A Better Democrat President Would Have Been ....

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (152 posts)
  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    _______________________________?

    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?)

    ... wondering

    1. James A Watkins profile image87
      James A Watkinsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Andrew Jackson would be better than any of the current lot. And that's saying something.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. MizBejabbers profile image86
      MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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!!

            1. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

            2. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Will you feel the same about the filibuster if you lose the majority in 2022?

              GA

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Why not, Biden could still veto.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  That'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.

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Considering 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.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  You haven't convinced me, but it would be hard to argue with your reasoning if I wasn't being stubborn about it.

                  GA

            3. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I hate it! The divide. That's leading to no where.

          2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            D'you think a puppet will roll out his plans without his masters approval?                                      You not sure? Biden has no mind of his own.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    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.asp

    1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      My 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!

      1. MizBejabbers profile image86
        MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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."

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              "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 misogynistic

              1. abwilliams profile image68
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I 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.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image79
                Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Could this just be her view?  Some women do hold that sentiment.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Absolutely. She has every right to hold this view. And my view is that it is a misogynistic.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

            3. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Okay, you're old-fashioned. So am I, but I think we are ready for a woman president.

              GA

              1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                One 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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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

                  GA

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image79
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    My 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!

              2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                Miebakagh57posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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

    2. profile image69
      KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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".

      1. Ken Burgess profile image76
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Whoa. In your opinion Ken.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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....

            1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
              Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It's a pity indeed.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                That remains to be seen, but I will remember that I heard it from you first.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image76
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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-2019

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, 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".

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, Faye, my latest diatribe below was intended for Ken.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              No worries

      2. MizBejabbers profile image86
        MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Please explain why you think so. Some examples, please.

  3. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    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.....

    1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Cred, I'm really sorry. I'm mistakely reading Andrew Young into the picture. What a grave mistake.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No problem, Miebakagh...

        1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
          Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Cred, thank you. During the last presidential election, wondering why he withdraw.

    2. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I could entertain Klobuchar, but Gabbard is just a Republican beast wearing Democrat vestiments.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Hmm . . . that must be why I think I like her.

          GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, Gabbard is a racist, sexist, Republican pig!

          roll

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image76
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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

            2. Valeant profile image86
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I tried to make that point that Gabbard is no longer seen as a Democrat to many Democrats.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Indeed....

      2. MizBejabbers profile image86
        MizBejabbersposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  4. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    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.

  5. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    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.

  6. Valeant profile image86
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. Valeant profile image86
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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-474322

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I'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.

          1. Valeant profile image86
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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/

            1. abwilliams profile image68
              abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              AKA: Trump haters

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Of course that's all you got.  It doesn't take a trained professional to look at the definitions of narcissist and sociopath to see that Trump fits the definitions to a T.

            2. savvydating profile image90
              savvydatingposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Valeant profile image86
                Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Valeant profile image86
                    Valeantposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                    Miebakagh57posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    It's wrong for people to read something they only like into facts.

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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......

                1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
                  Miebakagh57posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. tsmog profile image85
                    tsmogposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

                  2. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    "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

              3. tsmog profile image85
                tsmogposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. savvydating profile image90
                  savvydatingposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. tsmog profile image85
                    tsmogposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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_bias

  7. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Got it, you hate Trump too. I think you have been crystal clear about that.

    1. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Lol, yep I am so far off base.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image76
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          lol

          So true! So. Very. True.

          And totally self-convincingly blind to it.

  8. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Valeant profile image86
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Kathryn is being very specific, she is asking about Democrats.
        This is your time to shine.

        1. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Arguing to argue.  Find a hobby.

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ditto.

  9. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Lucky for you, I have some time on my hands for counterpunching. wink

  10. Miebakagh57 profile image69
    Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image59
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "the more you hate a person, the more it affects your mentality and outlook."

      This is a profound thought.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ... 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 lol  )

    1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Great!

  12. Miebakagh57 profile image69
    Miebakagh57posted 24 months ago

    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.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
      Kathryn L Hillposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      well, Sure! smile. 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.

      1. Miebakagh57 profile image69
        Miebakagh57posted 24 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image79
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          A picture is worth a thousand words.

          https://hubstatic.com/15977986.jpg

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            LOL!!!!!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
              Kathryn L Hillposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              lol

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
                Kathryn L Hillposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                ... we could elucidate on the BS.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)