What Happens With Trump and the Republican Party Over the Next Four Years?

[homersapien 11,373]

Here's one estimation:

The Republican Plan for the Next Four Years Isn’t Normal

The GOP may function primarily as a promotional tool for Trump—to the detriment of its future.

 

Peter Nicholas, 12/6/20

A national party whose leaders won a civil war in the 19th century and a cold war in the 20th looks to be little more than a promotional tool for Donald Trump at this point in the 21st.

Trump will lose his titular role as head of the GOP when he leaves office on January 20, but a party cowed by his grip on voters is poised to advance his interests even when he’s out of power. The Republican apparatus is coalescing behind its defeated leader and supplying Trump with a platform as he recasts himself as a kingmaker with ambitions of his own.

He’ll get plenty of help from outside the party structure. Conservative media will keep a relentless focus on Trump as he torments Joe Biden from exile. And at a grassroots level, Republican voters will likely donate to a new political-action committee he’s created as they pine for him to run one more time. (They may not have to wait long: In a brazen bit of counterprogramming, Trump could launch his next campaign during the Biden-inauguration events he’ll likely snub.)

Forces inside the party are trying to stop him. A few prominent officials, past and present, believe the GOP risks extinction unless it purges a president who has relied heavily on a diminishing slice of white voters. They’re trying—and, so far, struggling—to win converts and excommunicate Trump. They’re up against a GOP leadership that’s determined to break from past practice and stick with an ousted president teasing the idea of a comeback.

For Trump, the party is a bankable asset under any scenario. Foreign governments considering his company’s projects might be more receptive knowing a once-and-perhaps-future president is on the other side of the deal. Audiences may be more apt to tune in if Trump starts a conservative news venture. Candidates looking for fundraising help will be courting Trump, enabling him to stockpile chits. So will members of Congress hoping to make inroads with his base.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Trump confidant, told me he’s spoken with Trump about another run and wants to see him mount a comeback. “Grover Cleveland did it,” Graham said, referencing the Democratic president who was defeated in 1888 and won again four years later. Graham predicted that Trump will indeed run again—and that doing so is “the best thing for the party, frankly.”

“Right now, assuming for the moment that Biden wins, it’s Trump’s nomination if he wants it,” Graham told me. (Like many other Republicans, Graham has not yet acknowledged that Biden has won the election.) “He has a lot of sway over the Republican Party. If he objects to anything Biden [does], it would be hard to get Republicans on board. If he blessed some kind of deal, it would be easier to get something done. In many ways, he’ll be a shadow president.”

An early test of Trump’s enduring influence comes next month in Amelia Island, Florida, where Republican National Committee officials will hold their winter meeting and vote on the party’s leadership. No other candidate seems strong enough to dethrone Trump’s handpicked chair, Ronna McDaniel, who would serve another two-year term.

“I get my most loyal acolytes and keep them in power, and guess what?” former RNC Chair Michael Steele, channeling the outgoing president, said to me. “I’ve got power. I’ve got influence.”

But relying on Trump to run again could leave the party exposed. If he teases another campaign and backs out, the GOP will have sacrificed itself for him and blocked the rise of up-and-coming candidates for no reason at all. Simply announcing that he’ll run is enough to potentially clear the Republican field, or at least monopolize the attention that would normally be paid to candidates positioning themselves for the nomination. “How are you going to say you’re running for president in 2024 when Trump is telling everybody he is?” Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the few Republican members of Congress who’s been willing to publicly criticize Trump, asked me.

Even before the election, heretics inside the Trump-branded GOP were quietly discussing ways to wean the party from a polarizing leader who stood a good chance of losing. “There are conversations among elected officials who recognize there’s no future with Trumpism. It’s a dead end,” Jeff Flake, the former Republican senator from Arizona, told me.

John Bolton, the president’s former national-security adviser, has been talking privately with present and past senators, House members, and governors about redefining the party. Bolton’s hope is that over time, the fear that Trump engenders among Republican elected officials will dwindle, creating space for people who care about the party’s future viability to plot a course that doesn’t involve the 45th president.

“Once Trump is no longer in the Oval Office, once a Trump Twitter rant doesn’t risk exiling a member of Congress to Siberia, the dynamic will change dramatically,” Bolton told me. “He’s not going to disappear, but it’s very different when you’re a former president as opposed to a sitting president.”

Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, agrees that the party needs “some serious self-examination” following Trump’s defeat. “Successful politics is about addition and multiplication—not subtraction and division,” Hogan told me. “And I’m afraid we’ve been doing an awful lot of dividing lately.”

Prominent though they are, neither Hogan nor Bolton nor the Never Trumpers nor any disenchanted Trump-administration cast-offs possess the muscle, for now at least, to banish Trump. He won 74 million votes this year, a total second only to Biden’s in the nation’s history. The result is even more striking given his performance on the job. Trump presided over an explosion of COVID-19 cases and a withering economic downturn. Sitting presidents have been ousted with records that sparkle by comparison. “You’re telling me that a Republican Party that now traffics in fascism and white nationalism and conspiracy theories is ready to free itself of this particular yoke?” Steele told me. “The answer is no … Donald Trump has managed in five years to undo roughly 145 years of [GOP] history.”

Political parties rarely cling to a loser who costs them an election. After Mitt Romney lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, no one outside perhaps Romney’s immediate family was clamoring to see him back out on the trail. The party commissioned a report on Romney’s defeat that was famously dubbed the “autopsy.” It was an unsparing self-examination that warned that the GOP was floundering: Young voters were “rolling their eyes at what the party represents,” in the words of one of the report’s authors. Then, four years later, Trump came along, took the earnest conclusions compiled in the 100-page write-up, stuffed them in the trash, and won anyway.

His supporters have no appetite for a return to the pre-Trump GOP. Kinzinger told me about a conversation he had a few weeks ago with a woman who asked whether he believed Trump would ultimately be declared the winner once the postelection drama played out. No, he told her, Trump had lost. “At least in 2024 he’ll run again—or Don Jr. will,” she said. The exchange left Kinzinger with a distinct impression: “There are people out there who have come to believe the Republican Party is Trump.”

If the party isn’t Trump, what is it? One faction wants to see the GOP return to something resembling Ronald Reagan’s more upbeat vision of Republicanism. The party should again embrace free trade and international alliances, these Republicans argue. It should present a more welcoming message to voters of color. Yet this wing is up against a pro-Trump majority that’s convinced the election wasn’t a repudiation of Trump so much as a fraudulent abuse of the electoral system. “It’s like losing a game on a bad call,” John McLaughlin, a Trump pollster, told me. “The Republican Party will double down.”

Read: What to expect next from Donald Trump

An entente between the pro- and anti-Trump camps seems unlikely; there’s no compromise when it comes to Trump. “I can tell you one thing: The Never Trumpers are banished from the party,” Stephen Moore, an outside economic adviser to Trump, told me. “We will never forgive them … Anyone associated with the Never Trumpers—they’re done.”

If that’s the case, so may be the party. Sticking with Trump could undercut the GOP’s long-term relevance. The president lost, after all, by 7 million votes. While he made some inroads with Latino voters in a few battleground states, overall he won only about a third of this fast-growing constituency. And exit polls showed that Biden won six out of 10 voters under the age of 30.

No rule says that a political party must endure—ask the Whigs. Before the election, I spoke with David Holt, the Republican mayor of Oklahoma City, who warned that the GOP risked being flattened by “a demographic freight train.”

“I don’t know if we can assume that this loss, if it happens, will inspire everyone to remake the party,” Holt told me. “Sometimes it takes several losses for that to sink in for everyone. That’s why I don’t see this as a quick fix. It will take many years in the wilderness for everyone to accept that.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/12/trump-will-reign-atop-gop-until-2024/617300/

(emphasis mine)

[autigeremt 6,616]

More importantly what happens to the United States over the next four years. Who cares about the parasites...I mean parties. 

[Grumps 3,704]

I think that DKW is correct. Trump will disappear into the night. His supporters have moved on. The GOP will try to find a better candidate and try to win in four years. I'd love to see Nikki Haley or Tim Scott. I expect the dems to run Chuck Schumer.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Trump is in such poor health and so old I don’t think he matters as a pol. His looming network may be the king maker in the future tho

[homersapien 11,373]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

I think that DKW is correct. Trump will disappear into the night. His supporters have moved on. The GOP will try to find a better candidate and try to win in four years. I'd love to see Nikki Haley or Tim Scott. I expect the dems to run Chuck Schumer.

Well, we shall see soon enough.  I think the article was right on.

Trump's supporters will move on to the next "Trump" if he drops dead or decides not to run again.

[AuburnNTexas 7,147]

Actually Trump gave the Republican's the road map for success once he and his Acerbic personality is no longer there and you saw some of it in the House of Representatives. Run more Women , more Hispanic's, and Black's the Hispanic community is very conservative as a whole like any community no generalization fits the whole community they tend to be very religious  and have a tremendous pride in their community, the same thing for the Black community. A lot of the values in the Black and Hispanic community are closer to Republican values then Democratic values especially when compared to progressive Democratic values. 

The Democratic party has lost some of its best talking points (Republicans are party of the rich, Democrats are for the working man, Unions should support Democrats). It is hard to claim you are the party of the little guy when you are outspending the other party in many races by a 2-1 factor. Democrats have not protected Unions for outsourcing jobs overseas especially where other country are cheating like China. Trump's tariff's whether effective or not make Union members say which party is protecting me. 

Trump's acerbic personality and the way he attacks people even people who normally agree with him but attack them when they disagree on something else. This along with his cavalier even predatory treatment of women has hurt him especially among suburban women. If Trump is replaced by somebody like Nikki Haley you will be able to bring back a lot of the suburban women. If Republicans continue reaching out to Black and Hispanic communities by running conservative Black and Hispanic candidates and keep harping on legitimate issues in cities run by traditional Democratic leaders high crime, poor schools, school choice, lack of good paying jobs with no change over 30 years maybe it is time for a different approach.

If Trump does not run again in 4 years and if Republican's continue to court Black, Hispanic and Women voters I expect the Republican's to take back the House in 2 years especially with the normal losses that occur for the party of the sitting President. A lot would then depend on how they use the House leadership. in 2 years. 1st step I would like to see is an act that gives all the DACA kids a right to stay and work and a path to citizenship. That would have a huge impact on the fast growing Hispanic vote. If the Republicans are really smart they would pass that in the Senate and send to the House a single bill only dealing with that one aspect of immigration Democratic Senators and House members would have to vote for a bill to help DACA sponsored by Republicans.  

[homersapien 11,373]

 

How the ‘stolen election’ myth will swallow the GOP

Opinion by

Paul Waldman

Columnist

Dec. 7, 2020

 

When President Trump refused to acknowledge Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, it quickly became clear that the myth of a stolen election would exert a powerful hold on the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Some of us even suggested that it could become the new “birther” lie, a way for much of the party’s base to dismiss the incoming president as illegitimate.

But now it looks like it’s going to be even worse.

Trump’s legal and public relations campaign to overturn the election is simultaneously dangerous and pathetic, made up of farcical pratfalls and appalling authoritarian moves. But its ultimate failure will not weaken the “stolen election” myth’s grip on the GOP, and we’ll be feeling the effects for years to come.

The battleground states have certified their results, and Joe Biden won handily, by 306-232 in the electoral college and more than 7 million votes. Despite all their efforts, Republicans have been unable to find any real evidence of fraud, let alone the massive conspiracy involving thousands of accomplices across the country that would have been required to steal the election.

Yet with with just a few exceptions, the Republican Party as a whole refuses to accept that reality. When The Post contacted all 249 Republicans in Congress to ask them a simple question — Who won the election? — only 27 would admit that Biden won. Even more shockingly, only 32 said that if Biden wins a majority in the electoral college (which will officially vote on Dec. 14), they’ll accept him as the legitimately elected president.

You might think that once Biden is inaugurated, that will change. But don’t bet on it. In the future when you ask Republicans if Biden won the election, even the supposedly responsible ones will say, “People have different opinions on that, but he’s in the White House now, so I’m fighting him every day.”

Keep in mind that it’s increasingly looking as though Trump will spend the next few years holding the Republican Party in his grip, by leaving open the possibility that he’ll run again in 2024. As he demands attention from everyone and fealty from Republicans, he won’t be doing so on the basis of his passionate advocacy for low taxes and small government. It will all be about his insistence that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 election. That is what other Republicans will have to agree to, or risk his wrath.

For Trump loyalists invested in the internecine battle over the party’s future, this will be the clearest way to divide ally from enemy: Will you say publicly that Trump really won in 2020? If you will you’re a true conservative, and if you won’t you’re a coward, a quisling, an establishment stooge who must be purged.

That will keep the stolen election myth in the forefront of Republican thinking — something they use as a litmus test of loyalty. Conservative media will keep the myth alive, using it as fuel for outrage and the feeling of victimization that has become so central to conservative ideology. As the president himself said at a rally in Georgia on Saturday, “We’re all victims. Everybody here, all these thousands of people here tonight, they’re all victims. Every one of you.”

That will become the easy justification for complete Republican obstruction of the Biden presidency — not just on disputed policy questions but on everything, including Biden’s ability to fill judicial vacancies and even staff his administration. Every senator who contemplates confirming even a district court judge will know that doing so will produce cries of “Traitor!” Because how can Biden be allowed the privileges of the presidency when he isn’t really the president?

At the state level, the stolen election myth will become the justification for a whole new round of draconian voter suppression laws. New purges of voter rolls, stricter voter ID laws, restrictions on mail voting, closing of polling places, limits on early voting, even the elimination of drop boxes will all be on the menu in GOP-controlled states. They’ll be carefully designed to make sure they fall more heavily on Blacks, Latinos, Native populations, young people, students and anyone else more likely to vote for Democrats. All of it will be justified by saying “We can’t allow them to steal another election like they did in 2020.”

And the new conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court will be there to approve every suppression measure, along with any hyper-partisan gerrymandering Republican-controlled state legislatures can manage (the court already ruled that partisan gerrymandering, no matter how ruthlessly it disenfranchises voters, is just fine).

With Trump keeping the stolen election myth salient, Republican candidates for state offices will have to pledge in advance their willingness to take every step necessary to ensure Republican election victories, all the way up to overturning the results if Democrats should win. In state after state, Republicans will have to sign on to the idea that any Democratic victory — not just in the past but in the future as well — is inherently illegitimate and proof that fraud was committed.

Trump may be the primary purveyor of this poison, but it’s because his party so wholeheartedly embraces it that the long-term damage will be done. Which makes it all the more important that when Democrats take power, they use it to enhance and secure Americans’ voting rights.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/07/how-stolen-election-myth-will-swallow-gop/

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Actually Trump gave the Republican's the road map for success once he and his Acerbic personality is no longer there and you saw some of it in the House of Representatives. Run more Women , more Hispanic's, and Black's the Hispanic community is very conservative as a whole like any community no generalization fits the whole community they tend to be very religious  and have a tremendous pride in their community, the same thing for the Black community. A lot of the values in the Black and Hispanic community are closer to Republican values then Democratic values especially when compared to progressive Democratic values. 

The Democratic party has lost some of its best talking points (Republicans are party of the rich, Democrats are for the working man, Unions should support Democrats). It is hard to claim you are the party of the little guy when you are outspending the other party in many races by a 2-1 factor. Democrats have not protected Unions for outsourcing jobs overseas especially where other country is cheating like China. Trump's tariff's whether effective or not make Union members say which party is protecting me. 

Trump's acerbic personality and the way he attacks people even people who normally agree with him but attack them when they disagree on something else. This along with his cavalier even predatory treatment of women has hurt him especially among suburban women. If Trump is replaced by somebody like Nikki Haley you will be able to bring back a lot of the suburban women. If Republicans continue reaching out to Black and Hispanic communities by running conservative Black and Hispanic candidates and keep harping on legitimate issues in cities run by traditional Democratic leaders high crime, poor schools, school choice, lack of good paying jobs with no change over 30 years maybe it is time for a different approach.

If Trump does not run again in 4 years and if Republican's continue to court Black, Hispanic and Women voters I expect the Republican's to take back the House in 2 years especially with the normal losses that occur for the party of the sitting President. A lot would then depend on how they use the House leadership. in 2 years. 1st step I would like to see is an act that gives all the DACA kids a right to stay and work and a path to citizenship. That would have a huge impact on the fast growing Hispanic vote. If the Republicans are really smart they would pass that in the Senate and send to the House a single bill only dealing with that one aspect of immigration Democratic Senators and House members would have to vote for a bill to help DACA sponsored by Republicans.  

I agree that no particular group is monolithic in their political values. And you make good points. But ultimately, most groups are going to respond to policy and strategies.  I just don't  don't see that happening with a "Trumpist" GOP.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/what-you-need-to-read-in-the-rnc-election-autopsy-report/274112/

 

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, we shall see soon enough.  I think the article was right on.

Trump's supporters will move on to the next "Trump" if he drops dead or decides not to run again.

Is that like Mrs. Clinton's supporters moved on to the next Hillary?

[DKW 86 7,423]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

Is that like Mrs. Clinton's supporters moved on to the next Hillary?

HRC aint dead yet...I wouldnt sell her short of running again in 2024. 

***It is time these lifetime pols go the hell away. We desperately need to flush the toilet in DC and get rid of them all. 
If we dont have HARD term limits soon, then maybe America deserves what she gets: Sorry pols, sorry leadership, sorry policies, sorry country. The evidence that DC is Corrupt as hell is everywhere. Only myopic fools think the way we have gone the last 20 years and where we are heading now is anything but disastrous.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

My hope was him losing would finally cause the scales to fall from the eyes of Republicans, discredit him and get them to see him for what he was - a big talker who simply promised to hate the same people they hate and give them some SCOTUS picks in exchange for their votes.  But I'm not so sure.  I've never seen this kind of cult-like loyalty amongst Republicans and willingness to cast aside volumes of reality to indulge in wild tales of rampant voter fraud to "steal" the election and believe a charlatan who just lies as a matter of course all the time.  I don't know if they've learned their lesson or not.

[caleb1633 1,418]

I think I'm more interested in seeing where the constituents of the parties go than where the bureaucrats in Washington go. A lot of honest liberals abandoned the Democratic Party due to the Woke agenda. If honest liberals can join forces with honest conservatives, we could see a stronger center. My biggest concern is the decoupling that is occurring in our country. The left and the right are living in two different realities. The left says, "No evidence of election fraud!" The right says, "Stolen election!" Neither can just say, "There's evidence of fraud. Evidence doesn't equal proof. Even if there is proof, it doesn't equate to being widespread enough to change the results. If it was, then it'll be hashed out in court." That requires nuance.

 

The main tenets of actual liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. We need honest liberals and honest conservatives to bring these back to the forefront of our society, otherwise, this decoupling could ultimately lead to calamity.

[AuburnNTexas 7,147]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

I agree that no particular group is monolithic in their political values. And you make good points. But ultimately, most groups are going to respond to policy and strategies.  I just don't  don't see that happening with a "Trumpist" GOP.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/what-you-need-to-read-in-the-rnc-election-autopsy-report/274112/

 

 

 

My point was that Trump will be gone but the outreach to Women, Hispanic's, and Black's by running more of those type candidates will have a long term positive impact on the Republican party. That is why along with the historical trend of losing house seats in the party of the President will cause a complete fracture of the Democratic party between moderates and progressives.  I actually think the Democratic Party will be hurt long term more than the Republican party.

In most elections the economy more than any other issue determines the winner.  Because of Covid-19 and the restrictions put in place by the government (You can debate whether they helped are hurt  with controlling the Pandemic) our economy is hurting. It will slowly recover but an awful lot of small businesses are gone and more will follow. These type businesses don't have the money or credit to start over in 2 years the Republican's will be blaming the economy on the Democrats just like the Democrats did after the economy tanked because of Covid.  Despite the fact that it really did not matter who was President Covid was going to cause the economy to tank as it has all over the world. Sadly most people don't realize there was little any government could do to stop the economic impact that will continue ongoing for a long while. The Democrats are in charge starting next month and in two years assuming vaccine works the economy will be better then now but no where near where it was before Covid and it won't be fair but they will be blamed for it.  

Politics on both sides of the aisle is a dirty business and the Republican's will smell blood and swarm like sharks and people will believe them. If somehow Democrat's are able to stop Fracking as the progressives want and price of Gas and heating fuel goes sky high and people bills go sky high with the increase in fuel you will see a huge shift in how people vote.  It is the economy. 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/7/2020 at 10:07 PM, Grumps said:

Is that like Mrs. Clinton's supporters moved on to the next Hillary?

No equivalence.  Mrs. Clinton did not run on an extremist populist agenda nor did she have a cult-like following that exerted a strangle-hold on Democratic politicians. 

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

My point was that Trump will be gone but the outreach to Women, Hispanic's, and Black's by running more of those type candidates will have a long term positive impact on the Republican party. That is why along with the historical trend of losing house seats in the party of the President will cause a complete fracture of the Democratic party between moderates and progressives.  I actually think the Democratic Party will be hurt long term more than the Republican party.

In most elections the economy more than any other issue determines the winner.  Because of Covid-19 and the restrictions put in place by the government (You can debate whether they helped are hurt  with controlling the Pandemic) our economy is hurting. It will slowly recover but an awful lot of small businesses are gone and more will follow. These type businesses don't have the money or credit to start over in 2 years the Republican's will be blaming the economy on the Democrats just like the Democrats did after the economy tanked because of Covid.  Despite the fact that it really did not matter who was President Covid was going to cause the economy to tank as it has all over the world. Sadly most people don't realize there was little any government could do to stop the economic impact that will continue ongoing for a long while. The Democrats are in charge starting next month and in two years assuming vaccine works the economy will be better then now but no where near where it was before Covid and it won't be fair but they will be blamed for it.  

Politics on both sides of the aisle is a dirty business and the Republican's will smell blood and swarm like sharks and people will believe them. If somehow Democrat's are able to stop Fracking as the progressives want and price of Gas and heating fuel goes sky high and people bills go sky high with the increase in fuel you will see a huge shift in how people vote.  It is the economy. 

I think you would have an excellent point if Trump disappears and the Republican Party does a complete about-face and started to act on their 2013 post election "autopsy" report (see my link above). 

I see no indication they are about to do that.  Nor is it reasonable to think they would retain their large MAGA base if they did.

Trump wasn't blamed for the existence of the covid pandemic, he was (rightly) blamed for the non-existent federal response.  Ironically, many political leaders around the world actually had their favorability ratings increase because of their response.  The same would have happened with Trump had he given a s***.  Instead, he was totally focused on how it would affect him politically and so he tried to ignore or downplay it.  It became a self-fulfilling fear.

Regarding fracking, hopefully the inevitable transition to low or no carbon energy sources will be made gracefully enough not to cause a major economic disruption, and most Americans do support taking action on global warming.  More will do so as the effects of that warming become more and more apparent.

God help us if we continue to ignore the change in climate simply on the basis the transition to renewable fuels is just too difficult/costly.  We cannot simply ignore it and hope for the best.

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,147]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think you would have an excellent point if Trump disappears and the Republican Party does a complete about-face and started to act on their 2013 post election "autopsy" report (see my link above). 

I see no indication they are about to do that.  Nor is it reasonable to think they would retain their large MAGA base if they did.

Trump wasn't blamed for the existence of the covid pandemic, he was (rightly) blamed for the non-existent federal response.  Ironically, many political leaders around the world actually had their favorability ratings increase because of their response.  The same would have happened with Trump had he given a s***.  Instead, he was totally focused on how it would affect him politically and so he tried to ignore or downplay it.  It became a self-fulfilling fear.

Regarding fracking, hopefully the inevitable transition to low or no carbon energy sources will be made gracefully enough not to cause a major economic disruption, and most Americans do support taking action on global warming.  More will do so as the effects of that warming become more and more apparent.

God help us if we continue to ignore the change in climate simply on the basis the transition to renewable fuels is just too difficult/costly.  We cannot simply ignore it and hope for the best.

 

I think you will find the majority of Americans both on the left and right want the conversion to cleaner green energy just not if it will have a huge impact on their wallet. The people who can least afford higher energy bills will be most impacted. As green energy has become more viable (cheaper and better storage) you are seeing more companies and individuals moving to it. There have been significant improvement in the storage of green energy which is needed to allow it to become the panacea we all want.  Storage is improved but is still not where it needs to be and if batteries for electric cars can reach a certain level range 250-500 miles, recharge time slightly longer then filling a gas tank up, and long life cycle while lowering price of battery (I expect that in 10 years or possibly much sooner like 2-3 years) you will see electric cars take off when better batteries hit the market.  That will have its own set of issues how do we maintain roads as electric cars aren't taxed at fuel pump, how do we build enough electrical supply to meet higher demands some parts of the country are already having issues meeting current demands. 

As for fracking like it or not because of creating a cheap supply of natural gas we have been able to close a lot of coal and fuel oil electric generation plants which has actually lowered our Carbon footprint. While not as clean as solar and wind it has helped. If the more progressive side of the Democratic party stops fracking before we have capacity for green energy causing both the price of gasoline and natural gas to explode there will be major issue in this country.  Hopefully between the Republican's and moderated Democrats that won't be allowed.

I agree Trump didn't handle Covid as well as he could but the fact we have two vaccines almost ready to starting be used in less than a year he gets credit for that. He and Congress passed the money to jump start the research (Operation Warp Speed), we have become more self sufficient in producing American made PPE gear which was basically non-existent in this country when the Pandemic started.  Under Trump we had various companies create a new manufacturing platform to produce ventilators. That is some of the federal response he brought that you claim was non-existent. He also messed up he should have listened more and pushed social distancing and wearing of masks. Initially most masks had to be allocated to Frontline people because of the shortage but as masks became readily available he should have pushed them and been seen wearing them. People who don't like Trump always bring up number of cases and number of deaths in US but seldom put it into perspective with deaths and cases per million.  Compared to most of Europe our numbers are better than many and worse then a few.  The two countries that should have more cases and deaths should be China and India. We have no idea how honest the numbers from China are and I work with people in India on a daily basis and have been told that Rural India many die at home and are buried but not counted in the Covid numbers. Some of the European leaders you mention who have gained in popularity has less to do with how well they handled pandemic based on cases and deaths per million then it has to do with a friendly press. In this country some of our press down played the vaccines and even pushed not to use it so as to hurt Trump. Today or yesterday Bernie Sanders admitted the Democrats who are now talking about during a relief bill of 900 Billion could have had 1.7 billion that Trump proposed that included relief checks for families but House didn't want to give Trump a victory. 

Politics reared its ugly head with Democrats wanting to win at the expense of the American people.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

No equivalence.  Mrs. Clinton did not have run on an extremist populist agenda nor did she have a cult-like following that exerted a strangle-hold on Democratic politicians. 

I just don't see Trump as being as powerful as you do.

[autigeremt 6,616]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think you would have an excellent point if Trump disappears and the Republican Party does a complete about-face and started to act on their 2013 post election "autopsy" report (see my link above). 

I see no indication they are about to do that.  Nor is it reasonable to think they would retain their large MAGA base if they did.

Trump wasn't blamed for the existence of the covid pandemic, he was (rightly) blamed for the non-existent federal response.  Ironically, many political leaders around the world actually had their favorability ratings increase because of their response.  The same would have happened with Trump had he given a s***.  Instead, he was totally focused on how it would affect him politically and so he tried to ignore or downplay it.  It became a self-fulfilling fear.

Regarding fracking, hopefully the inevitable transition to low or no carbon energy sources will be made gracefully enough not to cause a major economic disruption, and most Americans do support taking action on global warming.  More will do so as the effects of that warming become more and more apparent.

God help us if we continue to ignore the change in climate simply on the basis the transition to renewable fuels is just too difficult/costly.  We cannot simply ignore it and hope for the best.

 

Over 75 million people voted for Trump and they gained seats in the House in a year where they were supposed to get waxed. Enough said. 

[homersapien 11,373]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

I just don't see Trump as being as powerful as you do.

How do you explain Republican's refusal to stand up to him?

 

A GOP senator reveals just how deranged many in his party have become

Opinion by

Greg Sargent

Columnist

Dec. 9, 2020

 

Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, has done something truly extraordinary. He has now stated in unequivocal terms that it’s unacceptable for his fellow Republicans to try to subvert the will of American voters to keep President Trump in power illegitimately.

Why have so few other Republicans proved willing to take this simple step?

Toomey’s declaration contrasts sharply with a new development in the Georgia runoffs. GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue just announced their support for a deranged lawsuit filed by Texas that seeks to overturn popular vote outcomes in four battleground states that Trump lost.

Those Georgia moves capture a broader state of affairs: It appears that untold numbers of elected Republicans are trying to inspire in GOP voters a state of what you might call permanent warfare against our democratic institutions and the opposition’s voters alike.

This war footing doesn’t permit acknowledgment of the opposition’s claims to legitimate political representation. It treats efforts at the wholesale subversion of unwanted electoral outcomes as an acceptable tool of political competition.

This is what Toomey’s new declaration throws into sharp relief.

“It’s completely unacceptable,” Toomey told the Philadelphia Inquirer, referring to Trump’s efforts to get numerous GOP-controlled state legislatures to appoint pro-Trump electors to the electoral college, in defiance of the state’s popular vote outcome.

“The president should give up trying to get legislatures to overturn the results of the elections in their respective states,” Toomey continued.

Compounding the heresy on display here, Toomey even dared to reveal that he had personally congratulated President-elect Joe Biden on his victory, in a conversation Toomey described as “pleasant.”

Some Republicans support Trump’s efforts

Our discourse on all this is deeply confused. News organizations sometimes emphasize that few elected Republicans have affirmatively endorsed Trump’s efforts to get state legislatures to overturn popular vote outcomes. This creates the impression that they are quietly tolerating a Trumpian tantrum that they hope will pass, as if the problem here is their mere spinelessness.

But the more important point — and this is almost never conveyed with clarity — is this. While it’s good that some state-level Republicans have rebuffed these efforts, a great many other elected Republicans have refrained from declaring them wholly intolerable, which would demonstrate that they must be unequivocally condemned as existentially destructive to democracy.

By doing exactly this, Toomey has exposed this deficit.

It’s also rarely conveyed with clarity that some Republican senators actually do tacitly support efforts to overturn the election results. This includes Loeffler and Perdue. Loeffler has suggested that by trying to get rogue electors appointed, Trump is merely exercising his “right” to take “legal recourse,” which is nonsense, because that tactic lies outside what the law allows.

A demented lawsuit

What’s more, Loeffler and Perdue have now endorsed this new Texas lawsuit. It literally asks the Supreme Court to step in and invalidate Biden’s electors in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, on the fictitious grounds that the voting was administered fraudulently in them — echoing claims that numerous courts have shot down already.

This could clear the way for GOP state legislatures in all four states to appoint Trump electors, overturning the results, as Trump himself has repeatedly demanded.

This is insane. As University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck points out, the suit seeks to exploit the fact that the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to hear disputes between states, but it does not automatically hear such complaints, and in this case, it won’t. The high court already declined to hear a somewhat less crazy lawsuit seeking to overturn results in Pennsylvania.

But the fact that this is a stunt doesn’t make it less disgusting that Loeffler and Perdue have endorsed it. Their statement declares that they “fully support” this lawsuit on the grounds that Trump has “every right” to exercise his “legal recourse.”

Again, here they are declaring this effort to subvert the will of the voters to be a legitimate tactic. Since one of the states is Georgia, this is in effect a declaration of war on their own state’s electorate.

“The central argument here is that we should let the election be decided by unelected judges and partisan state legislators, rather than the 150 million Americans who cast legitimate ballots,” Vladeck told me. “That would be the end of democracy as we know it.”

The future of the Trumpified GOP

We hear a lot of pious talk about the need to restore solidarity and national unity these days. But as Will Wilkinson points out, such calls should be seen in the context of ongoing efforts to overturn the election: They ring particularly hollow when many major figures on the right are essentially demanding the majority’s “abject submission to the minority’s will.”

Indeed, as Laura Field demonstrates, if Trump can keep exerting influence over the GOP, one can envision him — and the Republicans carrying his mantle — seeking to maintain among supporters a kind of permanent state of warfare against the legitimacy of our institutions and of the opposition. It will be rooted in retributive rage against our system and its voters for rendering its verdict against Trump.

Philosopher John Dewey wrote that democracy is sustained by “faith” in the fundamental worth of other human beings, faith that is demonstrated in all sorts of routine ways. This faith is rooted in a “generous belief” in the “possibilities” of others, in their “capacity” for “intelligent judgment and action.”

What we’re seeing now in this ongoing support for election subversion is at bottom a form of very profound contempt for those possibilities — a very profound contempt for other human beings; for fellow Americans.

Toomey has hinted at another way. But far too few elected Republicans seem interested in following it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/09/gop-senator-reveals-just-how-deranged-many-his-party-have-become/

[homersapien 11,373]

On 12/8/2020 at 9:27 AM, caleb1633 said:

I think I'm more interested in seeing where the constituents of the parties go than where the bureaucrats in Washington go. A lot of honest liberals abandoned the Democratic Party due to the Woke agenda. If honest liberals can join forces with honest conservatives, we could see a stronger center. My biggest concern is the decoupling that is occurring in our country. The left and the right are living in two different realities. The left says, "No evidence of election fraud!" The right says, "Stolen election!" Neither can just say, "There's evidence of fraud. Evidence doesn't equal proof. Even if there is proof, it doesn't equate to being widespread enough to change the results. If it was, then it'll be hashed out in court." That requires nuance.

 

The main tenets of actual liberalism are political democracy, limitations on the powers of government, the development of universal human rights, legal equality for all adult citizens, freedom of expression, respect for the value of viewpoint diversity and honest debate, respect for evidence and reason, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. We need honest liberals and honest conservatives to bring these back to the forefront of our society, otherwise, this decoupling could ultimately lead to calamity.

What is it about the "Woke" movement that would repeal "honest" people, much less liberals?

What was the evidence of "election fraud" that liberals should be objecting to?  Does it even remotely suggest the election was stolen, as Trump asserts?

[homersapien 11,373]

14 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Over 75 million people voted for Trump and they gained seats in the House in a year where they were supposed to get waxed. Enough said. 

"Enough said" about what? 

Are you suggesting Trumpism shows the way for the future of the Republican party? 

[caleb1633 1,418]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What is it about the "Woke" movement that would repeal "honest" people, much less liberals?

What was the evidence of "election fraud" that liberals should be objecting to?  Does it even remotely suggest the election was stolen, as Trump asserts?

The Woke movement is one of the most illiberal ideologies in our society. Instead of advocating for the individual, it advocates group identity above all else. On top of that, its roots are in Post-modernism and Critical Theory, so it sees everything through the lens of a power struggle. When Critical Theory focuses on race, it becomes all about which group you're in and how everyone except straight white males are the oppressed, and straight white males are the oppressors. It's the ideology that spawns the ridiculous works of Robin D'Angelo that asserts that all white people are inherently racist. You have to admit that you're racist, and if you don't, it's because you're fragile and racist. Imagine if our legal system worked like that. They will tell you that you have to "be an ally" but that you'll also "never be a good ally" but that you still have to try. It's very cult-like in its thinking, especially when you delve into the intellectual roots of it. It reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials when the accusation alone of a woman being a witch was enough to condemn her. If she admitted she was a witch, she was executed. If she denied it, it's because she was a witch and still ended up being executed. If you want to see what happens when the Woke movement is out of control, just research the Evergreen University protests in 2017. I do highly recommend studying the works of Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose on this subject. They have done a thorough deep dive into the ideology and have exposed the very real threat it faces to our society. Here's a link to their website: https://newdiscourses.com

 

Other honest liberals would include Bret and Eric Weinstein, the doctors I mentioned above, Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Jonathan Haidt, and Greg Lukianoff. All are on the left, but don't subscribe to the radical totalitarianism that is creeping into our society via the Trojan Horse of Social Justice Theory. You can understand and address that racism still exists in society without believing that Social Justice Theory is the appropriate manner in which to address it. In reality, it's regressive in its attempts to solve inequalities and disparities.

 

As far as voter fraud, in an election where ~150M people vote, there is bound to be fraud. There are sworn affidavits by people who witnessed fraud, and there was a survey by Matt Brainerd that found thousands of people who had absentee ballots cast in their names, but also stated that they didn't vote. I think the conspiracy with the Dominion voting systems is unfounded and ridiculous. With that, there is EVIDENCE of fraud. Again, evidence does not equal proof, which is why you take it to court. If you can't prove it, then it doesn't matter. Personally, I do think fraud at some level occurred, just like it probably does in every election. It may even be more widespread in this one; however, I don't believe that it was enough to change the outcome. I believe Trump lost fair and square. He has the Constitutional right to challenge the results through the processes in place; however, if he continues his rhetoric that the election was rigged, even after having his case heard, then that presents a major threat to the Republic.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

The Woke movement is one of the most illiberal ideologies in our society. Instead of advocating for the individual, it advocates group identity above all else. On top of that, its roots are in Post-modernism and Critical Theory, so it sees everything through the lens of a power struggle. When Critical Theory focuses on race, it becomes all about which group you're in and how everyone except straight white males are the oppressed, and straight white males are the oppressors. It's the ideology that spawns the ridiculous works of Robin D'Angelo that asserts that all white people are inherently racist. You have to admit that you're racist, and if you don't, it's because you're fragile and racist. Imagine if our legal system worked like that. They will tell you that you have to "be an ally" but that you'll also "never be a good ally" but that you still have to try. It's very cult-like in its thinking, especially when you delve into the intellectual roots of it. It reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials when the accusation alone of a woman being a witch was enough to condemn her. If she admitted she was a witch, she was executed. If she denied it, it's because she was a witch and still ended up being executed. If you want to see what happens when the Woke movement is out of control, just research the Evergreen University protests in 2017. I do highly recommend studying the works of Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose on this subject. They have done a thorough deep dive into the ideology and have exposed the very real threat it faces to our society. Here's a link to their website: https://newdiscourses.com

 

Other honest liberals would include Bret and Eric Weinstein, the doctors I mentioned above, Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Jonathan Haidt, and Greg Lukianoff. All are on the left, but don't subscribe to the radical totalitarianism that is creeping into our society via the Trojan Horse of Social Justice Theory. You can understand and address that racism still exists in society without believing that Social Justice Theory is the appropriate manner in which to address it. In reality, it's regressive in its attempts to solve inequalities and disparities.

 

As far as voter fraud, in an election where ~150M people vote, there is bound to be fraud. There are sworn affidavits by people who witnessed fraud, and there was a survey by Matt Brainerd that found thousands of people who had absentee ballots cast in their names, but also stated that they didn't vote. I think the conspiracy with the Dominion voting systems is unfounded and ridiculous. With that, there is EVIDENCE of fraud. Again, evidence does not equal proof, which is why you take it to court. If you can't prove it, then it doesn't matter. Personally, I do think fraud at some level occurred, just like it probably does in every election. It may even be more widespread in this one; however, I don't believe that it was enough to change the outcome. I believe Trump lost fair and square. He has the Constitutional right to challenge the results through the processes in place; however, if he continues his rhetoric that the election was rigged, even after having his case heard, then that presents a major threat to the Republic.

Wow. 

And here I thought it was just an imformal  phrase that implied "a political term originating in the United States referring to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice.^[1] It derives from the African-American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

This definition of the "woke movement" - along with renewed sensitivity to sexual abuse - is my perception of the term.  And assuming it's actually real - which is doubtful - it's long overdue.  I certainly didn't realize it was such an insidious, organized political movement.   But then, I am not all that interested in the academic theories of social change.

Frankly, with all due respect, that first paragraph sounds like a bunch of conspiratorial, over-reaction, propagated by reactionary wackos.  While I am sure there are academics - and theories - that deserve ridicule (reaction)  - to me, it all sounds like typical internet crazy-fare when you start treating what I consider mere  colloquialisms as highly developed theories.  That goes for both sides of the argument.

Your last paragraph is well-stated and I agree. 

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Wow.  And here I thought it was just an imformal  phrase that implied "a political term originating in the United States referring to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice.^[1] It derives from the African-American Vernacular English expression "stay woke", whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

This - along with renewed sensitivity to sexual abuse - is my perception of the term.  And assuming it's real - which is doubtful - it's long overdue.  I certainly didn't realize it was such an insidious, organized political movement.

Frankly, with all due respect, that first paragraph sounds like a bunch of conspiratorial, bull****, over-reaction, propagated by reactionary wackos.  It's typical internet crazy fare.  Your cited source - "New Discourses" (https://newdiscourses.com) - only tends to affirm that.   (But I'll be sure to buy some more ammunition, just in case. )

Your last paragraph is well-stated and I agree. 

 

Well, I disagree with you about the Woke Movement. I can respect that you don't agree with me, as the ability to disagree and still remain civil is something I fundamentally believe in.

I do not think the assessments about Social Justice Theory are conspiratorial. To me, a conspiracy implies an insidious intent. I don't think those who subscribe to Social Justice Theory are bad people AT ALL. I think they mean really well, but their solutions to societal issues will only end up doing more harm than good. History is full of examples where good intentions and bad ideas have pernicious effects.

I don't think I'm being "reactionary" when Science Magazine is shutting down for a day to comply with the demands of the Woke movement, even going so far as to use the hash tag #ShutDownSTEM. Stating the idea that "Science is Racist." I also don't think I'm being "reactionary" when we see examples of this creeping totalitarianism plunge Seattle and Portland into chaos. The New Republic came out with an article recently stating that we should abolish the Constitution. In discussing the Founding Fathers, they state, "It is beyond debate that we are their moral superiors." (i.e., the radical left think they are morally superior to the founders). Now, the Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they laid a blueprint for society that was pivotal in seeing the greatest progress in human history. It wasn't pretty and it wasn't as quick as it should've been, but the progress was undeniable. Liberal ideals (the ones mentioned in my first post) were pivotal in creating the most free and tolerant societies ever, and these ideologues think they should be allowed to abolish the Constitution because they are the self-proclaimed morally superior? I'm sorry, but that level of arrogance and cognitive distortion is preposterous.

Academia is riddled with this ideology, and it's found its way into big tech. It's only a matter of time before it starts influencing policy. You may disagree with me, but throwing out the label of "reactionary wackos" is an ad hominem response, rather than truly addressing the argument.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Well, I disagree with you about the Woke Movement. I can respect that you don't agree with me, as the ability to disagree and still remain civil is something I fundamentally believe in.

I do not think the assessments about Social Justice Theory are conspiratorial. To me, a conspiracy implies an insidious intent. I don't think those who subscribe to Social Justice Theory are bad people AT ALL. I think they mean really well, but their solutions to societal issues will only end up doing more harm than good. History is full of examples where good intentions and bad ideas have pernicious effects.

I don't think I'm being "reactionary" when Science Magazine is shutting down for a day to comply with the demands of the Woke movement, even going so far as to use the hash tag #ShutDownSTEM. Stating the idea that "Science is Racist." I also don't think I'm being "reactionary" when we see examples of this creeping totalitarianism plunge Seattle and Portland into chaos. The New Republic came out with an article recently stating that we should abolish the Constitution. In discussing the Founding Fathers, they state, "It is beyond debate that we are their moral superiors." (i.e., the radical left think they are morally superior to the founders). Now, the Founding Fathers were far from perfect, but they laid a blueprint for society that was pivotal in seeing the greatest progress in human history. It wasn't pretty and it wasn't as quick as it should've been, but the progress was undeniable. Liberal ideals (the ones mentioned in my first post) were pivotal in creating the most free and tolerant societies ever, and these ideologues think they should be allowed to abolish the Constitution because they are the self-proclaimed morally superior? I'm sorry, but that level of arrogance and cognitive distortion is preposterous.

Academia is riddled with this ideology, and it's found its way into big tech. It's only a matter of time before it starts influencing policy. You may disagree with me, but throwing out the label of "reactionary wackos" is an ad hominem response, rather than truly addressing the argument.

I am still waiting for him to address some of my arguments, so don't hold your breath!!🙄