2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, that's TOTALLY what I do.  And then I put them in a folder marked "SECRET IMPORTANT STUFF - DO NOT LOOK AT THIS!"

I have a folder in my email labeled- Important shit.  But it's not secret important shit.  That's the folder labeled RV warranties and shit. 

[BrickHorn 18194]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Capitalism can be a force and wealth multiplier -- it can CREATE additional wealth.  That's good.  More wealth makes it much more likely to produce a healthier, more prosperous society.  But if it is treated as a wealth creator only by one segment (the top tier), and a zero-sum game with respect to all other tiers (lower and middle classes), then it utterly fails in the goal of producing a healthier, wealthier SOCIETY.

And unchecked, capitalism can absolutely ravage the planet. It’s the tragedy of the commons. Capitalism encourages the imposition of enormous externalities in the quest for private gains. The foundational premise of capitalism—that the free market most efficiently directs capital to its highest and best use—is only possible through regulation that places the true cost of a capitalist enterprise on the investors. Otherwise, the market is run by pillagers writing checks on others’ accounts.

[Hank Chinaski 6310]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The most frustrating thing about this conversation today is we know exactly what works because we’ve done it before.  The boomer generation had it all but failed appreciate what had been given to them. The American dream was more real for them than any generation in our history but they insist on believing the paths to prosperity are just as easy today as they were back then, or they falsely believe the only road blocks today are the populations that get demonized and scapegoated by politicians. 

I often think about how a key element of the widespread prosperity (and opportunity) of post-WWII America was the tax code - particularly the top tax bracket rates - under that socialist Eisenhower. This rate fell and fell as the Boomers came of age, and the middle class shrunk and shrunk. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Vietnam policy=disaster that broadened the war. Also plenty of evidence that he undermined Johnson's attempt  at a peace accord for fear it would damage Nixon's chances of being elected in 1968. Le Duc Tho of N. Vietnam refused his Nobel Peace Prize because he didn't think the peace accord he hammered out with Kissinger would actually bring peace. He was right.

Latin American policy=muderous disaster that had us overthrowing elected government, training death squads, supporting murderous dictators. Kissinger cannot travel to many countries because he'd be arrested for crimes against humanity.

Economic policy=disaster. Nixonomics actually meant the unprecedented combination of high unemployment and inflation. It wasn't just a term applied to the time he was president as it is mistakenly done now.

Cold War Policy=Fair. Pretty much a continuation of the bi-partisan anti-Red position. Him recognizing China was, as one pundit put it, the equivalent of recognizing the Pacific Ocean. Still, it was a good move even if overrated.

Protest Policy=Law and Order frenzy. Heads busted, Kent State, domestic spying, enemies lists, IRS abuse.

FBI=Corrupted. Patrick Gray, director of the FBI, hides incriminating evidence against Nixon in his underwear drawer before burning it in the backyard.

 

Nixon had die hard adherents. He left office with about 25% still backing him. A columnist from the International Wall Street Journal whom I happened to meet in 1994 was still arguing that Nixon was done in by a hostile press. Trump will get the same support from his deplorables who can't be bothered to read and believe a newspaper article with pictures.

Nixon recognizing China is like recognizing the Pacific Ocean is a pretty good line.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.

Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.

But that's a digression. I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

Capitalism and socialism should act as a check and balance to each other. The problem with this country since the Reagan Revolution reset the Overton Window is capitalism is seen as the answer to everything.

[Bookman 4610]

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4f33717c-7bc7-4b44-8e91-4b8ff9cc4be7

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I mean, America is a fundamentally right of center nation.  It’s just that the traditional right of center party has become a hard right party. 

This is a really interesting point.  I wonder if that's still true. Or- I wonder what happens when people like Brisket or LL refuse to ever vote GOP again b/c of Trump and what happens if the Dems get hijacked by the loons on the far end of the spectrum- do those kind of people come back? Or do they just keep giving a blank check if they lose at the primary level and say- well- at least that's not the legacy party of Trump.

In other words- are we a center right country where the suburbs are turned off by a shittastic Trump and things will shift back to being in play- or are those voters permanently turned off and always going blue- enabling governance to be well left of where the country is, or a third question- is your suspicion that America is a center right country wrong- and are we going to drift ever more leftward?

Right now- near as I can tell- the AA voting bloc is keeping the Dem's somewhat teehtered to the middle ish- but if left to the white liberals and young the inclination would be to get really really liberal.

And- if it's the last- does it really matter or did the framers set up enough roadblocks to getting shit done that no government will ever be able to govern in a super liberal way.

That's more just stuff I'm interested in moving forward- after an election season- that I'd be interested in talking with people on here about- not for this thread but marking it.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Not a single thing you've just said in any way, shape, or form remotely contradicts anything I've proposed. You're stuck in a similar parochial view of what "fiscally conservative" means that you tried to mock in your original post saying people are stuck in a 1950's mindset. And that's on you, which is shitty because you're doing the same thing. And it creates a "your team" partisan divide. 

I literally said blow up the tax code. I said fix the debt. Make companies pay more. Fuck, let the US government take a stake in companies when they're leveraging our systems or tech. I don't give a fuck. Because I'm a fiscal conservative, I want everyone to pay their fair share, and I want that share not to be set on fire by a bunch of disphit irresponsible pork and fuckery. Because I'm a fiscal conservative. On a personal level, that means I don't like carrying debt and I like to spend my money well. You've made a wonderful post that in no way invalidates anything I said. I agree with most of it, almost all of it. 

Fix the problem. Fix all the problems. Spend better. Because I'm a fiscal conservative. And no that doesn't mean tighten my fucking belt. It means spend our money better because I believe there's more than enough of it to go around. 

I apologize, when I hear folks claim to be fiscally conservative, it triggers something in my brain that leads me to believe they’re deficit hawks and prioritize money over the general well-being of society.  That’s on me.  I guess I’ve heard too many libertarian/GOP politicians win elections with the “I’m a fiscal conservative” talking point which I interpret as, “I will reject any new spending the democrats want to do.”  

It’s the “but how are you going to pay for it?!?” people. The folks that refuse to entertain ideas that ultimately reduce costs because they have an intimidating up front price tag.  They see government spending as a liability to be squashed instead of potential investment to ultimately improve the quality of life across society. 

Again my bad but you don’t have to be a dick about it. 

[G650 14106]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I apologize, when I hear folks claim to be fiscally conservative, it triggers something in my brain that leads me to believe they’re deficit hawks and prioritize money over the general well-being of society.  That’s on me.  I guess I’ve heard too many libertarian/GOP politicians win elections with the “I’m a fiscal conservative” talking point which I interpret as, “I will reject any new spending the democrats want to do.”  

It’s the “but how are you going to pay for it?!?” people. The folks that refuse to entertain ideas that ultimately reduce costs because they have an intimidating up front price tag.  They see government spending as a liability to be squashed instead of potential investment to ultimately improve the quality of life across society. 

Again my bad but you don’t have to be a dick about it. 

I mean, you aren't wrong there. A shitload of people lie about it and use it to justify bullshit. But that fact doesn't erase that it can be a legitimate position.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is there anything Hunter Biden has been accused of doing that hasn't knowingly been topped by a Trump kid except 10X worse?

Probably not?

I always figured the Hunter Biden shit wouldn't go there b/c it's typical graft and bullshit all politicians do to feather their nest but on a small enough level to not shock the conscience or upset anyone.  Trump saw that and decided- fuck it- I'm going to take business as normal in that regard and add a couple zeros to it.  

[Huckleberry 32701]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Again my bad but you don’t have to be a dick about it. 

What site do you think you're on? 

[Biff Tannen 45494]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This isn't an argument about whether the plane should go to destination X or destination Y -- it's just about keeping the plane from crashing into the goddamn mountain.

[hayden_horn 11360]

53 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

LBJ is the last of the great presidents for me. Vietnam was a sure disaster.  Clinton, as some colmnist pointed out at the time, never really had a great issue to deal with. I imagine he might have changed the world had 9/11 happened on his watch. Imagine what an able president could have done with that outpouring of world support for the US. HW Bush would likely have served well in that moment as well.

Trump makes Nixon look better because he does point out the difference between a malign idiot with no regard for the country and a villain looking to maintain power who actually did care about the country and had a notion of what a president should be. Nixon opted for a divisive, racist strategy but my guess is that he likely thought it would all be for the best in the long run. He bothered to rationalize his wicked acts where Trump feels no need to account for anything he does or says.

i would argue that johnson was the ultimate pragmatist and he inherited vietnam from kennedy, and that situation was really inherited from eisenhower as part of the overall de-imperializing of the world. vietnam wasn't a thing that blew up in the sixties, it was really a slow moving train wreck. stopping that locomotive really required public perception to shift. i think johnson did his best, but he also needed certain votes on certain other policy positions that he deemed important. to say he traded american military lives for civil rights is an unfair castigation of the man, but he still did plenty of great things despite not pulling out of vietnam. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

It's funny you mention abortion rights as a non winnable position when the Republicans are about to tilt the Supreme Court so they can overturn Roe V Wade and go after abortion rights throughout the country.  These battles were won but not the war as the Republicans figured out a way to take their minority views in this country and turn them into laws that the majority do not want. 

I'd be literally 100% shocked if the court turned a minority view on abortion into a law. The BEST I can hope for- as a social conservative- is them turning it over to the states who then would legislate on it. If it goes to the state legislature to govern then you aren't going to have minority viewpoint in that state turned into a law- at least not in a way that is sustainable past the next election- you are going to have that states majority opinion being put into law. But- I fully expect like Charlie Brown kicking a football- for nothing to be done.  

[Brisketexan 104612]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i would argue that johnson was the ultimate pragmatist and he inherited vietnam from kennedy, and that situation was really inherited from eisenhower as part of the overall de-imperializing of the world. vietnam wasn't a thing that blew up in the sixties, it was really a slow moving train wreck. stopping that locomotive really required public perception to shift. i think johnson did his best, but he also needed certain votes on certain other policy positions that he deemed important. to say he traded american military lives for civil rights is an unfair castigation of the man, but he still did plenty of great things despite not pulling out of vietnam. 

Sure, maybe all of this.  But, I mean, he indirectly led to Jenny getting beaten, and that really sucks.....

[Dahobbs 17447]

5 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I'd be literally 100% shocked if the court turned a minority view on abortion into a law. The BEST I can hope for- as a social conservative- is them turning it over to the states who then would legislate on it. If it goes to the state legislature to govern then you aren't going to have minority viewpoint in that state turned into a law- at least not in a way that is sustainable past the next election- you are going to have that states majority opinion being put into law. But- I fully expect like Charlie Brown kicking a football- for nothing to be done.  

Uh, turning it over to the states is exactly the minority view point. The majority view point is enshrined in Roe v. Wade; abortion is constitutionally protected, including from action by individual states.  

Edited October 14, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Fix the problem. Fix all the problems. Spend better. Because I'm a fiscal conservative. And no that doesn't mean tighten my fucking belt. It means spend our money better because I believe there's more than enough of it to go around. 

This is where you and I disagree. I think you are just dead wrong- and I'd point to how little discretionary money we have to spend. I think this is wishful thinking.  Like- give me ice cream for desert b/c it burns calories and gives me abs.  

I'd support a platform of finding out if this is true or not- but you'd literally have to wipe the board clear on all your entitlements to have the chance to do anything.  And maybe we should do that in a sane world- zero base budget and flush it and start over every year.  But something tells me that would be so incredibly painful and destructive while we tried to figure it out to the least among us that it's just totally and completely something that couldn't even be tried even if we were all in agreement (and we aren't) that we should try such an approach.  

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

It can easily happen. Put someone like Bernie Sanders versus someone like Mitt Romney and watch how quicky a lot of these people move back to the GOP. 

And that's what I was fleshing out when I was responding to Bates horn upthread. That's going to be realllllllllllly interesting to see play out in 4 or 8 or 12 years if sanity ever returns to the GOP and if the Dems keep winning and pushing the limits to the left. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

LBJ is the last of the great presidents for me. Vietnam was a sure disaster.  Clinton, as some colmnist pointed out at the time, never really had a great issue to deal with. I imagine he might have changed the world had 9/11 happened on his watch. Imagine what an able president could have done with that outpouring of world support for the US. HW Bush would likely have served well in that moment as well.

Trump makes Nixon look better because he does point out the difference between a malign idiot with no regard for the country and a villain looking to maintain power who actually did care about the country and had a notion of what a president should be. Nixon opted for a divisive, racist strategy but my guess is that he likely thought it would all be for the best in the long run. He bothered to rationalize his wicked acts where Trump feels no need to account for anything he does or says.

A lot I disagree with in here and a lot to really like in here.  Good post. 

[RomaVicta 29786]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Right. And I didn't vote for him in 2016. 

As for the rest, I'm just not as politically left as a lot of you and don't see these things as zero sum. There's a lot of shit on the left that I'm not fond of, either. I respect the views that y'all have here - it's just a little too much for me. Hence why I'm never on this forum. 

But, after reading some of the thoughts here I'm probably closer to straight dem than putting in a split ballot. 

I appreciate you seeking out other opinions. Many people advising you to vote Dem are themselves former GOPs. I'm a Dem, but I don't think that's much to be proud about. It's just a position.

Know this: voting left of your general philosophy need not be a permanent position. I suspect most of the former GOPs on here would like a party that represented their philosophy in actuality. I wish that party existed, too. I don't want to vanquish the traditional values of the right that include limiting government and being careful about spending. We should be moving along the spectrum not trying to destroy part of that spectrum.

Voting out the current GOPs actually gets you closer to creating a party that represents you. Don't become a Dem, but spit out this foul thing that calls itself the GOP. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

And that's what I was fleshing out when I was responding to Bates horn upthread. That's going to be realllllllllllly interesting to see play out in 4 or 8 or 12 years if sanity ever returns to the GOP and if the Dems keep winning and pushing the limits to the left. 

What makes you think sanity will return to the GOP given the fucking lunatics with a death grip on the party right now?

[Dutchrudder 11115]

Early voted today, first time in my life voting for a Democrat for President.

It was super easy, in and out in 10 minutes. I really hope people take advantage of early voting instead of doing the mail-in ballots, it could change the outcome of the election and the inevitable challenges certainly coming from the Republicans. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

42 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Good, I can pick on a Dem this time. Truman was key in setting up what Gore Vidal called the National Security State where the people of the US were stirred up by fear to support huge expenditures on the military and crackdowns on their fellow citizens. Truman creates the military industrial complex that Eisenhower recognized and brilliantly warned against. I recall reading something or seeing on TV a dismissal of Eisenhower's warning when I was a kid in the late 60s. 

Truman had admirable traits and was no villain, but he set us up for the paranoid, stupid, scared, and violent country that we've become.

He also rebuilt Europe, ended the war with Japan in probably the most horrific but least bloody way possible and didn't squander the prosperity America had coming it's way as the one super power that wasn't absolutely decimated by the war.  And all of that without really being fed any information and showing up as president on the day FDR died with no real idea of anything going on, and working a machine of weirdness FDR set up for his own personal amusement and unique idiosyncratic tendencies. 
Truman had a ridiculously difficult environment he stepped into and he did it with a level of competence that I'd give Nixon, GHWB and LBJ  the only Veeps in the past 100 years I think would have performed nearly as well.  

[Beau Vine 54001]

9 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

What makes you think sanity will return to the GOP given the fucking lunatics with a death grip on the party right now?

That's not going to happen until they completely clean house.  And by "clean house" I mean "burn the fucking house to the ground with all of the assholes inside of it."

[TwiceHorn 31275]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

I'm pretty left of center, but it seems hard to argue against capitalism being capable of serving as a beneficial component of a thriving society. Somebody like Jeff Bezos, as much as we on the left criticize his huge hoarding of wealth, has basically built a small country's economy from scratch, employing a ton of people along the way, all while simultaneously improving our nation's logistical network immeasurably. The public good has been even more obvious during the pandemic.

Most former conservatives probably already know this, but I think a lot of the younger leftists would benefit from a reminder that capitalists can actually create value; and when they do, the wealth they accumulate for themselves is itself just a portion of a much larger benefit they bring to society. Sure, it sucks that Amazon has driven out a lot of mom and pop stores, and Bezos really could provide health care for every employee that doesn't have it without any meaningful decline in his standard of living, but the American citizen still won, in aggregate.

But that's a digression. I think that America is in the process of finding out that capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy just like communism. When a society shifts towards sustaining a small ruling class of people who have no experience creating value, the invisible hand can no longer function properly. Capitalism relies on the assumption that your competitors will punish bad decision making, which doesn't hold when there is a system in place that puts unqualified people at the top of every company, including your competitors.

IMO the conservative movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently beneficial, rather than just one component of a thriving society, and the progressive movement got duped into believing that capitalism is inherently harmful.

Great post.

"Capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy" is one of the best phrases ever posted on the longhorn intergoogles.

[ztejas 43266]

10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I appreciate you seeking out other opinions. Many people advising you to vote Dem are themselves former GOPs. I'm a Dem, but I don't think that's much to be proud about. It's just a position.

Know this: voting left of your general philosophy need not be a permanent position. I suspect most of the former GOPs on here would like a party that represented their philosophy in actuality. I wish that party existed, too. I don't want to vanquish the traditional values of the right that include limiting government and being careful about spending. We should be moving along the spectrum not trying to destroy part of that spectrum.

Voting out the current GOPs actually gets you closer to creating a party that represents you. Don't become a Dem, but spit out this foul thing that calls itself the GOP. 

Yes. And I get that. It's a big reason why I'm voting Biden. Texas going blue would be a great kick in the nuts to tell the GOP to get its shit together.

[Brisketexan 104612]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Know this: voting left of your general philosophy need not be a permanent position.

Focusing on this statement because it's important.  Sometimes, you need to steer in a particular direction for a course correction.

I try to keep my driving in a pretty straight line.  But if I drift over to the right, and get too close to the ditch, it would be stupid of me to say "but I don't want to turn my wheel left, I just want to go straight".....because continuing on a straight line puts me in the ditch.  I need to steer left a bit (and I need to turn the wheel farther left than I would on an ordinary travel course of being well within my lane), to get me back to where I need to be -- in a safe lane of travel.

We've lurched to an irrational and dangerous far-right trajectory -- so far right that it actually imperils our ability to continue to travel safely.  Time to course-correct like a motherfucker.

[Dbeasy 14969]

We can absolutely be liberal socially and fiscally responsible and anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.

[Brisketexan 104612]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Great post.

"Capitalism can be lethally injected with oligarchy" is one of the best phrases ever posted on the longhorn intergoogles.

Gagreed.  And I think I'll be appropriating it for future use, without attribution or credit to the author.....because capitalism free of regulation (like copyright and shit) RULES.

[Brisketexan 104612]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

We can absolutely be liberal socially and fiscally responsible and anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.

The devil is in the definition of "fiscally responsible."

I mean, I once had a ratio of household debt to GDP of around 1:1 (took out a mortgage that was about the amount of my annual income).  Is that fiscally responsible?  Irresponsible?

Having debt isn't fiscally irresponsible for a country.  What you get in return for that debt, how you manage it, and how you control its level and rate of growth, are all really important in evaluating "responsibility."  For example, we went into HUGE debt once.....in order to finance a two-front world war in the 1940s.  We borrowed a lot, but we got a lot in return.  It was a fiscally responsible plunge into very high debt.

Enacting a giant high-end tax cut -- a time-honored means of injecting fuel directly into the economic engine when it's faltering (like in a recession) -- is fiscally irresponsible when times are good (especially because you've now burned that tool, and it won't be available if a recession hits later).  It may be fiscally responsible when needed as a direct fuel injection during a recession.

In my experience, most people don't have any real idea what they mean when they say "fiscally responsible" with respect to the government.  They end up focusing on minutiae (welfare queens!) and utterly missing the big ticket items that don't yield great returns (sorry, bloated defense budget).

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

19 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

What makes you think sanity will return to the GOP given the fucking lunatics with a death grip on the party right now?

Two things:

1) I said if- it's certainly not a position I'm staking out as it will absolutely happen- call it optimism on my part- maybe misplaced

2) Losing elections- especially in really humiliating fashion- has a tendency to get a point across in a way that might otherwise take.  Bozo is right when he talks about parties not being ideological but based on putting together winning coalitions.  No party wants to be swept into the dust bin of history- so at some point in time I think if the GOP keeps getting it's ass kicked it will self correct.  But maybe not. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Two things:

1) I said if- it's certainly not a position I'm staking out as it will absolutely happen- call it optimism on my part- maybe misplaced

2) Losing elections- especially in really humiliating fashion- has a tendency to get a point across in a way that might otherwise take.  Bozo is right when he talks about parties not being ideological but based on putting together winning coalitions.  No party wants to be swept into the dust bin of history- so at some point in time I think if the GOP keeps getting it's ass kicked it will self correct.  But maybe not. 

As long as Trumpists represent a plurality of the base, they will hold sway over the GOP.

It could potentially be 2 decades before Trumpists die off enough to reinvent the Republican party.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Rasmussen has Biden over trump 50-45. That spells blowout. 

[Brisketexan 104612]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No party wants to be swept into the dust bin of history- so at some point in time I think if the GOP keeps getting it's ass kicked it will self correct.  But maybe not. 

1) cults don't self-correct.

2) the GOP has insured that its voting base is almost entirely such a cult.

When you hand over your keys to fucking nuttery, you can't just snatch them back.  You are the party of nuttery, headed where insane people go.  Enjoy the ride.  

[conVINCEd 21468]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Two things:

1) I said if- it's certainly not a position I'm staking out as it will absolutely happen- call it optimism on my part- maybe misplaced

2) Losing elections- especially in really humiliating fashion- has a tendency to get a point across in a way that might otherwise take.  Bozo is right when he talks about parties not being ideological but based on putting together winning coalitions.  No party wants to be swept into the dust bin of history- so at some point in time I think if the GOP keeps getting it's ass kicked it will self correct.  But maybe not. 

The problem with 2 is that the sort of folks who would guide the self correction won’t make it out of the R primary.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) cults don't self-correct.

2) the GOP has insured that its voting base is almost entirely such a cult.

When you hand over your keys to fucking nuttery, you can't just snatch them back.  You are the party of nuttery, headed where insane people go.  Enjoy the ride.  

I agree with this.  The people who would ordinarily guide the GOP back have all left.  They're now either Democrats or independents.  

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

5 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

As long as Trumpists represent a plurality of the base, they will hold sway over the GOP.

It could potentially be 2 decades before Trumpists die off enough to reinvent the Republican party.

Maybe. Or maybe an asskicking or two clarifies things right quick and in a hurry.  Trump (correctly) described what he did as a hostile takeover of the GOP.  That doesn't mean he will remain king of the hill forever, especially if he gets his ass kicked now.  We shall see. I'm not saying it will go down like that I'm saying it might.  The guy nominated before Trump was Romney, about as boring, middle of the road and probably competent, as you are going to get.  He lost and the party lurched to Trump. Maybe if Trump gets got in a big way like I think the party lurches back. Maybe not. I just don't see it written in stone that it's his party for the next 2 decades. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) cults don't self-correct.

2) the GOP has insured that its voting base is almost entirely such a cult.

When you hand over your keys to fucking nuttery, you can't just snatch them back.  You are the party of nuttery, headed where insane people go.  Enjoy the ride.  

You are speaking in absolutes and you don't know what the future portends. And for the fucking 100th time it's not my party and there's nothing I'm enjoying about the ride it's decided to take. I'd like for it to be my party but literally, as I've said on here 100 times, my #1 voting issue with anyone that comes up into the party was did you bow and scrape before Trump? If so I'm not voting for you.  I have precious few people left I could cast a vote for in 2024. Maybe I will get lucky.  Probably not. But you don't know that with the certainty you speak with. 

[Storm the Field 5273]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Rasmussen has Biden over trump 50-45. That spells blowout. 

They actually had it 52-40 last week. This is part of their usual schtick. It'll probably be closer next week. Then, magically, they'll end up about 1-2 to the right of the consensus polling average in their final release pre-election.

 

 

[tigol 2383]

That’s surprising to me. Lots of houston folks and austin folks moving to Wimberley and Dripping Springs. I wouldn’t have expected it to be so stark. 

It surprised me, too, and I’ve lived in Wimberley for over 7 years. Then, a freaking “Trump Train” started rolling through my neighborhood every Sunday and “All Lives Matter” signs popped up. The Nextdoor messages are hateful.

However, I think it may be in response to younger families moving here and shifting the demographics. Some old folks are very scared and telling people to “move back to Austin.” I think they are the vocal minority at this point. May be wishful thinking.

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Maybe. Or maybe an asskicking or two clarifies things right quick and in a hurry.  Trump (correctly) described what he did as a hostile takeover of the GOP.  That doesn't mean he will remain king of the hill forever, especially if he gets his ass kicked now.  We shall see. I'm not saying it will go down like that I'm saying it might.  The guy nominated before Trump was Romney, about as boring, middle of the road and probably competent, as you are going to get.  He lost and the party lurched to Trump. Maybe if Trump gets got in a big way like I think the party lurches back. Maybe not. I just don't see it written in stone that it's his party for the next 2 decades. 

Wulaw, I like you. However, you are wrong in this case. The inmates are running the asylum, and they've killed the prison guards and locked themselves in.

[tigol 2383]

I'd wager that a lot of the draw is people believing the marketing plans and buying their Hill Country "ranchette" so they can get away from the big city libs. And the Drip is heavy evangelical. Mega churches are popping up left & right.

This is true. Dripping has a farmer’s market that is always packed with non-mask wearing folks. They did buy all of the damn TP from H-E-B in March, though. Sheeple.

[TwiceHorn 31275]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Gagreed.  And I think I'll be appropriating it for future use, without attribution or credit to the author.....because capitalism free of regulation (like copyright and shit) RULES.

Libertarian!!

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Wulaw, I like you. However, you are wrong in this case. The inmates are running the asylum, and they've killed the prison guards and locked themselves in.

Look man- I'm not arguing one way or another on what happens. I'm arguing that it can't be known with metaphysical certainty that you or Brisket are right about what will happen?  might it? Sure. Might that be the way I'd bet with a gun to my head?  Probably.  But it's not set in stone or anything and I always believe that pain is the greatest teacher of all, and losing elections in spectacular fashion is painful and should work to teach lessons. 

[Horndog 2218]

Let's assume Trump loses this year - a reasonable assumption based on current polling.  Does he run again in 2024?  If not, does Don Jr. or Ivanka?  A defeated Trump will be the most annoying ex-President ever and will do anything possible to garner attention.  The Trump base (as a subgroup of the GOP base) is not going away, and will coalesce around whatever incarnation of Trump is the current flavor of the week. 

[Texaspython 231]

1 minute ago, Horndog said:

Let's assume Trump loses this year - a reasonable assumption based on current polling.  Does he run again in 2024?  If not, does Don Jr. or Ivanka?  A defeated Trump will be the most annoying ex-President ever and will do anything possible to garner attention.  The Trump base (as a subgroup of the GOP base) is not going away, and will coalesce around whatever incarnation of Trump is the current flavor of the week. 

Yup, be prepared to be shocked by whatever media deal he signs.

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

1 minute ago, Horndog said:

Let's assume Trump loses this year - a reasonable assumption based on current polling.  Does he run again in 2024?  If not, does Don Jr. or Ivanka?  A defeated Trump will be the most annoying ex-President ever and will do anything possible to garner attention.  The Trump base (as a subgroup of the GOP base) is not going away, and will coalesce around whatever incarnation of Trump is the current flavor of the week. 

I don't know, but there can be a lot grift in building presidential library.

[ndawg 1242]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Gagreed.  And I think I'll be appropriating it for future use, without attribution or credit to the author.....because capitalism free of regulation (like copyright and shit) RULES.

I mean, if I got credit for the occasional wit, I'd also deserve criticism for any stupidity posted elsewhere... so I'm happy with this arrangement...

Edited October 14, 2020 by ndawg

[Sawbonz 27434]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Is that fiscally responsible?  Irresponsible?

Definitely responsible since it came with a coyote proof spiral staircase 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

2 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Let's assume Trump loses this year - a reasonable assumption based on current polling.  Does he run again in 2024?  If not, does Don Jr. or Ivanka?  A defeated Trump will be the most annoying ex-President ever and will do anything possible to garner attention.  The Trump base (as a subgroup of the GOP base) is not going away, and will coalesce around whatever incarnation of Trump is the current flavor of the week. 

On some level it has to depend on results, right?  If it's a massive loss that should be a disqualifier. If it's a massive loss and the GOP is still the party of Trump in 2024 and it's a massive loss then you'd have enough data points to think they'd get the point.  Also, is Trump in jail? Dead?  lots of shit can happen but that's certainly the ugliest timeline.