Post-Trump.

[Torus34]

Trump is the causal mechanism.

He has already reduced the number of pages in the Federal Registry of Regulations by about a third.

That is real removal of power from the zealots in Washington DC.

Hi! Thank you for your amusing comment.

Regards.

 

[TheParser]

I hope not.

But the Trump experience shows how it could happen.

We have never had a politicial leader who cultivated the cult of personality that Trump has.

His supporters blindly cheer for their “lifestyles of the rich and famou” image, and his chest beating jingoism. Racism gets its turn,

In a true mark of fascism, the cult of personality emphasizes the racism by promoting the notion that their supporters are victims of an “other” the must be dealt with. At the same time, the would be tyrant, is obsequious and fawning toward the money class, and makes sure the media is doing well promoting his message.

If you doubt the dark underbelly of American political culture, and if you feel (as I do), that this cult of personality that Trump has built could be a real threat to democracy in the hands of a smarter and more focused dictator, read Sinclair Lewis.

“It Can’t Happen Here” was written 80 years ago, but the story resonates easily in the present.

I think that many people agree with you.

Some people (including me), however, feel that the words in your fifth paragraph could also apply to the previous White House occupant.



Have a nice (Veterans') day.

 

[jnug]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

I don't think wiping out the 22nd helps anybody or anything either side of the aisle or even in the middle of the aisle and I doubt that would happen. I can see the current President simply refusing to leave based on some stab at an Election Fraud claim thus having to be carried out by the scruff of his neck.

As for lack of civility, discourse and compromise in the Halls of the Capitol, well they are not beating each other or laying a firearm on their desk when they arrive on the floor of either Chamber. We have had both in our past.

We will not salve our wounds overnight and the typical American impatience with everything is not going to help us. We need to resolve our inability to THINK which is at the heart of our inability to arrive at basic truths and then argue about what we should do as opposed to arguing about what is and what is not true. Climate Change is a good example. The discourse is over whether it exists and whether human impact is an issue as opposed to what actions we should take. While that is absurd, is simply tells you how absurd we have become.

Our Educational Institutions have become entirely frigged up both by the cost of Education, the reasons for Education and the results achieved in the form of too strong a bias toward direct impact on earnings potential over a life career. Even in my day (and I am old as dirt) the Humanities were being abandoned and Liberal Arts Majors were more often following a Political Science path as opposed to choosing one of the Humanities. Political Science teaches you how to formulate thought into political speech and political action. The Humanities teach you how to think.

During my long and now past career in business, I worked for Technology companies. While we had outstanding Engineers, EE's and ME's in the main, I was constantly confronted with their inability to think as well as their lack of historical perspective. If confronted with a problem that appeared "new" for them, they were constantly shuffling back to some text to tell them the processes they needed to pursue in order to arrive at a result, "ANY RESULT". Now even my field of expertise is dominated by technologists that know how to formulate polls and marketing campaigns for example but have no clue why they should formulate them.

The inability to think has given rise to this current [but not the first] era of popularism much enhanced by our bias toward celebrity fueled by instant access to media that bombards us with access to celebrities.

If we do not return to some balance between those more capable of thinking and those more capable of doing then we will not work our way out of this malaise. Our Educational structure regardless of whether or not we head for higher education is decidedly biased toward doing and away from thinking and for the most part that is why we are where we are.

The result is tolerance for a President that does not err occasionally or misspeak occasionally but that lies constantly, virtually every minute of every day and that takes out a sharpie and adds a bulbous piece to an official NWS/NOAA maps and the country arguing about it. IT WAS WRONG, horribly wrong and there should not have been any argument about that AT ALL. The result is a bias toward transactional politics from both sides of the political spectrum.

It probably took something like 30 years for us to arrive at this spot where we can do nothing but harangue at each other, maybe even 40 years. So, I am not optimistic about a short time horizon to getting back to a normalized level of discourse. However, as long as we do not destroy the framework of this Constitutional Republic, something that could happen if we continue on the path we are on, then we should be able to pull out of the ditch.

 

[TomFitz]

I think that many people agree with you.

Some people (including me), however, feel that the words in your fifth paragraph could also apply to the previous White House occupant.



Have a nice (Veterans') day.

Yes, some people do that.

But Trump is the one of the two who asked his followers to pledge alliegance to himself, not the country.

And Trump is the only one of the two who openly mused about extending his term beyond the election without an election.

Not that that would change anyone’s mind.

The point is that a large number of people could be persuaded to follow a political golden idol, and cheer as that person dismantled democracy.

Trump supporters have cheered for all of Trump’s openly anti democratic notions.

It is possible that a charismatic leader from the left, with visions of absolute power, might do the same thing.

The folks who thought Barack Obama was that person have long since been proven wrong. But that doesn’t guarantee the future.

 

[code1211]

Hi! Thank you for your amusing comment.

Regards.

The reality is this: The only way to reduce the power of Washington is to reduce the tools they have access to to effect their control.

By reducing the number of regulations at their disposal, Trump has literally reduced their power to enforce control on the people. This effectively moves power out of Washington.

Are you really unable to connect these dots? Trump is the causal mechanism. If he was not, the Washington elites, regardless of party affiliation, would not be so anxious to stop him.

 

[Perotista]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

The polarization and ultra high partisanship we see today isn't going anywhere in the near future. I agree that the lurches between extreme right and extreme left will become commonplace especially with the advent of the nuclear options for appointments which will lead to the end of the filibuster for legislation shortly. A president and both chambers of congress can and will lurch this country to the most extreme left or right positions. Our country will suffer for it.

Of course we've been heading this way long before Trump. It sped up big time during Obama with Reid's first use of the nuclear option although partisanship and the unwillingness to compromise, to play the game of give and take was already well established. Then it seems we have broken the sound barrier with Trump.

The only goal of our major parties is to completely stop anything and everything the other party wants or proposes. The merits of the proposal isn't even considered, just who proposes it. Far as I'm concerned our present political system has completely broken down. It doesn't serve the public or America as a whole anymore, just each major political party. I see little to no hope for the future.

As for the 22nd Amendment, I always thought it should be repealed or revoked. 3rd or 4th term, let the people decide.

 

[TomFitz]

The polarization and ultra high partisanship we see today isn't going anywhere in the near future. I agree that the lurches between extreme right and extreme left will become commonplace especially with the advent of the nuclear options for appointments which will lead to the end of the filibuster for legislation shortly. A president and both chambers of congress can and will lurch this country to the most extreme left or right positions. Our country will suffer for it.

Of course we've been heading this way long before Trump. It sped up big time during Obama with Reid's first use of the nuclear option although partisanship and the unwillingness to compromise, to play the game of give and take was already well established. Then it seems we have broken the sound barrier with Trump.

The only goal of our major parties is to completely stop anything and everything the other party wants or proposes. The merits of the proposal isn't even considered, just who proposes it. Far as I'm concerned our present political system has completely broken down. It doesn't serve the public or America as a whole anymore, just each major political party. I see little to no hope for the future.

As for the 22nd Amendment, I always thought it should be repealed or revoked. 3rd or 4th term, let the people decide.

You make a number of worthwhile points.

But the idea that this sort of thing started with Harry Reid’s nuclear option is clearly not the place to cite as the origin.

No, hyperpartisanship was the platform Newt Gingrich built has political career on in the 1980’s. His partisan rants to empty Congress chambers put him on the map, and offended the sensibilities of politicians long used to a certain amount of public sniping, but whom were also used to bipartisanship operation while respecting each other’s differences.

Gingrich ended that as speaker, and his successors, particularly Dennis Hastert supercharged it.

The Clinton impeachment was a total exercise in hyper partisan politics.

And the rise of one note right wing talk radio and cable TV shout shouts, only made it worse.

Frankly, I think the only speeding up that occurred during the Obama years was the right wing’s clearly racist obsession with the black man in the White House (which is still ongoing, just listen to Trump).

The nuclear option was a mistake. I did not agree with it at the time.

But then, McConnell’s decision to deprive a sitting President of a Supreme Court nomination (which you seemed to have conveniently forgotten) didn’t help either.

I think that what Reid did, and what the next Democratic Senate leader ought to do, is bring back to talking filibuster.

I want to see Meadows, Kennedy, Gohmert, and Jordan on television for hour after hour, defending the regressive, unpopular positions that the GOP clings to.

 

[jnug]

The polarization and ultra high partisanship we see today isn't going anywhere in the near future. I agree that the lurches between extreme right and extreme left will become commonplace especially with the advent of the nuclear options for appointments which will lead to the end of the filibuster for legislation shortly. A president and both chambers of congress can and will lurch this country to the most extreme left or right positions. Our country will suffer for it.

Of course we've been heading this way long before Trump. It sped up big time during Obama with Reid's first use of the nuclear option although partisanship and the unwillingness to compromise, to play the game of give and take was already well established. Then it seems we have broken the sound barrier with Trump.

The only goal of our major parties is to completely stop anything and everything the other party wants or proposes. The merits of the proposal isn't even considered, just who proposes it. Far as I'm concerned our present political system has completely broken down. It doesn't serve the public or America as a whole anymore, just each major political party. I see little to no hope for the future.

As for the 22nd Amendment, I always thought it should be repealed or revoked. 3rd or 4th term, let the people decide.

3rd or 4th term Presidents MIGHT have been OK before we had a President running roughshod over Article 1. At this point we are going to have to clear away the wreckage of Trumpism and either cobble laws that replace norms or go back to norms. The Courts are already ripping Trumpkin a new butt hole, not that it has stopped him. Why should he stop? He is not paying for all of this legal servicing. We are.

My earlier prediction for what DonDon would cost us was woefully optimistic. I mused that 4 years of DonDon would cost us 25 years. He is well past that rate for 3 years. I would now calculate he has set us back 10 years for every year of his term. So 3 and 4 terms of that sort of nonsense and we are back to the 19th century.

 

[Perotista]

You make a number of worthwhile points.

But the idea that this sort of thing started with Harry Reid’s nuclear option is clearly not the place to cite as the origin.

No, hyperpartisanship was the platform Newt Gingrich built has political career on in the 1980’s. His partisan rants to empty Congress chambers put him on the map, and offended the sensibilities of politicians long used to a certain amount of public sniping, but whom were also used to bipartisanship operation while respecting each other’s differences.

Gingrich ended that as speaker, and his successors, particularly Dennis Hastert supercharged it.

The Clinton impeachment was a total exercise in hyper partisan politics.

And the rise of one note right wing talk radio and cable TV shout shouts, only made it worse.

Frankly, I think the only speeding up that occurred during the Obama years was the right wing’s clearly racist obsession with the black man in the White House (which is still ongoing, just listen to Trump).

The nuclear option was a mistake. I did not agree with it at the time.

But then, McConnell’s decision to deprive a sitting President of a Supreme Court nomination (which you seemed to have conveniently forgotten) didn’t help either.

I think that what Reid did, and what the next Democratic Senate leader ought to do, is bring back to talking filibuster.

I want to see Meadows, Kennedy, Gohmert, and Jordan on television for hour after hour, defending the regressive, unpopular positions that the GOP clings to.

I think I stated this polarization and ultra high partisanship had been heading this way long before Trump, that it sped up during Obama which now has broken the sound barrier under Trump. As for McConnell not allowing a vote on Garland, I have stated numerous times he should have. McConnell had the votes to deny Garland the nomination. It was probably out of spite he didn't allow the vote. Or payback for Schumer stating he wouldn't allow a vote on any Bush's SCOTUS nominees back in 2007.

Schumer in 2007: Block all Bush's picks

McConnell is the vengeful type. I also agree that the Bill Clinton impeachment was a one party partisan affair. Totally stupid, a total waste of time, energy and money. The filibuster is on its way out, 200 years of the senate protecting minority party rights thrown out the window by Reid. Huge mistake. But there is no going back.

The strange thing about Gingrich is he worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors to help Bill get his agenda through. This led to the Republican revolt against him and they ousted Gingrich out. I put the beginning on the Hastert rule. But regardless, Gingrich or Hastert or even Wright and his ultra high partisanship as Speaker. It was here and slowly moving forward.

 

[Torus34]

I don't think wiping out the 22nd helps anybody or anything either side of the aisle or even in the middle of the aisle and I doubt that would happen. I can see the current President simply refusing to leave based on some stab at an Election Fraud claim thus having to be carried out by the scruff of his neck.

As for lack of civility, discourse and compromise in the Halls of the Capitol, well they are not beating each other or laying a firearm on their desk when they arrive on the floor of either Chamber. We have had both in our past.

We will not salve our wounds overnight and the typical American impatience with everything is not going to help us. We need to resolve our inability to THINK which is at the heart of our inability to arrive at basic truths and then argue about what we should do as opposed to arguing about what is and what is not true. Climate Change is a good example. The discourse is over whether it exists and whether human impact is an issue as opposed to what actions we should take. While that is absurd, is simply tells you how absurd we have become.

Our Educational Institutions have become entirely frigged up both by the cost of Education, the reasons for Education and the results achieved in the form of too strong a bias toward direct impact on earnings potential over a life career. Even in my day (and I am old as dirt) the Humanities were being abandoned and Liberal Arts Majors were more often following a Political Science path as opposed to choosing one of the Humanities. Political Science teaches you how to formulate thought into political speech and political action. The Humanities teach you how to think.

During my long and now past career in business, I worked for Technology companies. While we had outstanding Engineers, EE's and ME's in the main, I was constantly confronted with their inability to think as well as their lack of historical perspective. If confronted with a problem that appeared "new" for them, they were constantly shuffling back to some text to tell them the processes they needed to pursue in order to arrive at a result, "ANY RESULT". Now even my field of expertise is dominated by technologists that know how to formulate polls and marketing campaigns for example but have no clue why they should formulate them.

The inability to think has given rise to this current [but not the first] era of popularism much enhanced by our bias toward celebrity fueled by instant access to media that bombards us with access to celebrities.

If we do not return to some balance between those more capable of thinking and those more capable of doing then we will not work our way out of this malaise. Our Educational structure regardless of whether or not we head for higher education is decidedly biased toward doing and away from thinking and for the most part that is why we are where we are.

The result is tolerance for a President that does not err occasionally or misspeak occasionally but that lies constantly, virtually every minute of every day and that takes out a sharpie and adds a bulbous piece to an official NWS/NOAA maps and the country arguing about it. IT WAS WRONG, horribly wrong and there should not have been any argument about that AT ALL. The result is a bias toward transactional politics from both sides of the political spectrum.

It probably took something like 30 years for us to arrive at this spot where we can do nothing but harangue at each other, maybe even 40 years. So, I am not optimistic about a short time horizon to getting back to a normalized level of discourse. However, as long as we do not destroy the framework of this Constitutional Republic, something that could happen if we continue on the path we are on, then we should be able to pull out of the ditch.

Thank you for your reasoned response. I think we could enjoy an evening of discourse along with a good bottle of wine.

Regards.

 

[Perotista]

3rd or 4th term Presidents MIGHT have been OK before we had a President running roughshod over Article 1. At this point we are going to have to clear away the wreckage of Trumpism and either cobble laws that replace norms or go back to norms. The Courts are already ripping Trumpkin a new butt hole, not that it has stopped him. Why should he stop? He is not paying for all of this legal servicing. We are.

My earlier prediction for what DonDon would cost us was woefully optimistic. I mused that 4 years of DonDon would cost us 25 years. He is well past that rate for 3 years. I would now calculate he has set us back 10 years for every year of his term. So 3 and 4 terms of that sort of nonsense and we are back to the 19th century.

If you look back at the presidents that could have run for a third term, most wouldn't or couldn't. Eisenhower with his heart attacks prevented him from seeking a third term if there had been no 22nd. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter didn't have a chance to run for a third term. Reagan could have, but his Alzheimer prevent him. He never would have. Bill Clinton, healthy enough, but I think with all the scandals he wouldn't have been elected to a third term. Bush, healthy enough, but the recession doomed him and his chances. Obama is the only president who I think could have won a third term without the 22nd.

The problem with congress reigning in a president is that congress's members who are of the same party as the president act as more part of the administration than the institution of congress.

 

[Torus34]

The polarization and ultra high partisanship we see today isn't going anywhere in the near future. I agree that the lurches between extreme right and extreme left will become commonplace especially with the advent of the nuclear options for appointments which will lead to the end of the filibuster for legislation shortly. A president and both chambers of congress can and will lurch this country to the most extreme left or right positions. Our country will suffer for it.

Of course we've been heading this way long before Trump. It sped up big time during Obama with Reid's first use of the nuclear option although partisanship and the unwillingness to compromise, to play the game of give and take was already well established. Then it seems we have broken the sound barrier with Trump.

The only goal of our major parties is to completely stop anything and everything the other party wants or proposes. The merits of the proposal isn't even considered, just who proposes it. Far as I'm concerned our present political system has completely broken down. It doesn't serve the public or America as a whole anymore, just each major political party. I see little to no hope for the future.

As for the 22nd Amendment, I always thought it should be repealed or revoked. 3rd or 4th term, let the people decide.

Thank you for taking time to respond in depth. My concern is centered on the history of countries in which a democratic government has been replaced by a dictatorship and which had constitutions modeled on or similar to ours.

Regards.

 

[j brown's body]

What a coincidence! I was just thinking about that matter this morning.

I bet a change could sail through quickly in a few years -- so that the 44th president could run again and stay in office as long as he wishes.

Such an event would warm the cockles of many a Democrat's heart.

This is one of the reasons I like Biden, who speaks frequently about working across the aisle and finding compromise. It is true that there is no willing partner at this time to work with, but such sentiment lies at the heart of our liberal democracy and to abandon it, as the Republicans have done, leads to authoritarianism. America deserves a choice.

 

[haymarket]

If you look back at the presidents that could have run for a third term, most wouldn't or couldn't. Eisenhower with his heart attacks prevented him from seeking a third term if there had been no 22nd. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter didn't have a chance to run for a third term. Reagan could have, but his Alzheimer prevent him. He never would have. Bill Clinton, healthy enough, but I think with all the scandals he wouldn't have been elected to a third term. Bush, healthy enough, but the recession doomed him and his chances. Obama is the only president who I think could have won a third term without the 22nd.

The problem with congress reigning in a president is that congress's members who are of the same party as the president act as more part of the administration than the institution of congress.

Good analysis on those Presidents. I agree that Obama would have had a third term and the others would not.

 

[j brown's body]

I think I stated this polarization and ultra high partisanship had been heading this way long before Trump, that it sped up during Obama which now has broken the sound barrier under Trump. As for McConnell not allowing a vote on Garland, I have stated numerous times he should have. McConnell had the votes to deny Garland the nomination. It was probably out of spite he didn't allow the vote. Or payback for Schumer stating he wouldn't allow a vote on any Bush's SCOTUS nominees back in 2007.

Schumer in 2007: Block all Bush's picks

McConnell is the vengeful type. I also agree that the Bill Clinton impeachment was a one party partisan affair. Totally stupid, a total waste of time, energy and money. The filibuster is on its way out, 200 years of the senate protecting minority party rights thrown out the window by Reid. Huge mistake. But there is no going back.

The strange thing about Gingrich is he worked with Bill Clinton behind closed doors to help Bill get his agenda through. This led to the Republican revolt against him and they ousted Gingrich out. I put the beginning on the Hastert rule. But regardless, Gingrich or Hastert or even Wright and his ultra high partisanship as Speaker. It was here and slowly moving forward.

Obama attempted to work with Republicans on healthcare reform, and they began negotiating until the Republican leadership in the senate pulled them out and McConnell proclaimed that making Obama a one term president was their top priority.

The Democrats have never blocked a Republican president's Supreme Court choice. If they did, it was a century ago.

 

[j brown's body]

If you look back at the presidents that could have run for a third term, most wouldn't or couldn't. Eisenhower with his heart attacks prevented him from seeking a third term if there had been no 22nd. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter didn't have a chance to run for a third term. Reagan could have, but his Alzheimer prevent him. He never would have. Bill Clinton, healthy enough, but I think with all the scandals he wouldn't have been elected to a third term. Bush, healthy enough, but the recession doomed him and his chances. Obama is the only president who I think could have won a third term without the 22nd.

The problem with congress reigning in a president is that congress's members who are of the same party as the president act as more part of the administration than the institution of congress.

Clinton retired with a 65% approval rating.

 

[TomFitz]

The reality is this: The only way to reduce the power of Washington is to reduce the tools they have access to to effect their control.

By reducing the number of regulations at their disposal, Trump has literally reduced their power to enforce control on the people. This effectively moves power out of Washington.

Are you really unable to connect these dots? Trump is the causal mechanism. If he was not, the Washington elites, regardless of party affiliation, would not be so anxious to stop him.

You really don’t know much about how government works, do you?

 

[Craig234]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

When one side's agenda is disaster for the country and the people, compromise and cooperation isn't the answer. Either the plutocrat Republicans are defeated or the country has a disaster, those are the choices. In the non-disaster choices, with either have a corporatist Democrat problem, or more prosperity with progressives. Bernie and progressives are the only very good pick.

 

[Craig234]

You really don’t know much about how government works, do you?

Or power or regulations or corporations or economics or some other things. Unfortunately, they're not alone. A lot of Americans have become 'anti-Americans' wanting to strip the people of power by crippling their elected government, allowing private wealthy interests to dominate them.

 

[Craig234]

Clinton retired with a 65% approval rating.

Clinton and Obama would have won third terms. JFK had a good chance if not shot. LBJ would have if not for Vietnam. Carter likely would have been re-elected if not for events beyond his control that he was successfully resolving. Every Republican since Hoover has resulted in disaster, and often crimes and treason as well as plutocracy since Reagan.

 

[jnug]

When one side's agenda is disaster for the country and the people, compromise and cooperation isn't the answer. Either the plutocrat Republicans are defeated or the country has a disaster, those are the choices. In the non-disaster choices, with either have a corporatist Democrat problem, or more prosperity with progressives. Bernie and progressives are the only very good pick.

IMO, Bernie is not electable. He has now come out to support decriminalizing the border. That is first just a stupid position to take and second not a good move if you want to be elected President. Being as vocal as he has been about being a died in the wool Socialist is the real kiss of death. I have no idea why Bernie decided to go down that road either as I fail to see why enough Americans will come out to support a died in the wool Socialist for President no matter how appealing some social programs might be. Liz is probably electable mainly because she is not as far out on a limb as Bernie and she will likely even tack back a little bit if she gets the nomination. I have no idea where Bernie thinks he is going.

 

[Craig234]

IMO, Bernie is not electable. He has now come out to support decriminalizing the border. That is first just a stupid position to take and second not a good move if you want to be elected President. Being as vocal as he has been about being a died in the wool Socialist is the real kiss of death. I have no idea why Bernie decided to go down that road either as I fail to see why enough Americans will come out to support a died in the wool Socialist for President no matter how appealing some social programs might be. Liz is probably electable mainly because she is not as far out on a limb as Bernie and she will likely even tack back a little bit if she gets the nomination. I have no idea where Bernie thinks he is going.

You don't understand Bernie at all, so your opinion on his electability is wrong.

It's like saying "Warren can't win because she has come out for all Americans giving the country back to Natives and returning to the homes of their ancestors."

 

[jnug]

You don't understand Bernie at all, so your opinion on his electability is wrong.

It's like saying "Warren can't win because she has come out for all Americans giving the country back to Natives and returning to the homes of their ancestors."

I don't have to go through some deep psychic analysis of Bernie probing for some understanding. He has said the words "I AM A SOCIALIST" and he has come out clearly in support of the Castro position of decriminalization at the Border. There is nothing to analysis.

Bernie will have "I am a Socialist" shoved down his throat till he chokes on it. That was an unforced error. Now he has made it so that if the Dems nominate Bernie they will have come down entirely on the side of Socialism and Open Borders since decriminalizing the border will yield open borders. So if the Dems nominate Bernie they sink the entire Party. This should not be hard to understand as unpalatable as it might be to you.

A few avowed Socialists sprinkled through the Capitol building is not the same thing as putting one in the WH. THAT is not going to fly nor is making a Socialist the standard bearer for the entire Dem Party by making him the nominee going to fly for the Party.

 

[Perotista]

Thank you for taking time to respond in depth. My concern is centered on the history of countries in which a democratic government has been replaced by a dictatorship and which had constitutions modeled on or similar to ours.

Regards.

If it is a dictatorship, we have an elected one. Being an old fart I remember Nikita Khrushchev when then VP Richard Nixon accused him of being a dictator for not having elections in the old USSR. Khrushchev Responded by stating our president was a dictator too, only elected.

 

[Perotista]

Good analysis on those Presidents. I agree that Obama would have had a third term and the others would not.

It was quick and dirty, not detailed, glad that it was all it took.