Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

[Delvo]

two ships alone on the ocean

one sinking

rats fleeing

people on the other ship pointing & laughing at the proof of how terrible the other ship is

while their own ship becomes a ship of rats

rats who were staying on that other ship until the last second when they couldn't anymore

 

[Delvo]

duplication; forum went crazy

 

[The Don]

two ships alone on the ocean

one sinking

rats fleeing

people on the other ship pointing & laughing at the proof of how terrible the other ship is

while their own ship becomes a ship of rats

rats who were staying on that other ship until the last second when they couldn't anymore

That would be a good analogy if those people who are finally repudiating President Trump were joining the Democratic Party and starting to have an influence on policy - I don't see much evidence for this.

Instead what I do see are groups, exemplified by the Lincoln Project, who are saying "President Trump is so uniquely bad that we, previously loyal Republicans, are calling on you to vote for Joe Biden so that President Trump can be humiliated and we can get our party back"

I'm not sure how you build that into a shipwreck analogy unless the rats stay in their lifeboats and then somehow manage to salvage and re-float their vessel after it has sunk.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this point the analogy would be.

The White Star Line promises "Rat-Free Cruise Ships" and works hard to remove rats from their ships while Cunard Lines does nothing and just does nothing about the rats.

After a few voyage one rat is found on a White Star Line and White Star catches it quickly before it causes any problems. Cunard starts screaming "LOOKIT White Star! Mr. 'Rat Free Cruise Ship' has a rat! Hypocrite! Dramatic! Pretentious!"

So Cunard Lines completely fills their ships with rats on purpose, screams, "At least we didn't claim to be better than we actually are or try to improve without being perfect" and then intentionally rams the White Star Line, causing both sinks to sink while screaming about how the owned White Star Line and showed that they aren't as good as they think they are and took them down a peg.

 

[theprestige]

What it boils down to is some establishment Republicans being more invested in the establishment than in the Republican party. Good effort on the analogies, though!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay no analogies then.

We have a less than perfect side and a side of nihilistic contrarian trolls who still think they are better than the "less than perfect" side because the only sin they recognize is "not being as good as you think you are" and "taking the other side down a peg" is the only thing that brings them joy anymore.

 

[The Don]

What it boils down to is some establishment Republicans being more invested in the establishment than in the Republican party. Good effort on the analogies, though!

I'm at a loss to understand what President Trump has achieved which would alienate him from the GOP establishment.

Even many of the things he has conspicuously failed to achieve, like a health plan to replace the ACA, are exactly what the GOP establishment would want.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At worst all Trump does is say the quiet part out loud.

Also this is the GOP we're talking. They are real good at politics. If they hadn't wanted to run Trump as their candidate, they wouldn't have.

I get that some kind of "Trump? Oh lordy me we never wanted Trump but we just couldn't stop him" revisionist retcon is going to happen moving forward, but it's absolute nonsense.

 

[theprestige]

I'm at a loss to understand what President Trump has achieved which would alienate him from the GOP establishment. : confused :

I think even many Americans are confused by the American system of government in general.

Even many of the things he has conspicuously failed to achieve, like a health plan to replace the ACA, are exactly what the GOP establishment would want.

This is a good example. The ACA and its replacement are legislative acts, not executive acts. The president cannot replace the ACA. He can advocate for a replacement. He can draft a replacement proposal for the legislature to consider. He can sign a replacement into law if the legislature sends him the bill.

There's two ways the president gets a new law by his own efforts. One is if he uses the celebrity power of the presidency (the "bully pulpit") to drum up overwhelming public support that legislators cannot afford to ignore.

The other is through horse-trading: The quid pro quo system of political favors earned and granted, by politicians over the course of their careers. Trump came in from outside that system. He never established the political capital to trade with legislators. On the one hand, the GOP establishment in Washington doesn't need him to replace the ACA. They can trade for it in the House and Senate themselves, if they want to. On the other hand, Trump has precious little to trade with, if he really wants the legislature to replace it against their own inclinations.

 

[The Don]

I think even many Americans are confused by the American system of government in general.

......and how did he alienate the GOP establishment ?

This is a good example. The ACA and its replacement are legislative acts, not executive acts. The president cannot replace the ACA. He can advocate for a replacement. He can draft a replacement proposal for the legislature to consider. He can sign a replacement into law if the legislature sends him the bill.

There's two ways the president gets a new law by his own efforts. One is if he uses the celebrity power of the presidency (the "bully pulpit") to drum up overwhelming public support that legislators cannot afford to ignore.

The other is through horse-trading: The quid pro quo system of political favors earned and granted, by politicians over the course of their careers. Trump came in from outside that system. He never established the political capital to trade with legislators. On the one hand, the GOP establishment in Washington doesn't need him to replace the ACA. They can trade for it in the House and Senate themselves, if they want to. On the other hand, Trump has precious little to trade with, if he really wants the legislature to replace it against their own inclinations.

ACA repeal and replacement was one of his headline policies.

That he didn't even try to do the things you have ably described has shown why the failure is his, as opposed to if he had managed to build a consensus but was rebuffed by an obstructionist congress.

 

[theprestige]

At worst all Trump does is say the quiet part out loud.

Also this is the GOP we're talking. They are real good at politics. If they hadn't wanted to run Trump as their candidate, they wouldn't have.

The GOP leadership didn't have much of a choice. The party chooses its candidate by a free and fair vote of its membership, and its membership is open to any eligible voter. If they had ginned up some rule that let them dismiss the party's clear preference for Donald Trump, and select Ted Cruz instead, it would have been disastrous.

 

[acbytesla]

What it boils down to is some establishment Republicans being more invested in the establishment than in the Republican party. Good effort on the analogies, though!

You blow my mind Prestige. "Establishment Republicans" as opposed to what? What is the Republican party? Seriously, what are Republican principles? Because the definition these days seem more like it is whatever diarrhea that flows from any of Trump's orifices.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm at a loss to understand what President Trump has achieved which would alienate him from the GOP establishment.

Even many of the things he has conspicuously failed to achieve, like a health plan to replace the ACA, are exactly what the GOP establishment would want.

Let's see.
Massive deficits
Tariffs
The rule of law

 

[acbytesla]

......and how did he alienate the GOP establishment ?

ACA repeal and replacement was one of his headline policies.

That he didn't even try to do the things you have ably described has shown why the failure is his, as opposed to if he had managed to build a consensus but was rebuffed by an obstructionist congress.

And yet Trump was never interested in crafting a good replacement.

 

[Armitage72]

The GOP leadership didn't have much of a choice. The party chooses its candidate by a free and fair vote of its membership, and its membership is open to any eligible voter. If they had ginned up some rule that let them dismiss the party's clear preference for Donald Trump, and select Ted Cruz instead, it would have been disastrous.

Or some of the 10 other candidates who made it to the Primary could have put their egos aside, dropped out, and presented a unified front to support one or two real candidates. The non-Trump votes would have crushed him if they hadn't been split nearly a dozen ways, but everyone wanted to be the winner.

 

[Bubba]

New Twist in the Hunter Biden Saga: A White House Meeting for Elite Chinese Group

The younger Biden’s associates reportedly arranged a 2011 meeting with then-VP Joe Biden, and got the entourage “all taken care of in DC.”


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...-white-house-meeting-for-elite-chinese-group/

 

[Dr. Keith]

The younger Biden’s associates reportedly arranged a 2011 meeting with then-VP Joe Biden, and got the entourage “all taken care of in DC.”


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...-white-house-meeting-for-elite-chinese-group/

At this point it looks like Joe's biggest mistake is that he didn't hire Hunter to work at the White House. Would have made all of this much easier, as the Trumps have shown.

 

[theprestige]

Or some of the 10 other candidates who made it to the Primary could have put their egos aside, dropped out, and presented a unified front to support one or two real candidates. The non-Trump votes would have crushed him if they hadn't been split nearly a dozen ways, but everyone wanted to be the winner.

Also not something the GOP leadership had much of a choice about. The primaries are open to anyone who wants to put their name forward.

 

[Bubba]

ooops

never mind

 

[Stacyhs]

The younger Biden’s associates reportedly arranged a 2011 meeting with then-VP Joe Biden, and got the entourage “all taken care of in DC.”


https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...-white-house-meeting-for-elite-chinese-group/

Ah, yes......The National Review and Peter Schweizer:

News of the meeting has been broken by Peter Schweizer

The same Peter Schweizer who authored the notorious Clinton Cash How did Snopes rate Schweizer claim about his Uranium One? FALSE

May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.

A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Schweizer also claimed in Clinton Cash that Hillary changed positions on an India nuclear deal while a senator after donations to the Clinton Foundation. This was also proved FALSE by Politifact.

As a senator, Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on a nuclear deal with India -- swayed by donations to her family’s foundation. At least that’s what Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer asserts.

Schweizer’s book -- which hit shelves May 5 -- purports to document a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation and other financial gifts that turned into special favors from Clinton while she was a senator and secretary of state. One such allegation, which Schweizer discussed in a May 1 interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, is that Clinton did not support a nuclear deal with India in 2006, but two years and millions of India-based donations to her foundation later, she changed her mind.

Forgive me if I don't put much stock in what Peter Schweizer, the senior editor for Breitbart 'news', says.