Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

abff

I think the problem is that nobody ever envisaged that there would be a president with such a flagrant disregard for what is right and proper and such a childish self-centred approach to holding the office of president. Nor was it ever envisaged that in the event of such a person becoming president, the party he is representing would row in behind him and allow him to carry on in such a disgraceful manner.

I don’t think that there is any system robust enough to withstand the twin attack on the democratic process that we have seen over the past few years and in particular over the past few weeks. I just hope that (a) Trump will not somehow manage to pull off his attempted coup and (b) enough people will come to realise just how bad and how inappropriate the Trump presidency and that this will enough to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again.

Unfortunately, I’m saying this more in hope than in expectation.

Gbear

abff wrote: »

I don’t think that there is any system robust enough to withstand the twin attack on the democratic process that we have seen over the past few years and in particular over the past few weeks. I just hope that (a) Trump will not somehow manage to pull off his attempted coup and (b) enough people will come to realise just how bad and how inappropriate the Trump presidency and that this will enough to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again..

There absolutely is.

The issue is that the Republican party is structurally immune from being held to account. That's true of the Democrats too, although to a much lesser extent, due to the nature of each of their bases.

The democratic system of the US isn't exactly unique in allowing this, even in Western countries - the progrogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson's government, and the general shambles of Brexit, followed by a resounding victory with, I think, less than half the popular vote, was a similar situation.

Because a plurality can dictate terms, and because there's a mostly binary dilemma presented to voters, anti-democratic governments and degeneration into a single party state are far more likely in a system like the US (or the UK), than they would be with a proportional system.

With that said, the checks and balances more or less worked, in the sense that the state didn't totally collapse into totalitarianism, which it absolutely would have if Trump and the Republicans were capable of orchestrating it.

Without the house to legislate, there wasn't that much that could be done in terms of permanent or concrete changes. They certainly couldn't amend the constitution. Also, the sometimes maligned system of federalism meant that there are limits to the amount of election shenanigans that can be directed from Washington.

Really, it wasn't that government was damaged, but rather that it had its glaring weaknesses exposed. The emoluments shouldn't be a suggestion. The Hatch Act shouldn't have the legal weight of toilet paper. There needs to be greater oversight in how staff are appointed, without allowing bad faith obstructionism to prevent legitimate candidates from being selected for staffing and cabinet positions. Security clearance shouldn't be arbitrarily granted. The AG shouldn't be the President's personal lawyer. The state shouldn't be paying for protecting the President or his cronies from legitimate legal processes.

These, and other fascistic, nepotistic and oligarchical behaviours that have been perpetrated by Trump and his cohorts aren't, for the most part, insurmountable. It's just that they weren't understood to be necessary prior to him.

Quin_Dub

Gbear wrote: »

There absolutely is.

The issue is that the Republican party is structurally immune from being held to account. That's true of the Democrats too, although to a much lesser extent, due to the nature of each of their bases.

The democratic system of the US isn't exactly unique in allowing this, even in Western countries - the progrogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson's government, and the general shambles of Brexit, followed by a resounding victory with, I think, less than half the popular vote, was a similar situation.

Because a plurality can dictate terms, and because there's a mostly binary dilemma presented to voters, anti-democratic governments and degeneration into a single party state are far more likely in a system like the US (or the UK), than they would be with a proportional system.

With that said, the checks and balances more or less worked, in the sense that the state didn't totally collapse into totalitarianism, which it absolutely would have if Trump and the Republicans were capable of orchestrating it.

Without the house to legislate, there wasn't that much that could be done in terms of permanent or concrete changes. They certainly couldn't amend the constitution. Also, the sometimes maligned system of federalism meant that there are limits to the amount of election shenanigans that can be directed from Washington.

Really, it wasn't that government was damaged, but rather that it had its glaring weaknesses exposed. The emoluments shouldn't be a suggestion. The Hatch Act shouldn't have the legal weight of toilet paper. There needs to be greater oversight in how staff are appointed, without allowing bad faith obstructionism to prevent legitimate candidates from being selected for staffing and cabinet positions. Security clearance shouldn't be arbitrarily granted. The AG shouldn't be the President's personal lawyer. The state shouldn't be paying for protecting the President or his cronies from legitimate legal processes.

These, and other fascistic, nepotistic and oligarchical behaviours that have been perpetrated by Trump and his cohorts aren't, for the most part, insurmountable. It's just that they weren't understood to be necessary prior to him.

Agree completely here.

If a Biden administration achieved nothing else but to implement changes to prevent the rampant activities of the Trump administration it will have been a meaningful one.

Strengthen the Hatch act , give it real teeth.
Remove the ability to have revolving "acting" leaders
Remove the ability for the Executive branch (or other branches) to ignore subpoenas to appear etc.

aloyisious

looksee wrote: »

Meanwhile Rachel Maddow on CNBC is reporting that Trump has yesterday trashed the Open Skies policy by not only pulling out of it but instructing that the planes used (very specialised planes) be destroyed/withdrawn/disposed of, so Biden cannot just reinstate it. The funding for new replacement planes that was planned was withdrawn earlier in the year by one of his specially installed quislings.

(Edit: she points out that he has no legal right to do this, but by the time anyone gets around to doing anything about it it will be too late. Hopefully the planes will be carefully stashed away 'pending demolition'.)

He has also installed entirely unsuitable, inexperienced people in the NSA and Pentagon. He really does seem to be setting up the country for a terrorist attack just as Biden takes office.

His train of thought leading to his decision supposedly is to have been "Russia wont allow the U.S overfly one area in Russia" so there is no reason why we should be in the agreement, regardless of the fact that 32 other nations are part of it and that pulling out will negate their ability to overfly Russia as well. One question standing out from scrapping of this strategic surveillance agreement; who benefits from Trump's decision?

listermint

aloyisious wrote: »

His train of thought leading to his decision supposedly is to have been "Russia wont allow the U.S overfly one area in Russia" so there is no reason why we should be in the agreement, regardless of the fact that 32 other nations are part of it and that pulling out will negate their ability to overfly Russia as well. One question standing out from scrapping of this strategic surveillance agreement; who benefits from Trump's decision?

Who benefits is the single only sole question that should be asked about his entire presidency.

Don't ever forget he's solely transactional. So it benefits someone close to him that he owes or it benefits him.

On this subject matter Putin is the only benefactor which means their is a debt to be paid.

There are only so many signs that need to be shown over 4 years which give the complete indication he has massive debt to Russia. Time will reveal why and how.

Leroy42

I wouldn't quite agree on that. While I think the vast majority of his actions are purely transactional, be that monetarily or power, I do think he has a very strong desire just to destroy things and or make things difficult for others.

Obamacare being the obvious example, but there was very many other 'Obama things' he did the same. He seemingly just wanted to destroy it for no other reason than it wasn't his.

I think something like this latest action is aimed primarily at making things difficult for Biden. Same with appointing people into positions they seem totally unsuitable for.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't quite agree on that. While I think the vast majority of his actions are purely transactional, be that monetarily or power, I do think he has a very strong desire just to destroy things and or make things difficult for others.

Obamacare being the obvious example, but there was very many other 'Obama things' he did the same. He seemingly just wanted to destroy it for no other reason than it wasn't his.

I think something like this latest action is aimed primarily at making things difficult for Biden. Same with appointing people into positions they seem totally unsuitable for.

Anything that's related to Russia has nothing to do with the democrats. It's been solely for reasons that he's been asked to do it per the relationship I already said.

The GOP have no interest in destruction of the US military standing so this wasn't internal and no doubt wasn't even discussed.

Yes anything that Obama touched he has destain for but again that's transactional. I was wronged you made fun of me this is my revenge on you.

He's in hock to Russia or forces inside it's leadership. He is in hock bigly. I don't even think he minds biden at all tbh.

Foxtrol

BluePlanet wrote: »

Certainly people are being economically left behind for the past 40 years or so as evidenced by the ever growing income disparity.
Trump was able to capture enough of them with his dog whistling etc.

The Dems used to be the party of working people but (today) they are really just another flavour of the corporate/oligarchy party of the well connected and well financed.
The Dems are only going to engage the usual gas lighting and vote shaming of the left, just enough to keep most of their votes.
America really doesn't have a party that represents the ordinary worker.

The problem is that many people you deem as 'ordinary workers' are fundamentally against many of the core pillars of dem beliefs - equality, woman's right to choose, gun control... That isn't even getting into them being repulsed by the idea of being in a 'coalition' with many of the dem base.

Those who are really gas lighting are people who continue to claim that 'income inequality' is main cause of Trump, when it truth it is really just an easy excuse for those that made the choice to vote for him.

Brian?

Foxtrol wrote: »

The problem is that many people you deem as 'ordinary workers' are fundamentally against many of the core pillars of dem beliefs - equality, woman's right to choose, gun control... That isn't even getting into them being repulsed by the idea of being in a 'coalition' with many of the dem base.

Those who are really gas lighting are people who continue to claim that 'income inequality' is main cause of Trump, when it truth it is really just an easy excuse for those that made the choice to vote for him.

It’s funny when people say “the ordinary worker” or “the middle class”, they are so loosely defined as terms they’re virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are the party of the working class, the problem is the working class has been hoodwinked into seeing them as the enemy. The US is one of the few countries in the West that really needs unionisation (again), but workers have been fooled into thinking that’s not in their best interest. They’re allowed enjoy the “freedom” of a low minimum wage, no mandatory sick or maternity leave, no statutory redundancy, terrible pensions, in some states being fired for no reason with no notice, massive healthcare costs etc..

Trump in 2016 fooled these people into thinking he could bring back well paying manufacturing jobs. He couldn’t, no one can.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

It’s funny when people say “the ordinary worker” or “the middle class”, they are so loosely defined as terms they’re virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are the party of the working class, the problem is the working class has been hoodwinked into seeing them as the enemy. The US is one of the few countries in the West that really needs unionisation (again), but workers have been fooled into thinking that’s not in their best interest. They’re allowed enjoy the “freedom” of a low minimum wage, no mandatory sick or maternity leave, no statutory redundancy, terrible pensions, in some states being fired for no reason with no notice, massive healthcare costs etc..

Trump in 2016 fooled these people into thinking he could bring back well paying manufacturing jobs. He couldn’t, no one can.

I don't think it's about bringing back jobs. That's just a veneer to mask the real issue. I think we're seeing the effects of corporate media attempting to radicalize the population only to find out that a lot of them want to go further. We saw some of this in the UK when UKIP hoovered up nearly 5 million votes (over 12% of the total) in 2015. Not quite a valid comparison as the Republican party already fills this niche in the US and doesn't have a more rightwing alternative that I can see. There's a reason we've seen far right parties like the League, UKIP, AfD, FPO, etc in Europe but no equivalent in the US. It already has one.

I think it's a heady mix of standard GOP voters just voting GOP, enraged working class voters wanting to kick the elites and the establishment as defined by the likes of Tucker Carlson and white supremacists. Issues of "culture" take precedence over economics. Some voters will happily vote for someone who'll oppress others for them even if it means a drop in living standards because someone else will be worse off.

The left need to evolve to handle this as the right and far right have gained a substantial lead that will only grow in the short term if there's another economic or global crisis they can spin as a culture war issue.

EltonJohn69

Flynn has got his pardon, I am so happy for him x
I wonder who is next ???

dogbert27

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Flynn has got his pardon, I am so happy for him x
I wonder who is next ???

Isn't getting a pardon an admission of doing something wrong!

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's a heady mix of standard GOP voters just voting GOP, enraged working class voters wanting to kick the elites and the establishment as defined by the likes of Tucker Carlson and white supremacists. Issues of "culture" take precedence over economics. Some voters will happily vote for someone who'll oppress others for them even if it means a drop in living standards because someone else will be worse off.

This attitude i feel comes back to them being constantly fed a narrative if your worse of someone is better off and vice versa. Its like trump and his zero sum international trade attitude. They cant comprehend how a rising tide lifts all boats and always see someone else doing better as meaning they themselves must conversely be doing worse somehow.


You can see this thinking in the US across the board through economics, religious and social issues.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think it's a heady mix of standard GOP voters just voting GOP, enraged working class voters wanting to kick the elites and the establishment as defined by the likes of Tucker Carlson and white supremacists. Issues of "culture" take precedence over economics. Some voters will happily vote for someone who'll oppress others for them even if it means a drop in living standards because someone else will be worse off.

It's bizarre isn't it, and I can't rationalise the obsession with "Culture" as a hill to die in. This isn't just true for America, it's creeping into "Western" discourse generally anyway: the so-called "culture wars" appear to have superseded boilerplate economic conservatism, with any sense of inclusion or diversity for its own sake attacked with the aggression previously reserved for commies or anarchists. But then how much of American life is defined as what or who it stands against? Is this just the vacuum left by the USSR? China's no replacement and maybe the increasing wealth disparity between coastal and inland states can be papered over with issues of "culture". Don't focus on workers' rights, no no. Beware the trans person coming into your kids' bathrooms.

Maybe this is just another speedbump on the road of equality: that as certain previously ostracised demographics gain more prominence and legal recognition, the pushback comes from those who think that gays (for example) should be gratful to simply exist in public, let alone gain some kind of legal parity. Even on Boards you'll see that in the dreaded Current Affairs forum; an otherwise heartening piece of news that Scotland would supply free period products in its public buildings, had the inevitable Bad Faith merchants and those kicking back against this apparently "PC gone mad" idea that 50% of the population should be recognised for having issues specific to their gender.

edit: appreciate this is hewing a little off-topic mind you.

Quin_Dub

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Theres a good article here about Trump's cult dedicated to grievances and his crusade on culture and science.

https://newrepublic.com/article/160212/republican-party-dead-its-trump-cult-now


I mentioned something like this pages and pages back, when you look at Trump not as a president but as one of them Mega MAGAChurch preachers who loves preaching to the converted, then things click into place. Like any religion his preachings don't have to be then grounded in reality and facts, which also explains why the more religious support him, his ramblings are not too far off from what they hear in their own churches regularly, tho I remember something about false prophets in the olden more religious days...

The single biggest challenge is breaking into this groups information bubble.

They only believe things they hear from certain people/places.

You could have a magnificent story to tell that they won't believe because the voices they believe aren't saying it.

Look at Ingraham/Carlson in recent days.

Both of them have said that Biden is the likely President and that it's highly unlikely that Trump can/will overturn the result but in the same breath they are saying "But the Election was clearly fraudulent".

The information stream is sadly what matters now.

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

This attitude i feel comes back to them being constantly fed a narrative if your worse of someone is better off and vice versa. Its like trump and his zero sum international trade attitude. They cant comprehend how a rising tide lifts all boats and always see someone else doing better as meaning they themselves must conversely be doing worse somehow.


You can see this thinking in the US across the board through economics, religious and social issues.

It's just the zero sum attitude applied en masse without any sort of critical thought behind it.

The stuff about a rising tide lifting all boats is grand when things are going well but with climate change and automation on the way things need to change. Equating a tax on incomes over a million dollars a year with Stalinism does not augur well.

pixelburp wrote: »

It's bizarre isn't it, and I can't rationalise the obsession with "Culture" as a hill to die in. This isn't just true for America, it's creeping into "Western" discourse generally anyway: the so-called "culture wars" appear to have superseded boilerplate economic conservatism, with any sense of inclusion or diversity for its own sake attacked with the aggression previously reserved for commies or anarchists. But then how much of American life is defined as what or who it stands against? Is this just the vacuum left by the USSR? China's no replacement and maybe the increasing wealth disparity between coastal and inland states can be papered over with issues of "culture". Don't focus on workers' rights, no no. Beware the trans person coming into your kids' bathrooms.

Maybe this is just another speedbump on the road of equality: that as certain previously ostracised demographics gain more prominence and legal recognition, the pushback comes from those who think that gays (for example) should be gratful to simply exist in public, let alone gain some kind of legal parity. Even on Boards you'll see that in the dreaded Current Affairs forum; an otherwise heartening piece of news that Scotland would supply free period products in its public buildings, had the inevitable Bad Faith merchants and those kicking back against this apparently "PC gone mad" idea that 50% of the population should be recognised for having issues specific to their gender.

edit: appreciate this is hewing a little off-topic mind you.

Economic conservatism is and always been a lie based on the flimsy premise that a sovereign nation with its own currnecy is the same as a household. The same people who'll tell you that it's imperative that welfare beneficiaries get a fiver less a month will have no issue whatsoever with lavish foreign wars and big spending on prisons and the military industrial complex.

As noted above, the zero sum fallacy abounds. If women are to be able to get free sanitary products that they need then what about the men? It's not even about getting anything for the men as the same folk will never lobby their TD/MP/Member of Congress to do anything, they just want to be victims because that justifies their "both sides" and thinking and relieves them of responsibility. It's nothing more than the latest iteration of one caveman nudging the other, pointing towards the sun, saying "Give me your food and I'll make sure the sun god gets it".

listermint

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Totally agree, my own relatives in US are mad about Trump, and they coincidentally watch Fox 24/7 its like they are in some sort of a reality distortion field.

Tho' there is a chicken and egg situation here, is Trump the one taking advantage of Fox propaganda channels or is it Fox taking advantage of Trumps quasi religious approach to politics.

It seems to me Trump stumbled into this position, reinforced by adoration (probably for first time in his life) he received, whole thing starting of a positive reinforcement feedback loop between his and his "flock". And then the likes of Fox latched onto that as it helps sell more advertising of pills to ever ageing audience they have.

Trump will continue to travel the country having his cermons ralies and continue asking for donations to try to get him out of his self inflicted debt hole. Fortunately for him there are millions of what he himself called "losers" who will part with their money to "own the libs"

Perhaps it's time for disclaimers in large bold font on all opinion shows. The US due to its litigious nature requires disclaimers on nearly everything that's sold in the country. Why not TV. I know that sounds funny but it's gotten to that level of stupidity.

This is an opinion piece and does not necessarily contain factually based news.

Quin_Dub

Fox News will be interesting to watch over the coming Months.

Perhaps for the 1st time they have potential challengers on the right in NewsMax/OANN.

If either of them can mount a serious and sustained challenge for the eyes and ears of the Right wing viewer how will Fox react?

Will they chase those radical viewers by going even more extreme or will they drift back towards the more traditional GOP side of things and continue to compete with CNN/MSNBC et al?

The direction Fox chooses will tell you a lot about the future direction of the GOP.

hotmail.com

Brian? wrote: »

It’s funny when people say “the ordinary worker” or “the middle class”, they are so loosely defined as terms they’re virtually meaningless.

The Democrats are the party of the working class, the problem is the working class has been hoodwinked into seeing them as the enemy. The US is one of the few countries in the West that really needs unionisation (again), but workers have been fooled into thinking that’s not in their best interest. They’re allowed enjoy the “freedom” of a low minimum wage, no mandatory sick or maternity leave, no statutory redundancy, terrible pensions, in some states being fired for no reason with no notice, massive healthcare costs etc..

Trump in 2016 fooled these people into thinking he could bring back well paying manufacturing jobs. He couldn’t, no one can.

A large percentage of Democrats and their voters are opposed to unions. None of the tech companies, which probably support the Democrats, are unionised.

hotmail.com

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Fox News will be interesting to watch over the coming Months.

Perhaps for the 1st time they have potential challengers on the right in NewsMax/OANN.

If either of them can mount a serious and sustained challenge for the eyes and ears of the Right wing viewer how will Fox react?

Will they chase those radical viewers by going even more extreme or will they drift back towards the more traditional GOP side of things and continue to compete with CNN/MSNBC et al?

The direction Fox chooses will tell you a lot about the future direction of the GOP.

Fox News and the media In America have nothing to fear with Biden. Biden is a continuity president, he won't rock the boat.

America has voted for a "presidential" president. One who gives nice well written speeches, but one that secretly continues US imperialism.

Trump's problem was that he didn't tone down his madness, particularly in the last year. He should have just kept his mouth shut during Covid, gave nice speeches and I suspect he may have got back in.

Trump followers were secretly the ones most annoyed about his madness, knowing full well it was jarring with the public. They were sick of his outbursts, and general disrespect.

The last few years has shown that American politics is influenced greatly by style over substance.

MadYaker

I don't think Trump was necessarily style over substance, he had neither.

1123heavy

hotmail.com wrote: »

A large percentage of Democrats and their voters are opposed to unions. None of the tech companies, which probably support the Democrats, are unionised.

Exactly. Now ask yourself why would such large companies be backing Biden with his proposed tax hikes? Something may seem amiss to you (because it is!)

hotmail.com

1123heavy wrote: »

Exactly. Now ask yourself why would such large companies be backing Biden with his proposed tax hikes? Something may seem amiss to you (because it is!)

There will be no tax hikes. Biden will change nothing.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

Trump's problem was that he didn't tone down his madness, particularly in the last year. He should have just kept his mouth shut during Covid, gave nice speeches and I suspect he may have got back in.

Trump followers were secretly the ones most annoyed about his madness, knowing full well it was jarring with the public. They were sick of his outbursts, and general disrespect.

And this will be the thing that rankles most. They really did have everything in their favour. Trup had successfully created the narrative that the media was fake, that everything bad about him was fake, that all that mattered was the economy and the stock market.

The Dems then put forward a terrible candidate, according to Trump and his supporters. He also had the massive benefit of the incumbency, with all that entails. Including using the WH for political events.

But despite all that he managed to lose. When the dust has settled that is exactly what this will be seen as. A massive loss of the WH by the GOP. They had it, they had secured the SCOTUS, all Trump had to do was act properly. He even survived Covid. That alone should have seen him gain millions of votes.

But he just wasn't capable. He threw it away.

He will, of more likely others will, look back at the 2020 election as a disaster in terms of the GOP and the WH. And that is all down to Trump and his inability to control himself or stick to a message.

Trump lost this election, simple as.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

It's bizarre isn't it, and I can't rationalise the obsession with "Culture" as a hill to die in. This isn't just true for America, it's creeping into "Western" discourse generally anyway: the so-called "culture wars" appear to have superseded boilerplate economic conservatism, with any sense of inclusion or diversity for its own sake attacked with the aggression previously reserved for commies or anarchists. But then how much of American life is defined as what or who it stands against? Is this just the vacuum left by the USSR? China's no replacement and maybe the increasing wealth disparity between coastal and inland states can be papered over with issues of "culture". Don't focus on workers' rights, no no. Beware the trans person coming into your kids' bathrooms.

Maybe this is just another speedbump on the road of equality: that as certain previously ostracised demographics gain more prominence and legal recognition, the pushback comes from those who think that gays (for example) should be gratful to simply exist in public, let alone gain some kind of legal parity. Even on Boards you'll see that in the dreaded Current Affairs forum; an otherwise heartening piece of news that Scotland would supply free period products in its public buildings, had the inevitable Bad Faith merchants and those kicking back against this apparently "PC gone mad" idea that 50% of the population should be recognised for having issues specific to their gender.

edit: appreciate this is hewing a little off-topic mind you.

I don't see it at all due to a vacuum left by foreign enemies, the same distain/hatred was always there against those 'culture' groups but it was much easier to stomp them down, especially as in the past Dems went along with it (even drove it at times in order to win votes - see what they did on criminal justice when kept losing on the 'law and order' message). The difference now is there is actually a fight/war when in the past it was just a one sided slaughter that didn't need any attention or effort.

Now that the Dems have chosen their 'side' in the culture war many voters are incredibly difficult to get back. The idea that someone progressive like Bernie is going to get voters that are religious anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun to vote for him because they liked his taxation plan for high earners was and is a complete pipedream. The Dems made the choice in 2020 to court suburban voters, who would see themselves on that 'side' of the culture war but not as progressive on economic policy, and it is those groups that won him the election.

one armed dwarf

I feel like Trump could have still mishandled covid but if he put on a show and made some nice speeches asking for solidarity through this difficult time he could have clinched it, rather than speaking ****e about disinfectant and saying covid is no biggie, 'don't let it rule your life'.

Perfectly skewered by Chapelle saying it's like going up to a homeless man while eating a hamburger saying 'dont let food rule your life'

Foxtrol

hotmail.com wrote: »

A large percentage of Democrats and their voters are opposed to unions. None of the tech companies, which probably support the Democrats, are unionised.

I think you're getting confused between not feeling they personally need them and opposing the idea of unions.

People working in tech companies are highly paid and have great benefits, they simply don't need unions

hotmail.com

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think you're getting confused between not feeling they personally need them and opposing the idea of unions.

People working in tech companies are highly paid and have great benefits, they simply don't need unions

Nope, I'm not confused. America is anti union.

rossie1977

hotmail.com wrote: »

Nope, I'm not confused. America is anti union.

65% approval rating suggests otherwise https://news.gallup.com/poll/318980/approval-labor-unions-remains-high.aspx

hotmail.com

Leroy42 wrote: »

And this will be the thing that rankles most. They really did have everything in their favour. Trup had successfully created the narrative that the media was fake, that everything bad about him was fake, that all that mattered was the economy and the stock market.

The Dems then put forward a terrible candidate, according to Trump and his supporters. He also had the massive benefit of the incumbency, with all that entails. Including using the WH for political events.

But despite all that he managed to lose. When the dust has settled that is exactly what this will be seen as. A massive loss of the WH by the GOP. They had it, they had secured the SCOTUS, all Trump had to do was act properly. He even survived Covid. That alone should have seen him gain millions of votes.

But he just wasn't capable. He threw it away.

He will, of more likely others will, look back at the 2020 election as a disaster in terms of the GOP and the WH. And that is all down to Trump and his inability to control himself or stick to a message.

Trump lost this election, simple as.

Trump supporters in America can take heart that Biden won't change much.

The real debate was during the Democratic primaries and they rejected a move to the left. This election was an affirmation of right wing economics, an affirmation of the market based capitalist system.

All Biden will change is the nice speeches.

To be honest, when I saw him commenting on Ireland and Brexit, it comes across as he hasn't a clue what he's talking about. He will stick to the script given to him in the next 4 years. No change.