 'ol Joe?
(Specifically, what would Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren being saying and doing about now?)
... wonderingAndrew Jackson would be better than any of the current lot. And that's saying something.
Andrew Jackson? Is the guy once the Ambassador of the USA to the UN under President Jimmy Carter?
When I last read him, he was being interviewed because he stopped staying awake during a meeting!
Andy sleeping? And he was being asked why. He said he's not 'growing younger again'.
Seriously, when Jimmy Carter, became President, I was a fourth-year secondary grammar school student. I cut photos of all ambassadorial nominees and pasted them on my locker closet, including Carter in the center.
Andrew Young is getting old...older than Donald Trump and Joseph Biden? He doesn't fit the picture.
It is clear to me that Obama and Carter were far better presidents than biden. And for the record, Obama and Carter as presidents were totally worthless.
Regardless of what conservatives think of Biden, I think he was the only one who could beat Trump. He'd been in Washington long enough to know how to play the political game. Remember that Obama had the political machine behind him, as new as he was. I think Bernie turned the stomachs of true Democrats, and Elizabeth Warren made some noises that sounded socialist. I don't believe Biden would have picked her as a running mate even if he hadn't promised to select a black woman. He saw what extremist Sarah Palin did to A few Republicans voted against Trump or didn't vote, and I doubt that they would have if either of the socialists were running on the Democrat ticket. I don't believe the other so-called candidates had the name recognition or the support to have won the election. They definitely didn't have the machine behind them.
By the way, I saw a story that Sarah Palin said she would like to be Trump's running mate if he runs in 2024. If he runs, I hope he selects her. There's no doubt which party's candidates would win if he does.Always had a lot of respect for you Ms. B.
I confess that politically, I am well to the left of Center compared with others. While many say that Biden was a cure for the Trump flu, I wanted more than just a return to the status quo ante. To do this I willing to accommodate more of what some might call socialistic ideas than many here would be comfortable with. Starting out weak and lukewarm is not enough to wash away the stain and malevolent influence of rightwing politics, personalities and ideologies.
I go back to the old Warner Brothers cartoon of the sheepdog and coyote, while on the clock the sheepdog protecting the sheep decimates the coyote. But at lunchtime, they both get together and chat over coffee. Just as if all of this were a game.
President Biden may have a strategy, if he does, he had better roll it soon. For the adversary that he underestimates will stop at nothing short of unraveling all that has been familiar and comforting as part of a democratic society.Not sure why he doesn't roll out the strategy that in order to move progressive legislation, it will take 60 seats in the Senate. 50-50 won't get it done for either party.
I hear you, Valeant. Why continue to support the filibuster? Was President Biden really on board to allow Republicans to neutralize everything he attempts to do?The Republicans would certainly dispense with anything that got in their way in a New York minute. We don't a need Don Quixote and we can't afford to have him fail because of Republican obstinance. What waits for us all on the other side will be nothing short of a horror show.
The Democrats too often let the Right lead the narrative while we are on the defensive, we don't the luxury of being gentleman in the company of a ruffian. Can Biden and the Democrats at least communicate more broadly what is at stake?
Just sitting is not working, figure it out, do something!!True. Big reason Hillary lost in '16 was Trump controlled the issue messaging. Trump lost the messaging control in 2020 as Covid dominated the news, as much as he tried to shift the narrative to someone not even on the ballot (Hunter Biden).
Biden never got out in front of the inflation messaging to simply state that our government's ignorance of the warnings in Wuhan back in '18 have led to supply chains being disrupted, and then Trump's negotiated deal to cut oil supplies have made the issue worse.
The jobs and unemployment, as well as wage growth would be strengths but are getting drowned out by the negatives.Government come and go. The problem is that they're not seriously taking responsibility. He who said 'The buck rest on my desk' knows best. An incoming government should copying that. The goal is to serve the people, not party, or favourite.
The Republicans are diabolical with distraction and promoting false narratives as if they were fact.
Our adversaries promote the negatives to snarl the administration and its overriding objectives.
Let's shuck the grandfatherly image and go to war, because whether we like it or not, that is where we are right now.
Will you feel the same about the filibuster if you lose the majority in 2022?
GAThat's fair. What about extending that to 2024 with a Republican president?
My point was simple. Appearances, now, are that Dems will lose their majority in 2022, and likely the presidency in 2024. But, the point was relative to a time when the Dems would need it, but not have it because they took it away from the Republicans in a power-grab.
Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
GAConsidering that there is no norm that the GOP won't violate as proven by McConnell denying Obama the ability to get hearings in his final year and then doing just the opposite for Trump, as well as the many that Trump trampled on, including the peaceful transfer of power, the Democrats might as well eliminate the filibuster and pass the many things that Americans agree need to be legislation.
Nah. I'm not jumping in that puddle. I simply think ditching the filibuster is a mistake. Regardless of which party pushes it.
But, the filibuster I support is the real one. The one where you have to really hold the floor, not the procedural one where you just have to say you will and that's good enough.
GAThe filibuster scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, is Jimmy Stewart at his finest. Love that movie!
Yep, that's the idea. And, as a side benefit, it is a tool for the minority that shouldn't be tossed away because it can be misused. Any tool can. When used properly it can be a protection for the minority.
GA
If the filibuster is to be kept, I agree with you that it should be a speaking one.
But the filibuster is a simple rule change of the Senate and has been changed a few times already to help the ruling party:
On November 21, 2013, the Democratic controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.
On April 6, 2017, the Republican controlled Senate voted 52 to 48 to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.
Both parties seem willing to void it when the issue is important enough for them, so why have it at all then. And with the current obstructionist nature of the GOP, who are delaying the most basic of nominations from the Biden Administration, the filibuster is being abused instead of a last ditch option.Yep, both parties play the same game. That doesn't mean either one is right.
As I recall, both parties have also been bitten in the butt by their changes.
GAOr looking at it a different way, both parties were able to pass legislation and nominees they valued.
No way Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, or Brown Jackson get through without the changes. The 2017 Tax Cut and the American Rescue Plan both went through on partisan votes.
It is reaching the point, GA, that the filibuster, once a tool of moderation among gentlemen has now become a tool of obstruction. And considering that the other side has and would dispense with it when it needed to, I think that is a concept that is no longer useful. Rather than be constantly thwarted, I would dispense with it taking the chance that the other side could use the same rationale. They do it all the time, anyway. We have reached that point now, in my opinion.
You haven't convinced me, but it would be hard to argue with your reasoning if I wasn't being stubborn about it.
GA
I hate it! The divide. That's leading to no where.
D'you think a puppet will roll out his plans without his masters approval? You not sure? Biden has no mind of his own.
Another question: Will the current Vice President be able to step in for the President, in case the need should arise?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.aspMy Kathryn, I hear you very loud and clear. And I'm wondering too...why don't you mention Condoleezza Rice, besides Elizabeth Warren? I'm an outsider, but it's best and excellent that the procdures in the Federalist papers is follow to the later. Seriously, that would make the Vice President to ascend to the Oval Office. But she's weak and in the same 'puppet' government with 'ol Joe Biden!
Condoleezza Rice was a Republican. Kathryn asked about Democrat candidates. Again, you need to do more research. By the way, Alexander Hamilton, the lead writer of the Federalist Papers used them to soft pedal his true leanings. He actually wanted a king like England had, a sovereign, not a president. History shows that it was Hamilton's enemies who got it written into the Constitution that a U.S. president shall be born in this country, meaning at that time on the continent. Hamilton was born in Charlestown, Nevis, Leeward Islands, owned by the British, so he could never be president.
At one time the runner up in the presidential election became the vice president, but that caused too much contention when they were from separate parties. In 1794 it was proposed to elect the vice president by separate ballot, but it didn't happen until the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithson … 180957199/
"The amendment was proposed after the 1796 election resulted in a president (John Adams) and vice president (Thomas Jefferson) from opposing parties, and the 1800 election led to a tie between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. They were members of the same party (Democratic-Republican), but it took the House of Representatives 36 contentious ballots to break the tie, electing Jefferson president and Burr vice president. In 1804, Jefferson was re-elected and George Clinton became the first vice president under the 12th Amendment."Miz, very well put. And, thank you. Trump, is still a Republican, right? Is he going to run as a Democrate in 2024? What if he switch sides? Does not American politician take such moves? Yes, I agree that Kathryn is talking on Democratic presidential candidates. She mentioned VP Harris Kamala, Elizabeth Warren as fit(?) individual women. Did you know that when Pelosi was governor, I envisaged her as Speaker? But I couldn't see her as president. IMHO, it's time for the men to pack they bags and go. And, whether your a Democrate or other, let the women stream in. Surely, America needs a woman president. Don't you agree?
Why do you think so? What female conservative candidate would you like to see?
I actually do not think we are ready for a woman president in either party. We women have come far, but not far enough.
Men are so great. I would like to see a great man, one who is truly great, become president. A great man is always greater than a great lady. Just like the fastest swimmer, as we have learned, will always be a man. I think woman are better off supporting and helping their men. Show me a great man and quite often you'll find a great lady behind him.
Call me old fashioned or call me what is natural and harmonious.
PS No woman candidate could have beat Trump.Old school, old school. Ah ha ha! I though you're infering Kamala could succeed ol' Joe? And, any Dems even if a female is good material? America has great women indeed. Mrs. Cliton is anbitious in becoming president. That's telling me the coast is ripe. Pelosi likewise but she has put the nation against her way. Seriously, look out of the USA and over into Europe and Asia. Great women become presidents, head of states, and premiers. America should not lag behind. Critically, you Americans are best at handly your election affairs. Like as one of my country man has said: 'America, their America'. The choice of a candidate is yours. Condolezza Rice is just a suggestion. And now this: 'PS No woman candidate could have beat Trump.' Agreed. Conser, Dems, Rep and all... But let them try. It's worth the effort.
"We women have come far, but not far enough.
Men are so great. I would like to see a great man" a great man is always greater than a great lady
One of the reason women have had to struggle so hard to gain equality are statements like these.
There's no basis in reality for these statements. Purely misogynisticI see where Kathryn is coming from Faye. We tend to pick the wrong fights and it comes back and haunts us or bites us in the butt.
Could this just be her view? Some women do hold that sentiment.
Absolutely. She has every right to hold this view. And my view is that it is a misogynistic.
Yes, that was my point... We all have a right to share our views.
Did she in her comment condemn or insult anyone else's view? She shared hers. Many women don't agree with women's lib at all... Some women feel differently about their purpose on this earth.
I feel your comment, Literally, chastised her for her view, making an example of her. She clearly expressed her thought, which is clearly stated
"We women have come far, but not far enough. Men are so great. I would like to see a great man" Men are so great. I would like to see a great man, a great man is always greater than a great lady"
She clearly feels women have not come far enough -- and she offers her reasoning. --- "I would like to see a great man, one who is truly great, become president. A great man is always greater than a great lady. Just like the fastest swimmer, as we have learned, will always be a man. I think women are better off supporting and helping their men. Show me a great man and quite often you'll find a great lady behind him."
"One of the reasons women have had to struggle so hard to gain equality are statements like these. (This clearly chastises.)
"There's no basis in reality for these statements. Purely misogynistic"
.
The conversation was about choosing a president, she was sharing her view. She would prefer a man. I agree women have a hell of a way to go. And thus far, I am very disappointed with not the progress, but their willingness to accept many of us don't choose to be molded into one having one attitude, one view, or falling in step or being canceled. Sort of sounds like a clone... Is this what we strived for?Got it, so your point is if someone shares an opinion and I disagree with the opinion I should keep my mouth shut. Gotcha. I suppose as long as everyone else does the same.
No, you need not keep your mouth shut. But Chastise... Not cool for a view, not cool. You can see most do not hold back here. She was sharing what appears to be a belief, a value she believes in. It really was not just a casual view.
Seems like a good time to say, I am not happy with "how far women have come either". They seem pretty dam dumb not to control getting knocked up... Do you know how many abortions were performed last year, or this year for that matter? How dos that dobe for women? I can say, women have proven themselves to be pretty dam dumb in regard to birth control.
So, have some come far enough... No not in my view. They can vote, they can work in a man's world, and they can even run around with a pussy hat on their heads... But they can't judge when to keep their legs closed if they have not covered themselves with a form of birth control.I don't consider it chastising someone personally by calling an opinion misogynistic in it's point of view. It's just an observation. I've never attacked anyone personally or inferred anything about their thoughts or motivations or even intelligence. MANY here do just that.
I believe you have called my reviews or opinions "rosy". It's an adjective to describe a view, I don't think I inferred anything beyond that. Misogynistic is just another adjective to describe a view.You are comparing the use of rosy to the connotation using misogynistic? A word that just indicates I found an opinion to be somewhat easy or meant to be pleasant, over a word that carries the context of being prejudiced against women? How wonderful...
Yes, both words describe a view. And all this from someone that prefers we don't use labels, such as liberal, left-leaning. Whatever. I must say someone's liberalism is showing.This particular topic/thread had me responding with a novel, so I took it and turned it into an article.
We do have a long way to go, the finish line is getting further away, not closer. We will never get there, with a true leader, on this current screwed up course we find ourselves on. IMHO
Have a great weekend everyone!I am very much over touchy on the subject of today's women. I feel we have truely lost grown. You have a great weekend too...
You feel we have lost ground. Yes. And there is ground we have not yet gained. It would be interesting to elucidate further ... But also tiring. I really thought I had so much equality and power at one time, like back in the seventies as an eighteen yr. old in California.
But I'll tell you something I did not know until recently.
Men work very hard to be stronger than women and they do this by detaching themselves from their mothers, their sisters, aunts and probably even their female cousins. They must be males first and foremost. To accomplish this feat they shut out all things woman after about the age of 15 yrs when their wills kick in. After this age, they take on and build their identities as men.
It's pretty hopeless for women when our males must become men by focusing completely on themselves to become powerful, wise, strong, fearless, righteous, disciplined, intelligent and respectable.
For anyone to agree to a woman president is to give up the ideal of a truly strong leader. Why would men give up on the strength of leadership, the noble calling of improving, defending and protecting a country?
Since when do women fight for these things?
Yes, they do so with love and compassion, but not always and necessarily with logic and intelligence. Women are ruled by feelings and emotions more than men, but a man is ruled by logic and reason. He is ever ready for efficient and swift action. For a woman to become president she would have to be like a man. This can be done, but I have not seen it yet.
Ask Queen Elizabeth, daughter of King Henry the VIII, what it takes to rule a country. She committed to being a virgin Queen to gain the respect and reverence of the people. She worked closely with her trusted male advisors as to the best courses of action. She cared deeply for her people and country and took her position seriously, not for her own glory or for some party, racial, or gender allegiance.
The Way I See ItOkay, should the female gender began copying the men folks? Should they totally disregard they moms', sisters...?
To what end?
To destroy the beauty of their feminine natures?
To bypass their own deep strengths? strengths characterized by caring, duty, sacrifice, nurturing, empathy, compassion, and sensitivity to the feelings and humanity of others?In a way, many women do copy men and give up all the joys of being a woman. This is just my view.
... strangely, the face makeup/paint on women in the media, such as news broadcasters and talk show hosts, is way over the top! Why, when women go for power positions in all walks of life, (and indeed have achieved a lot of power,) do they choose to look like dolls???? Do they think it makes them look more powerful?
https://www.google.com/search?q=current … mp;bih=705
vs
https://www.pinterest.com/popcultureidi … gels-pics/
Good evaluation. I have often thought while we were demanding equality did we give up much of what makes us women?
I think these cookies needs to be clear off in the browser, before they slows down the discussions.
Oh Yeah... I think they all try too hard. Over it.
Okay, you're old-fashioned. So am I, but I think we are ready for a woman president.
GAOne could call Kathryn old-fashion. I view her as unique, her own woman, and an honest one at that. So, nice to see an individual that does not walk the line. So, refreshing.
Oh, lordy lordy, Sharlee.
That was the oldest comedic straight-line in the book.
George tells the doorman to call him a taxi . . the doorman shrugs and says Okay, you're a taxi.
Kathryn said, "You can call me old-fashioned . . " So of course I had to oblige and say, Okay, you're old-fashioned. It was the gentlemanly thing to do.
I guess I won't be getting on any comedy stages. sigh
GAMy comment was not meant to be snarky --- in any respect. It was sharing, agreeing, adding to what had already been shared.
Yes, you obliged, and I added my sentiment.
Is there a full freakin moon or something!Nope, that ol' devil has been on my shoulder all week. ;-)
GA'full freakin moon'? Not in my life time. But they're yellow, blue, and red freaks...these are mirages, or an aberation...and, I'm used to asking my wife 'is that a moon?'. I don't know was the response.
Thank you, GA, for weigh in. Yes, America, is indeed fit for a woman president. The women should now be on their marks...set, and go. Before the November electrons in which 'real' Donald Trump, lost to ol' Joe, I post a thread to the effect that its now time for a woman president. I still hold that opinion. Condonlezza Rice, Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Cliton, they're there. Fit and ready...period
Saddly that would be the case. Then America would be far far worse off than it is now. Harris would try to distroy this county much faster than biden. But notice I said "Try".
Biden is lucky he has Kamala Harris as his vice president.
With her by his side, it means that there is no way Biden will be impeached once the Republicans, as expected, take over control of the House and Senate, in 2022.
Were the incoming Republicans to impeach and convict Biden for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” or for incompetence over Kabul, or for scrubbing naked Russian hookers from Hunter Biden’s laptop, Harris would become president.
In DC, she lacks allies, having only served for part of a term. She was not part of the Congressional Black Caucus, and ideologically she was too California corrupt for the moderates.
Harris is tribally unacceptable to the Progressive Left, she is a “cop”, a prosecutor, making her a “racist tool of the power structure”, that places her in the “establishment” wing of the party. Furthermore, there is the issue of her close links to California elites. Harris’ money comes from very rich people, bringing us to her husband.
Harris’ husband is an object of suspicion to the radical left. The Left is no longer “liberal” and there is not a place for “liberal” Jews who believe in the concept of a Jewish state at all, which her husband does. The Left does not want Israel to be good. The Left views the existence of Israel as bad and wants it gone because it views its formation as a colonialist crime and its treatment of Palestinians equal to war crimes.
On top of all his, she is incompetent, incapable of being in public without appearing even more of a fool than Biden, and ignorant of global issues to the point where she doesn't even know where most countries are on a global map.You are one with interesting theories.
Harris would not have been my first choice, but I would have selected her over Biden or any Republican. She was too much in the moderate Biden type camp for me.
Wrong about the concept of being "anti-Jewish state", it is just that we are just tired of the good guys wearing white hats stuff. The rights of the Palestinians needed to be considered in this conflict, we got none of that from Netanyahu. Rightwingers are more often anti-Semitic, progressives have issues regarding fairness and not seeing the Israeli government as never having to make concessions toward a peaceful outcome in the conflict.
I am left and I do not consider the existsnce of Israel a bad thing. Are you attempting to speak for me or put words in my mouth as someone who is well removed from our values?
I am disappointed with Harris as I expected her to take a more muscular role on shaking the Republican vise against our agenda in Washington. Someone like Sen. Warren as an outspoken progressive that could not be simply used as a figurehead, moved to a corner and told to shut up, would have had something to say and get the ball moving. Biden and all the money changers in Wall Street knew that and that is why Harris was brought in as a running mate that would play ball.
But, inspite of all that, she was preferable to anyone in the Trump Republican crowd.
I guess that that is my opinion....Interesting theories, ones with merit you have to admit.
Yes your views on Israel are old school, I think you will find the younger generations of Democrats hold the opinion I outlined.
That is the way of things Cred, the Democrats do not represent many of the issues they did back in the 80s, Republicans have evolved to represent other things as well.
The Democrats in-total, by-and-large, in-summary, hold that position about Israel... and will continue to trend that way as younger voters fill the ranks.That remains to be seen, but I will remember that I heard it from you first.
Well I am happy to have made you aware of it.
May I offer you some reading options to learn a bit more in its regards?
https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.c … -congress/
https://jewishinsider.com/2022/04/princ … eferendum/
https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/a … puses-2019Yes, thanks....
The Pittsburg paper was rife with bias.
The attacks are coming from the perception of the unfair circumstances that continue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Israel is hardly an innocent party in regard to the conflict. The students expressed anger at the Israeli government and its role in the terror. What happened to the two state solution? I wrote a graduate thesis in 1976, back in the days of the "Black Septemberists" and all of that, on the subject complaining about America's support for Israel, regardless of how it behaved on the international stage. I saw the disparity then as I see it now.
I do not excuse the behavior of students who should not attack Jews for being Jews, but again, focus on the the policies of the Israeli government. Are they fair toward the aspirations of their adversaries?
I may be dated, but being opposed to the policies of the Israeli government is not in itself "anti Semitic".
Sorry, Faye, my latest diatribe below was intended for Ken.
Please explain why you think so. Some examples, please.
Liz Warren, speaks for me, better than anyone else.
Andrew Jackson is just a ridiculous 19th century barbarian in the 21st century. Somebody needs to go back to the future.
Miebakaugh, you need to do your homework, Andrew Jackson is not a contemporary figure in American politics.
In my opinion, Republicans and their philosophy of governance sucks, but again that is just me.....Cred, I'm really sorry. I'm mistakely reading Andrew Young into the picture. What a grave mistake.
Hell no, not Warren. Since 2014 she has lost credibility with me.
How about Gabbard or Klobuchar? If it's going to be a Democrat let's go all the way; a woman, a non-fossil, and a non-millionaire, (at least in the sense of what millionaire used to mean). It could be a trifecta win.
GAI could entertain Klobuchar, but Gabbard is just a Republican beast wearing Democrat vestiments.
Hmm . . . that must be why I think I like her.
GAYes, Gabbard is a racist, sexist, Republican pig!
She is in bed with my adversaries and opponents, Ken, she cannot possibly be someone I would consider voting for. I admit that my use of "beast" was a bit over the top.
She is clearly not in bed with your adversaries and opponents.
She was drummed out of politics by those who are truly your adversaries and opponents.
She would be just as outraged or appalled by supremacists as you would be.
She knows what evil lurks inside of the "beast", the political machinations and corruption that rules in DC, and she fought against it, which is why she will never succeed on a national level in politics.She knows what evil lurks inside of the "beast", the political machinations and corruption that rules in DC, and she fought against it, which is why she will never succeed on a national level in politics.
By embracing the Republicans, she becomes part of it, just as Manchin has.
There is more to all this than just supremacists and race issues. If you don't have the progressive philosophy overall as demonstrated by actions rather than words, then your gender or ethnicity is irrelevant and you become nothing more than a convienient tool in the Rightwinger's toolbox
I tried to make that point that Gabbard is no longer seen as a Democrat to many Democrats.
I like Klobuchar. Not so much Gabbard. But so far all the people named in this forum at least have some experience in governing. Something we can't say about our previous president. So Republicans think Obama and Carter were worthless. It's better to be harmless than wreck the country.
Amy Klobuchar. But I'm quite certain she'd be facing the same polarization and partisanship we see today. Both parties to differing degrees are responsible for promoting the idea of party over country. Right now we see the Republican Party becoming a party of extremists lead by Greene, Gaetz, Gosar and others. They continue to stoke the flames of division. One of the leading contenders for the 2024 presidential race, Governor Ron DeSantis Is the lead cultural warrior against non existent issues. I don't know who will be able to turn this trend around. It's going to require citizens to evaluate politicians in a more thoughtful, indepth manner rather than just adhering to their party.
James, you made me laugh out loud, I don't think that was your intention.
That's how pathetic the Democratic field is; there is no depth, no go to person.Start with the last question. Yes, Trump would have lost. Not many liked Biden, but he was the opposite of Trump in that he was not a sociopath with narcissist issues. But people showed up to the polls because Trump made it clear that he did not belong in the Oval Office when he was impeached twice and his deadly response to the pandemic, which experts estimate led to 200,000 excess American deaths.
As for who would have been better, I'd have to go with Klobuchar also. But I doubt she'd have done much better than Biden considering the obstructionist nature of today's GOP. Even normal nominees are being blocked by today's extremist Republican caucus. Perhaps someone a little more media savvy would have been the best choice, so someone like Wang or Buttigieg who was the best orator of the bunch.Why must Donald Trump be drug into every discussion, no matter the topic!
Now...according to you V, Trump is to be known as "a sociopath"? There is absolutely not one shred of evidence for such a labeling.
As for the pandemic, China IS responsible!!!
Considering ALL that none of us knew early on, Trump did an exceptional job! He stopped travel to and from that region {REMEMBER? He was called out and called names for it.}
He listened to wishy washy Fauci and the other scientists, insisting that we "listen to the science."
I personally thought that he {Trump} handed over too much power to Fauci and company and that the daily updates, with the death counts, were over the top, unnecessary, and redundant. But, he {Trump} allowed them to continue indefinitely!
If you must blame someone, besides China, for the deaths, look no further than the former Governor of NY, Cuomo (D}. He brought Covid patients into nursing homes with senior citizens who were protected up until Cuomo's braindead decision!
If you all must persist on dragging Trump in, at least, get your facts straight.I agree with your concluding last sentense. And, I remember I once said in another forum that Trump should be left alone, as he has left the Oval Office. By the way, what's the gain in beating him all over his head? Critically, people are praising biden for every mess he did. Should the table be turn on Trump? Actually, every mess like the covid buck should now rest with Biden. Why is that not being done...I mean the 200,000 CV deads? Think Trump well.
How about actually reading the original post before asking stupid questions about why I brought Trump in? It was asked about in that post.
And in my opinion, the word sociopath more than fits as an accurate description of Trump. Zero conscience. Sorry if you're offended by a definition that fits the man's personality. I'll go find a safe space for you to go sit and calm down.
And when Trump's administration ignores warnings in 2018 about the dangers that the Wuhan Lab presented, I definitely hold him somewhat responsible for the virus. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't get that reporting since your media vacuum refuses to criticize in any way. I have my facts right - it's you that seems to either omit or be ignorant to vital reporting on Trump's negligence when it comes to the virus.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … rpt-474322I'm sorry, but your opinion on Trump being a sociopath is worth exactly what your training in psychology your psychological tests of Trump are. Zero, in other words.
You're right. That's why I read about actual trained psychologists and why they conclude what I claimed in my post. It's called research. You should try it. Here are two, of many links by trained professionals, concluding the same thing I noted:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-s … or-1468441
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … loyalists/Newsweek, Scientific America, and Wikipedia are NOT reliable sources of information. I have yet to read one article that you or Credence (who has claimed to offer "reliable sources" of information but has never done so) as proof of any argument you or he has attempted, rather badly, to justify.
The same goes for Miz Bejabbers, who, by the way, believes in The Urantia Book (new age) which integrates the topics of eugenics and the destruction of what it deems an "inferior race" as gospel truth. Yeah, consider the source.
You have made up your mind to be patronized by the Left, but for those who do care about the truth, critical thinking matters.Why not? Because you say so?
Sorry, but I'll take an award winning Scientific Magazine where notable scientists go to publish their findings over the word of a partisan hack any day.
And the one time you tried to discredit my Wiki reference, you could not prove that the information I used was indeed false. I, however, had double checked it with a noted site for times and it was correct. So, in that case, the Wiki link was a reliable source and you were just there to deflect from the fact that you posted incorrect information that you were too lazy to double check. A failure to use some critical thinking to know that your sources are the ones feeding you disinformation and a blind spot for the actual truth.
If you're going to try and undermine other people's sources, at least have correct information once in a while yourself. Clearly, you haven't gotten over being proven to have posted false information and feel the need to try and make more false claims about the reliability of other people's sourcing.
Pathetic.You may take the word of Scientific American as gospel, but when the very first sentence of your link is read it is clearly going to be a very politically biased article. Truth is set aside ("The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump") in favor of political posturing, repeating popular mantras from the left but mantras that have not only not been proven but not even tried yet.
But that is the way of these discussions; "Your source is bad, so here is my own biased source that is just as worthless as yours". Without, seemingly, recognizing that your own source is just as biased, just as false, as the one you declare to be worthless.
Nearly everything we see or hear today comes from a biased source, doubly so when it has anything to do with Trump. As an example I watched three different news sources on the judicial cancellation of airline masks - every one of them found it necessary to inject "a Trump nominee" into the story when mentioning the judge. A clear and blatant attempt to discredit the source (a judge with years of experience) because there was a connection to Trump. It's called "Bias".
Sad, but that is what we have descended to; a source is only "good", and truthful, if it says what I want it to say. If it does not then it is worthless and should be ignored.Ah yes, the Wilderness exaggeration to move credibility all the way to Gospel despite no claim of such. I believe this source to be credible based of numerous contributing factors.
I also believe in the content I read based on the number of contributors and their expertise, as well as the logical conclusions they were able to arrive at.
That you believe a judicial trial is the only means to arrive at truth is the fallacy of your thinking. Many truths exist without a jury ruling on them. Do you look at the color blue and need a jury trial to determine whether it was actually blue? Golly, I hope not.
And a wiki page with historical swim times is not filled with bias. It's filled with data that can be verified, and was, in other places. So your claim that all sourcing will have bias is false.
As to the Trump nominee, a judge with years of experience that was deemed not qualified by the American Bar Association. That Trump put nine judges in that were deemed not qualified, that will stick with them when making such controversial decisions.As to Obama's nominee's
"WASHINGTON — The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Barack Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of an ethnic minority group, according to interviews.
The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified, so the negative ratings have not been made public. But the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three-and-a-half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/11/22/ … udgeships/
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/p … ships.htmlThank you for noting the difference. When the ABA rated them not qualified, they were rejected and not sent to Congress under Obama. Under Trump, they were still confirmed.
'Although no official nominee under President Barack Obama had a “not qualified” rating, the New York Times reported in 2011 that the ABA gave a “not qualified” rating to 14 of about 185 potential candidates the Obama administration asked the ABA to evaluate.'
Look, a link! It must be true then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol … minations/
The article does note that there were differences in presidents using the ABA before or after their choice to nominate. Obama wanted qualified judges, Trump and the GOP members in the Senate didn't care.I certainly did not say his ill equipt pick slipped through congress. . Just posted two sources that showed he gave it to the old college try.
This fact really stuck out --
"The number of Obama prospects deemed “not qualified” already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than three-and-a-half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show."Prospects. Never nominated. Obama asked the ABA to rate his prospects and then decided who to nominate, choosing to never nominate a not qualified candidate.
Trump Nominated. Got some rated unqualified. Then allowed them to be confirmed anyway.
You're trying to equate prospects to actual nominations to make your latest false equivalency that Trump's judicial appointments that are not deemed qualified are the same as Obama's. That's just not true.
One has judicial standards, the other not so much.
"I also believe in the content I read based on the number of contributors and their expertise..."
Does it strengthen your belief to know that the writer in your link violated his professional ethics, choosing instead to create his own "set of ethics" in order to exhibit his bias? Does it make you feel good to know that, does it provide more "authority" in your eyes?
Not in mine. Whether his bias agrees with mine or not, such actions do NOT provide "authority" to their statements.Her profession ethics. The author is a woman.
And her group makes the case for protecting the nation from such a dangerous person, loosely applying the Tarasoff rule to justify violating the Goldwater rule. As well as pointing out that since it's passage, research has been done that shows the interview (as the Goldwater rule refers to doing) is one of the least reliable ways to diagnose someone.
And the group I referenced was joined by another led by a psychologist (where the Goldwater rule does not apply) and 38,000 others in concluding much the same thing. https://www.change.org/l/us/dr-john-gar … nald-trump"loosely" is hardly the term I would use. She tied the two together with a slip knot, "slipping" it to whatever she found would support her own hate filled opinion.
I'm sure you can find 38,000 others that will support her statement, particularly if they ignore her ethics. Heck, you can find a hundred and thirty eight thousand, starting with you. There are certainly that many Trump haters out of the 350,000,000 people in the country.
As I stated elsewhere, one can find whatever they wish to find on the WWW, declaring that any opinions (or even straight up facts) that do not agree with their own opinion is false and not reality because the source is bad. Personally, I will question (and continue to question) any opinion that begins with such bald bias and is given by a person violating their sworn ethical standards.
It's wrong for people to read something they only like into facts.
Of course it is wrong. Unfortunately it is increasingly easy to find whatever you want to see on the WWW, and then to exclaim that because the source is "respected" it has to be right.
The fact is that their can't sieve the wheat from the chaf.
Any source that is contrary to your point of view is "naturally"'not a reliable source, not really an example of critical thinking? Yes? If you are unaware of the journalistic credentials of Scientific American or Newsweek as opposed to the Fox and Britebart rags that you cling to, then you just as well go back to reading the Dick and Jane primers that you are probably more comfortable with, not too savvy, Savvy.
What are your OBJECTIVE sources?
BTW, Not good to use my name in vain......Wikipedia, is a good source of information. But it should be used with discretion. The editors have stated that Wikis' certain sections need proof or verification. It's these units that should not sourcing information for the public. Critically, the editors of Wiki are expertise in their own rights as that of Britannica. But Wiki, is an online open source encyclopedia and still developing. It compare favourably with Britannica to some extend.
Do you think the citations a the end of the article give you an opportunity to decide for yourself if the information presented is true or false?
Not sure. So I couldn't relied on that data. That's not like you're using Google Chrome web browser. It's security patches can come to your help, should you encounter a virus attack. You can't do that alwgys with Wiki. If you use that information despite the citiation, you're in trouble.
Thanks, Miebakagh
Your right, the Wikipedia is is not an infallible source, but compared with those whose only reliable source are figments of their imagination, it is a vast improvement.
Again, just read the first sentence of that link to Scientific American. It lays out the bias, clear for all to see, that follows throughout the rest of the article.
It is the way of our "news" stories, the "facts" we are exposed to, today."The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump") in favor of political posturing, repeating popular mantras from the left but mantras that have not only not been proven but not even tried yet.,
"
I see your point. It is just that Savvy is notorious put dismissing all information as specious when it is contrary to her viewpoint on a matter. I guess all "eggheads" to tend to have a liberal bias in their view of the world
Can you tell me why Wikipedia always has the citations at the end of the article? Since they are live links do you think you are presented with the opportunity to read the source and decide for yourself.
Wikipedia links may be somewhat useful, on occasion, when one hasn’t the patience or discipline to seek better sources of information. The better sources of information I refer to have to do with meta-analysis.
Popular magazines, popular networks, or Wikipedia only give readers a fragment of the information they may need to make informed decisions about anything. Generally speaking, those popular sources are useless unless one is aware of their significant bias.I disagree, oh well. There always has to be a beginning. I doubt very seriously you will go and purchase the books I have studied both while in the education environment or as a professional to verify a casual online conversation statement.
As far as bias everyone has them even you and I. Below are three links one that is enough to get the idea if enough thought is given and another more intellectually centered. Yet, the veracity of both can be questioned. Then comes along Wikipedia.
50 Cognitive Biases to be Aware of so You Can be the Very Best Version of You (Title Max)
https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-cent … on-of-you/
Or, maybe you would prefer this one.
A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias (National Library of Medicine)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6129743/
And, finally, the Wikipedia source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biasYes, we all use a heuristic approach to make conclusions. Naturally, we do not have all the time in the world to study all the peer-reviewed data in the world. (Unless we make a living at it)
We all have biases, but that should be different from having outright hatred and prejudices which have no basis in truth. My point is that I do not trust the sources that Valeant uses, at least, not so far.
That includes Wikipedia because anyone can plug anything in it that they want to. As a living document, it is not entirely accurate for that reason alone. I thought that was common knowledge, but apparently not.
The original issue had to do with whether Trump is a narcissist. Wikipedia cannot tell us that. That is something that a clinical psychologist, who has met with Trump in his office, can say. Personally, he strikes me as an egoist, but not a narcissist. Why? Because he cares, among other reasons.
Thanks for the links.The original issue did not have any Wiki links. You brought Wiki into this discussion - as a way to undermine all links provided by me. That after Wiki had been successfully used to prove you made a false claim. So while my links proved you posted a falsehood, that made you lose trust in my usage of them?
Logically, your argument doesn't make much sense. Just sounds like someone is butthurt still for being proven wrong.'because anyone can plug anything into it they wanted to' Yes. As Wikipedia is an open source document. However, the editors are there with an open eye and discretion. Whether the stuff one pumps into Wikipedia is from Google Scholar, peer review, the editorr are bound to cross-check the information. Otherwise, any inaccurate facts are completely removed. Contributors are even asked to list their qualification for accessment.
Hi M….I have read false information about a couple of individuals on Wikipedia. If a personality is “benign” it may not be tampered with by “authors” because nobody cares. I maintain that there are much better sources out there for finding information. That being said, I have used Wikipedia a few times as a quick reference for non-political matters.
Got it, you hate Trump too. I think you have been crystal clear about that.
All you Trump cultists always claim hate. The lack of understanding that it's not hate and just that many find Trump:
1.) Incompetent.
2.) The single greatest threat to democracy.
3.) Only interested in using the Presidency to enrich himself.
None of those means hate. Unqualified, working to undermine our own government, and self-serving does not mean we hate him. Just that a person like him should not be anywhere near the office again.
And for those enthralled by him, we don't hate you either. We pity you for not being able to see through his many lies and ugly rhetoric that turns Americans against Americans.Yep, as always. Just like when you didn't understand why I started talking about Trump, because you couldn't even bother to read the original post of this thread.
So true! So. Very. True.
And totally self-convincingly blind to it.
Yes I most certainly did.
"A better Democrat President would have been..."
This obviously isn't about Trump.
"Would any of the other Dems be dealing better than Joe?" Again, no room for Trump here.
"Specifically, what would Bernie or Liz be saying or doing now?"
Definitely no room for Trump here either.That great far-right knack for omission of any fact that makes them look bad.
The opening paragraph of the original post:
'What if there had been no Joe to elect in the last election?
Who would have been a better choice?
... and would Trump have lost?'
Lots of room for Trump there if you care not to omit basic words.
Lucky for you, I have some time on my hands for counterpunching.
I like Trump, anyway. You all have got to see something good in the man or just left him alone. And remember this: the more you hate a person, the more it affects your mentality and outlook. So, I say stop hating Trump, for his minus side.
"the more you hate a person, the more it affects your mentality and outlook."
This is a profound thought.
... now in a race involving Martha Stewart and Donald Trump, (say, next time around) ... it might actually be close! (Assuming she is a Republican and interested in running for president, (which she probably is absolutely not ... but let's say she was.)
And then there is S.Palin, K Noem, C.Rice.
Any other picks?
(Back to Republicans )Welcome home, Kathryn. I infer you womenfolks copying Queen Elizabeth? And to become like her...for the sake of the presidency. I though you like that.
well, Sure!
. but honestly, whose nervous system can handle such responsibility? Today, I think both men and women, equally, (!) are too aware of themselves as far as comforts and ever increasing needs/wants and they suffer when these are not fulfilled, on an exaggerated level.
In fact, I think it is the computer which prevents us from mastering our emotions and self-control, an important part of being a leader. It seems we are all becoming nervous Nellys and Neds because of our smart phones, iPads and iMacs dominating our days and nights and occupying our minds with SOO MUCH BS! I'm ready to go back to a land-line phone like in the seventies:
No answering machine!
Then, could I even attempt to be Regal?
Maybe.As you like it...I All women are on they own. And, by the way, I'm lately coming across this BS letters constantly in the forum. What does it symbolized?
Related Discussions
- 19
Could a Republican and a Democrat work as President and Vice President of the Un
by Dennis L. Page 12 years ago
Could a Republican and a Democrat work as President and Vice President of the United States?With so much divisiveness in the United States, would the country become more united if we had a Democrat and a Republican or a Republican and a Democrat as President and Vice President? Currently I think...
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 3 years 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...
- 30
Conservatives say John Kennedy was the last acceptable Democrat
by Credence2 11 years ago
In light of the preparations for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, past conversations with conservatives have come to mind.They told me that Democrats went away from them after Kennedy. Was it LBJ's Great Society, Medicare or Civil Rights...
- 417
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Repub
by savvydating 8 years ago
Would a Trump Presidency Be an Embarrassment for the United States and the Republican Party?Trump has been a Democrat most of his life. He brags that he can buy politicians, having given millions to Hillary's campaign and well as her Foundation. He scammed thousands of people out of millions of...
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 31
How will PRESIDENT Joe Biden bring ...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
justice for A L L ? ? ? - wondering. (... and If I see the name Trump I will really cringe. Understatement.)