First, the GOP slowly abandoned Richard Nixon, as the abuses of power came to light. In April of 1974, Barry Goldwater said that the Democrat were forgetting about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. By early August, Goldwater told Nixon that he counted only 5 Senate votes against removal, and he was not one of them.
There are other Republican candidates who share Trump's policy views, but they have better character. They don't belittle people, whether political opponents or entire demographic groups. And they didn't take part in the January 6th shenanigans.
Second, why do Trump supporters think that being bombastic will achieve political solutions?
I've asked Trump supporters if they would appreciate a boss who insulted them. They all say no. They would prefer a boss who would use a bit of tact in pointing out mistakes or missed deadlines.
So, I ask why they think Democrats would work with a President who hurls playground insults. Trump can't come up with a witty insult, ala Winston Churchill, or a sarcastic quip like Bob Dole.
They are so mad at Democrats that they don't want to compromise with them. They want to crush Democrats.
They can't seem to understand that politics is not football, where an insult from an opponent justifies running up the score. Politics requires diplomacy, and Trump is no diplomat.
Lots of great points here, Kent, most of which I completely agree with.
I do have a bit more nuanced view on the topic of compromise, and how it pertains to today's GOP. You're right in that congressional Republicans are currently blowing opportunity after opportunity to get things they say they want, because not enough of them are willing to compromise. They'd rather get invited onto cable-news and brag about how they're not caving into "the establishment" than make progress on parts of their stated agenda.
Right now, for example, Biden is trying to work a deal that includes serious border-policy improvements, in conjunction with Ukraine funding. I always strongly prefer such initiatives be done separately through congress, but this is an unusually good opportunity to gain ground on one of Republicans' key issues. Yet, they're going to tank it because A) Trump doesn't want such progress made, because he thinks it will hurt his re-election bid, and B) a sector of congressional Republicans are on an anti-Ukraine posturing kick.
As a frustrated Dan Crenshaw said the other day, "So you want Russia to win more than you want border policy changes?”
Trump telling Republicans to oppose immigration reform seems like a variation of what happened in 1948. The Republican Congress did very little. Truman called a special session and basically sent the Republican agenda for consideration. Congress voted down most of the agenda, believing Truman would get credit and improve his standing in the polls. The strategy backfired. By rejecting their own agenda, Truman won reelection, and Republicans lost control of Congress.
By telling Republicans to balk at the compromise bill in the Senate, Trump may be dooming his reelection, and handing the House to the Democrats.
But then, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
If it were just about being better off under him, people like yourself wouldn't uncritically buy into and spread his lies, pervert facts and rewrite history to dismiss events and conduct they'd easily deem disqualifying for any other politician, and otherwise treat the guy like a religious idol. That's not pragmatism. It's idolatry and adoration, and it was on regular display well before Biden took office.
For many of us, voting is a rational decision, in which public policy “trumps” personality. You don’t have to “adore” a candidate to vote for him/her (who adores politicians anyway??). And BTW, for all of Trump’s character flaws—and there are many—let’s stop pretending Mr. Biden is a model of virtue and goodness.
Personality, not policy, is precisely why most Republicans prefer Trump over the other Republican candidates running for president.
And like Bernie, I'm not sure who you think is "pretending Mr. Biden is a model of virtue and goodness." No one on this website believes that, and I don't think even most Democrats believe it.
While I don't think Pres. Biden is a "model of virtue," I consider him to be a basically decent, good, honest American. I'd think that even if I disagreed with his policies.
Scout's honor! I also think the same of John Kasich, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan and many others whose politics or thinking I adamantly disagree with. I even think that of certain hardcore MAGAites I know.
That's not to say that they don't have certain serious flaws or lapses in judgment., but their decency is overriding.
Here, we are talking about personal traits, not politics.
I also think the same of Sen. Romney, even though he was obviously dishonest on the 2012 campaign trail and my understanding is that he was most disingenuous when running against then Sen Ted Kennedy in (I think it was) 1994.
If you're talking about his saying that he doesn't and hasn't talked to Hunter about his business, I don't know that it's a lie. It's quite possibly true.
If you're talking about Pres. Biden saying Hunter has done nothing wrong, I think that's understandably defensive and, yes, a lie. But it doesn't undermine his general character.
Have you ever told a lie to defend a member of your immediate family who you think is being unfairly maligned or questioned?
I'm 90+% certain that Justice Thomas lied in his congressional testimony at his confirmation hearing and is a black mark on his record, I don't think that upends his over-all character, however.
I'm not sure if I read the entire piece. What I saw were three alleged lies.
I heard about the lie about fracking before. I don't condone it. Obviously, it was wrong. Again, if that was what he said and what he said before, he should learn when to STFU - he needs to know when to use his head, not his mouth.
As to his dissing that NY Post article, referring to that letter from former members of the U.S. intelligence community, it was fundamentally an opinion, not a statement of fact. The letter dissed the credibility of the NY Post story, basically saying that it was unworthy of belief and that it sounds like Soviet disinformation.
In other words, the over-all letter (including the disclaimer) said that the Post story might possibly be accurate and that the e-mails might possibly be authentic but that the Post did not properly vet the story and, accordingly, it was unworthy of belief. In fact, as I recall, no one's name appeared on the Post story, which was unusual. I may be mistaken on that, but it's my recollection.
Some right-wingers even echoed Biden's remarks about that letter but in an accusatory manner.
As for the minimum wage comment, I didn't read the story supposedly putting "a le" to Biden's remark.
That's fundamentally an opinion I've heard from economists and pundits. Frequently, there's an exemption in the minimum wage laws regarding tipped workers.
The writer of that piece seemed to be working backwards - "Gee let's wee, I know Pres. Biden is a serial liar, what examples can I scrape together?"
All too often, ideologues like to diss their opponents character by trying to portray their opinions as statements of fact.
Because I'm not a subscriber, I could only read the first few sentences. The many times I've heard Pres. Biden' "verbal tic" - "not a joke" - it's been preceded by some hard hitting polemic. Of course, a polemic is not a lie, it's an opinion. I guess the writer thinks it's been disproven that Biden went to Mass in HS. If so, I couldn't read that part.
I consume far more conservative and right-wing news media than I do liberal or left-wing news media. And yes, I've heard countless pundits mouth that Biden is a serial liar, etc. on countless occasions. Just because something with a few kernels of truth is repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it more true. Yes, he sometimes he is amoral in giving details, and this sometimes results in lies.
We all know that Pres. Biden's mouth frequently works much faster than his brain. He's given to verbal diarrhea.
While I don't condone this and I wish he'd learn when to STFU, this flaw doesn't overwhelm his basic decency, the efforts of an array of right-wingers notwithstanding.
BTW, do you consider Sen. Mitt Romney to be a good, honest, decent American? How about John McCain?
>>Just because something with a few kernels of truth is repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it more true.
More than a few kernels, Bob. This has been going on for years, going back even before his vice-presidency (so it shocks me that I'm breaking news to you). Heck, when Trump was just coming on the political scene, and confidently spewing lies left and right, I used to compare him to Joe Biden in my writing (Trump's far worse of course).
Maybe you didn't read all my posts above. Again, it's well known that Pres. Biden is given to verbal diarrhea. When he is in that mode, he's amoral: he says what is convenient at the moment and forgets about it - in this way he's similar to Trump as you suggest.
But, Biden's lies are largely inconsequential. Who gives a Fck if he went to law school on a full scholarship or a partial one or if he drove an 8-wheeeler or if he went to Mass in HS or about his grandfather's death ?
I get it: if someone distorts the truth regarding trivia, what else does he distort? But I haven't known him to distort the truth about important matters much. Yes, his position on fracking was an imp. matter, if that is what happened. But if you tar him because of that, what do you do with John McCain or Sen Mitt Romney?
Perhaps if I had left out the word "honest" and said that Pres. Biden is good, decent American it might have been more apt.
First, the GOP slowly abandoned Richard Nixon, as the abuses of power came to light. In April of 1974, Barry Goldwater said that the Democrat were forgetting about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. By early August, Goldwater told Nixon that he counted only 5 Senate votes against removal, and he was not one of them.
There are other Republican candidates who share Trump's policy views, but they have better character. They don't belittle people, whether political opponents or entire demographic groups. And they didn't take part in the January 6th shenanigans.
Second, why do Trump supporters think that being bombastic will achieve political solutions?
I've asked Trump supporters if they would appreciate a boss who insulted them. They all say no. They would prefer a boss who would use a bit of tact in pointing out mistakes or missed deadlines.
So, I ask why they think Democrats would work with a President who hurls playground insults. Trump can't come up with a witty insult, ala Winston Churchill, or a sarcastic quip like Bob Dole.
They are so mad at Democrats that they don't want to compromise with them. They want to crush Democrats.
They can't seem to understand that politics is not football, where an insult from an opponent justifies running up the score. Politics requires diplomacy, and Trump is no diplomat.
Lots of great points here, Kent, most of which I completely agree with.
I do have a bit more nuanced view on the topic of compromise, and how it pertains to today's GOP. You're right in that congressional Republicans are currently blowing opportunity after opportunity to get things they say they want, because not enough of them are willing to compromise. They'd rather get invited onto cable-news and brag about how they're not caving into "the establishment" than make progress on parts of their stated agenda.
Right now, for example, Biden is trying to work a deal that includes serious border-policy improvements, in conjunction with Ukraine funding. I always strongly prefer such initiatives be done separately through congress, but this is an unusually good opportunity to gain ground on one of Republicans' key issues. Yet, they're going to tank it because A) Trump doesn't want such progress made, because he thinks it will hurt his re-election bid, and B) a sector of congressional Republicans are on an anti-Ukraine posturing kick.
As a frustrated Dan Crenshaw said the other day, "So you want Russia to win more than you want border policy changes?”
But when Trump was still in office, he caved to Schumer and congressional Democrats quite a bit. He didn't merely compromise with them; he often gave away the store. I wrote about this a few times: https://www.bernardgoldberg.com/p/trump-sides-with-the-dems-rinos-apparently-to-blame
Republicans went right along with such things back then, in service to Trump, which I find ironic to the current situation.
Trump telling Republicans to oppose immigration reform seems like a variation of what happened in 1948. The Republican Congress did very little. Truman called a special session and basically sent the Republican agenda for consideration. Congress voted down most of the agenda, believing Truman would get credit and improve his standing in the polls. The strategy backfired. By rejecting their own agenda, Truman won reelection, and Republicans lost control of Congress.
By telling Republicans to balk at the compromise bill in the Senate, Trump may be dooming his reelection, and handing the House to the Democrats.
But then, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
“They adore him.” No. Occam’s razor. They were better off 4 years ago than they are today (before COVID.
If it were just about being better off under him, people like yourself wouldn't uncritically buy into and spread his lies, pervert facts and rewrite history to dismiss events and conduct they'd easily deem disqualifying for any other politician, and otherwise treat the guy like a religious idol. That's not pragmatism. It's idolatry and adoration, and it was on regular display well before Biden took office.
As indicated. We were better off 4 years ago. Your gibberish doesn’t address that.
Were we better off 3 years ago?
Great analysis. What I'm feeling and articulated in writing. Bravo
It takes no brain to vote for a candidate over half of American voters don’t even want on the ballot. That “no brain” part explains a lot!
For many of us, voting is a rational decision, in which public policy “trumps” personality. You don’t have to “adore” a candidate to vote for him/her (who adores politicians anyway??). And BTW, for all of Trump’s character flaws—and there are many—let’s stop pretending Mr. Biden is a model of virtue and goodness.
Personality, not policy, is precisely why most Republicans prefer Trump over the other Republican candidates running for president.
And like Bernie, I'm not sure who you think is "pretending Mr. Biden is a model of virtue and goodness." No one on this website believes that, and I don't think even most Democrats believe it.
While I don't think Pres. Biden is a "model of virtue," I consider him to be a basically decent, good, honest American. I'd think that even if I disagreed with his policies.
Wait. Honest?
Scout's honor! I also think the same of John Kasich, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan and many others whose politics or thinking I adamantly disagree with. I even think that of certain hardcore MAGAites I know.
That's not to say that they don't have certain serious flaws or lapses in judgment., but their decency is overriding.
Here, we are talking about personal traits, not politics.
Bob, Biden makes up stuff all the time. Are you suggesting that he believes what he makes up?
I also think the same of Sen. Romney, even though he was obviously dishonest on the 2012 campaign trail and my understanding is that he was most disingenuous when running against then Sen Ted Kennedy in (I think it was) 1994.
Give me some examples.
If you're talking about his saying that he doesn't and hasn't talked to Hunter about his business, I don't know that it's a lie. It's quite possibly true.
If you're talking about Pres. Biden saying Hunter has done nothing wrong, I think that's understandably defensive and, yes, a lie. But it doesn't undermine his general character.
Have you ever told a lie to defend a member of your immediate family who you think is being unfairly maligned or questioned?
I'm 90+% certain that Justice Thomas lied in his congressional testimony at his confirmation hearing and is a black mark on his record, I don't think that upends his over-all character, however.
He has told countless lies, for example, about his past and biography. This can't be news to you. https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/all-the-presidents-tells-how-to-spot-a-biden-lie/
There's been much more, of course. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-lies-again-and-again/
I'm not sure if I read the entire piece. What I saw were three alleged lies.
I heard about the lie about fracking before. I don't condone it. Obviously, it was wrong. Again, if that was what he said and what he said before, he should learn when to STFU - he needs to know when to use his head, not his mouth.
As to his dissing that NY Post article, referring to that letter from former members of the U.S. intelligence community, it was fundamentally an opinion, not a statement of fact. The letter dissed the credibility of the NY Post story, basically saying that it was unworthy of belief and that it sounds like Soviet disinformation.
In other words, the over-all letter (including the disclaimer) said that the Post story might possibly be accurate and that the e-mails might possibly be authentic but that the Post did not properly vet the story and, accordingly, it was unworthy of belief. In fact, as I recall, no one's name appeared on the Post story, which was unusual. I may be mistaken on that, but it's my recollection.
Some right-wingers even echoed Biden's remarks about that letter but in an accusatory manner.
As for the minimum wage comment, I didn't read the story supposedly putting "a le" to Biden's remark.
That's fundamentally an opinion I've heard from economists and pundits. Frequently, there's an exemption in the minimum wage laws regarding tipped workers.
The writer of that piece seemed to be working backwards - "Gee let's wee, I know Pres. Biden is a serial liar, what examples can I scrape together?"
All too often, ideologues like to diss their opponents character by trying to portray their opinions as statements of fact.
Because I'm not a subscriber, I could only read the first few sentences. The many times I've heard Pres. Biden' "verbal tic" - "not a joke" - it's been preceded by some hard hitting polemic. Of course, a polemic is not a lie, it's an opinion. I guess the writer thinks it's been disproven that Biden went to Mass in HS. If so, I couldn't read that part.
I consume far more conservative and right-wing news media than I do liberal or left-wing news media. And yes, I've heard countless pundits mouth that Biden is a serial liar, etc. on countless occasions. Just because something with a few kernels of truth is repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it more true. Yes, he sometimes he is amoral in giving details, and this sometimes results in lies.
We all know that Pres. Biden's mouth frequently works much faster than his brain. He's given to verbal diarrhea.
While I don't condone this and I wish he'd learn when to STFU, this flaw doesn't overwhelm his basic decency, the efforts of an array of right-wingers notwithstanding.
BTW, do you consider Sen. Mitt Romney to be a good, honest, decent American? How about John McCain?
>>Just because something with a few kernels of truth is repeated ad nauseum doesn't make it more true.
More than a few kernels, Bob. This has been going on for years, going back even before his vice-presidency (so it shocks me that I'm breaking news to you). Heck, when Trump was just coming on the political scene, and confidently spewing lies left and right, I used to compare him to Joe Biden in my writing (Trump's far worse of course).
All it takes is a Google search:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p7NQKgPApI
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/499065-lies-damned-lies-and-the-truth-about-joe-biden/
Maybe you didn't read all my posts above. Again, it's well known that Pres. Biden is given to verbal diarrhea. When he is in that mode, he's amoral: he says what is convenient at the moment and forgets about it - in this way he's similar to Trump as you suggest.
But, Biden's lies are largely inconsequential. Who gives a Fck if he went to law school on a full scholarship or a partial one or if he drove an 8-wheeeler or if he went to Mass in HS or about his grandfather's death ?
I get it: if someone distorts the truth regarding trivia, what else does he distort? But I haven't known him to distort the truth about important matters much. Yes, his position on fracking was an imp. matter, if that is what happened. But if you tar him because of that, what do you do with John McCain or Sen Mitt Romney?
Perhaps if I had left out the word "honest" and said that Pres. Biden is good, decent American it might have been more apt.
You’re probably right on both counts.
A shame on the first count. We shouldn’t be voting for Prom King.
Who’s pretending that?
Most Democrats I know.
Willful blindness.