IdaRam
AH legend
Business may be looking up...
... but will there be enough accommodations?
Doubtful
... but will there be enough accommodations?
Doubtful
Great summary. So who is your pick for ticket in 2024?I'm not an American (though my wife and kids are). So no dog in this hunt. But perhaps an outsider's perspective might add something to the debate?
I would be way more worried about this election result if I were a Democrat than if I were a Republican. While it's pretty clear that the Republicans lost the White House, it doesn't seem that their policies lost. It looks like the Republicans will keep the Senate and the Democrats have a reduced majority in the House. This is hardly a victory for Democratic policies.
As well, it's important to note that more Blacks, hispanics and visible minorities voted for Trump this time than in 2016. That should send a pretty sobering message to Democrats on the two coasts.
What seems to have happened, admittedly from afar, is that many people didn't like Trump for a whole bunch of reasons, but mostly personal ones. But many disliked Democrat policies more than they disliked Trump, and thus held their noses and voted for Trump. In effect, Trump's personality, likely with the COVID issues and his reaction to them, cost him the election. So it's less a case of Biden winning than of Trump losing. If I were a Democrat, my greatest fear would be a more likeable version of Trump with the same or similar policies. And given Trump's very strong showing, it's likely that whoever is the nominee in 2024 will take that to heart. Less Twitter ranting and more fundamental change.
On a more important issue, it's the Democrats who are threatening to destroy the American political system, not the Republicans. Yes, Trump refusing to concede and not providing evidence of voter fraud on a scale substantial enough to change the outcome is not helpful, but that's him, not the system. A focus on this should help the Republicans going forward. The Founding Fathers were incredibly prescient - they knew that pure representation by population would inevitably fracture the country and lead to its demise. So they created a senate which added half the states plus one to the majority needed to pass legislation (and an electoral college). So while the Democrats can go on all they want about Biden winning with the largest number of votes for a challenger in history, those votes principally came from New York and California (and states to which Californians are moving). If residents of those states believe (as they seem to) that any rational person, wherever they are, should think and vote like them, then Democrats are in fact doomed to defeat in what really matters - the ability to enact their policies into law. A president can do a lot by executive order, but he can't fundamentally change the laws of the country, and the next president can reverse executive orders. Laws are (often much) more difficult to change.
So while it would have been wonderful to win the White House again, that's a battle, not the war (contrary to what many seem to think). The war is, in reality, one for the heart and soul fo the country, and that's a long term affair. And in that war, from where I sit, it looks like the Republicans are pretty well positioned, if they play their cards right.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, there are still broad sunlit uplands ahead for Republicans.
thank God for Amy, literally.A win for religious freedom, a blow to tyrannical Cuomo. Turncoat Justice Roberts, sides with the Liberals.
A win for religious freedom, a blow to tyrannical Cuomo. Turncoat Justice Roberts, sides with the Liberals.
Only 5 out of 9 in the court believes it. I find that that lack of constitutionality disturbing. More so, if the corruptocrats get the opportunity to stack the Court with judicial activists."Government is not free to disregard the 1st Amendment in times of crisis"
Nice to have a court that still believes this.
One can only wish, but I doubt it.
Did you note I simply responded acknowledging an already posted view point?Based on that statement, shouldn't the Democrats up for reelection in the House &Senate, be voted out for their personality & conduct over the last 4 years? It was exponentially more despicable than many of the things that Trump has said or done!
Or.... haven't you been paying attention?
And I suppose in the next US election it will again be reported about a candidate's popularity having "the most votes ever cast in history" - forgetting of course that in the years between elections the US population would have, inevitably, grown larger by that point anyway.And even with the cheating, fraud, media manipulation, etc Trump still received seventy-something million votes? More than have been cast for any presidential candidate prior I believe. So, a bit of a stretch to say Trump beat himself because of his abrasive personality and general dislike. Simply not the case.
When there is 95%, 100%, 150%, and in some cases 300% voter turn out, it would seem prudent to wait at least until after December 14th to see which results actually get certified and how things play out in the courts. And possibly the halls of Congress. Unlike the lame stream media who have tripped all over themselves in a rush to call the election, and ultimately declare Biden President Elect. Very likely we will see the Supreme Court involved in the coming days.
Stay tuned it’s about to get interesting.
For 4 years, the Democrats tried to frame Trump for colluding with Russia. They had no proof. Zero.Zip.NadaDid you note I simply responded acknowledging an already posted view point?
Or........ weren't you paying attention?
When Trump got elected, they whined about Russian involvement, now that he's lost, everyone's banging on about electoral fraud! Only one thing is certain in US politics - the loser will always cry foul.
As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.For 4 years, the Democrats tried to frame Trump for colluding with Russia. They had no proof. Zero.Zip.Nada
The fraud in this election cycle is there for all to see.
Trump received more votes then any sitting President in history. Pretty good numbers for a President that many claim was not well liked....eh?
Biden, spent most of his time in hiding, because he is a bumbling fool behind a microphone, and his rallies could hardly fill a parking lot. He received a historic 80 million votes????
This election was filled with numbers that don't add up, along with many statistical impossibilities.
Anybody that thinks Biden won this election, fair and square, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I would like to sell you. Cheap!
Hi Timbo, we’ll probably agree to disagree which is fine. We’re both entitled to our own opinion.And I suppose in the next US election it will again be reported about a candidate's popularity having "the most votes ever cast in history" - forgetting of course that in the years between elections the US population would have, inevitably, grown larger by that point anyway.
We can disagree on this and I am sure I can create a counter argument for all of Mr. Gumbel points. Because his research is obviously slanted.As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.
But regarding voter fraud, an author on the subject had this to say:
"....the battle over Florida ripped a veil off a dysfunctional system and offered an opportunity not just for meaningful electoral reform – a slow and frustrating process – but also for new forms of political warfare unseen since the darkest days of the segregation era in which the electoral process itself became fair game, particularly for the Republicans.
It began, perhaps, when the hand recount of punch card ballots requested by Al Gore and the Democrats – something both parties had routinely pressed for in previous contested elections – was recast by many leading Republicans in their talking points as a form of “slow-motion grand larceny”.
Then, in Missouri, Republican Senator Kit Bond took one look at African American voters in overcrowded precincts in St Louis casting ballots beyond the official poll closing time – something that has since become standard practice in many states – and denounced what he called a “major criminal enterprise”.
Soon, a narrative took hold that Democrats were habitual vote-stealers – something that was indubitably true in the days of Boss Tweed in 1860s New York but now took the form of a racist dog-whistle because the voters under most suspicion were black or Latino. Within a few years, politicians such as Sarah Palin were openly distinguishing “real Americans” – meaning white Republicans – from the rest, and states under Republican control were passing voter ID laws to crack down on a problem – voter impersonation fraud – that experts have repeatedly found to be rare to non-existent.
As the federal courts have now begun to find, the effect of these laws has in fact been to discriminate against groups of voters – the transient, the elderly, students and the poor – who are much more likely to support Democrats.
Given the level of mistrust, rank-and-file members of both parties have increasingly come to define democracy by the elections their side wins, and any other outcome as prima facie evidence of theft and corruption."
- Andrew Gumbel, author, quoted from an article in The Guardian, 25th Oct 2016. (And yes, fire away about how The Guardian is anti Republican - but even if so, the author's research on the subject is still his.)
It would be interesting to see how Gumble would see what is happening now? He has two options:As I said, in the next election there will undoutedly be more voters by virtue of the fact that the US population would have inevitably increased - just as there are more people living in the US than 4, 10 or 20 years ago - so your claim Trump having received more votes than any sitting President is just empty.
But regarding voter fraud, an author on the subject had this to say:
"....the battle over Florida ripped a veil off a dysfunctional system and offered an opportunity not just for meaningful electoral reform – a slow and frustrating process – but also for new forms of political warfare unseen since the darkest days of the segregation era in which the electoral process itself became fair game, particularly for the Republicans.
It began, perhaps, when the hand recount of punch card ballots requested by Al Gore and the Democrats – something both parties had routinely pressed for in previous contested elections – was recast by many leading Republicans in their talking points as a form of “slow-motion grand larceny”.
Then, in Missouri, Republican Senator Kit Bond took one look at African American voters in overcrowded precincts in St Louis casting ballots beyond the official poll closing time – something that has since become standard practice in many states – and denounced what he called a “major criminal enterprise”.
Soon, a narrative took hold that Democrats were habitual vote-stealers – something that was indubitably true in the days of Boss Tweed in 1860s New York but now took the form of a racist dog-whistle because the voters under most suspicion were black or Latino. Within a few years, politicians such as Sarah Palin were openly distinguishing “real Americans” – meaning white Republicans – from the rest, and states under Republican control were passing voter ID laws to crack down on a problem – voter impersonation fraud – that experts have repeatedly found to be rare to non-existent.
As the federal courts have now begun to find, the effect of these laws has in fact been to discriminate against groups of voters – the transient, the elderly, students and the poor – who are much more likely to support Democrats.
Given the level of mistrust, rank-and-file members of both parties have increasingly come to define democracy by the elections their side wins, and any other outcome as prima facie evidence of theft and corruption."
- Andrew Gumbel, author, quoted from an article in The Guardian, 25th Oct 2016. (And yes, fire away about how The Guardian is anti Republican - but even if so, the author's research on the subject is still his.)