~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[youthathletics]

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Do you think this is limited to Trumpism? This is liberalism and today's politics in a nutshell too.

Of course he does he said so.... "There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too". And look at all his vague qualifiers.......may, think, likely, almost. He's so certain, but always gives himself an out.

[kramerica.inc]

PS: slightly related... upon the recent renewal of my driver's license, I registered as a democrat in the state of MD. Should I start referring to myself as a "longtime democrat?"

[youthathletics]

PS: slightly related... upon the recent renewal of my driver's license, I registered as a democrat in the state of MD. Should I start referring to myself as a "longtime democrat?"

You should be receiving your 'plan on a page' shortly. It will provide you with all the key terms to use moving forward, and most importantly, how to bob and weave in order blame everyone else.

[get it to x]

PS: slightly related... upon the recent renewal of my driver's license, I registered as a democrat in the state of MD. Should I start referring to myself as a "longtime democrat?"

You should be receiving your 'plan on a page' shortly. It will provide you with all the key terms to use moving forward, and most importantly, how to bob and weave in order blame everyone else.

I have more than a few friends in Maryland who are registered as Dems, just to play mischief in the primaries. They vote Republican in the general. Of course, unless you're on the eastern shore, being a Republican in Maryland is close to being useless. Here in SC, we just need to root out RINOs like Nancy Mace and Miz Lindsey.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Do you think this is limited to Trumpism? This is liberalism and today's politics in a nutshell too.

Of course he does he said so.... "There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too". And look at all his vague qualifiers.......may, think, likely, almost. He's so certain, but always gives himself an out.

Again, I didn't say that all Trump voters are R's.
Nor did I say that all R's are Trumpists.
But I did say that nearly 100% Trumpists, at least according to the polling, are now R's, whether they started there or not.

Look at the definition. You know any actual D's who fit?
Might be someone, sure, but pretty darn unlikely.

[Peter Brown]

PS: slightly related... upon the recent renewal of my driver's license, I registered as a democrat in the state of MD. Should I start referring to myself as a "longtime democrat?"

[Peter Brown]

PS: slightly related... upon the recent renewal of my driver's license, I registered as a democrat in the state of MD. Should I start referring to myself as a "longtime democrat?"

You should be receiving your 'plan on a page' shortly. It will provide you with all the key terms to use moving forward, and most importantly, how to bob and weave in order blame everyone else.

[Peter Brown]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

To your list I would add “constitutional judges’.

And yes, Democrats do far more of the demonization thing. It all started with Hillary’s deplorables comment. Which you might notice is still carried on here at Fanlax.

[youthathletics]

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Do you think this is limited to Trumpism? This is liberalism and today's politics in a nutshell too.

Of course he does he said so.... "There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too". And look at all his vague qualifiers.......may, think, likely, almost. He's so certain, but always gives himself an out.

Again, I didn't say that all Trump voters are R's.
Nor did I say that all R's are Trumpists.
But I did say that nearly 100% Trumpists, at least according to the polling, are now R's, whether they started there or not.

Look at the definition. You know any actual D's who fit?
Might be someone, sure, but pretty darn unlikely.

My goodness MD, if you can not see that the very same thing applies on the other side, then there is zero getting through to you.

Your definition of Trumpism, is no different than Democratism, post 2016. We certainly all appreciate and agree that civility is lacking and a call to the older days of civil discourse is in dire need.....but enough of the name TDS BS, its beneath you.

[get it to x]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Do you think this is limited to Trumpism? This is liberalism and today's politics in a nutshell too.

Of course he does he said so.... "There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too". And look at all his vague qualifiers.......may, think, likely, almost. He's so certain, but always gives himself an out.

Again, I didn't say that all Trump voters are R's.
Nor did I say that all R's are Trumpists.
But I did say that nearly 100% Trumpists, at least according to the polling, are now R's, whether they started there or not.

Look at the definition. You know any actual D's who fit?
Might be someone, sure, but pretty darn unlikely.

My goodness MD, if you can not see that the very same thing applies on the other side, then there is zero getting through to you.

Your definition of Trumpism, is no different than Democratism, post 2016. We certainly all appreciate and agree that civility is lacking and a call to the older days of civil discourse is in dire need.....but enough of the name TDS BS, its beneath you.

Tell that to Liz Cheney.

But ok, how do you answer that pair of questions?
Pretty easy way to determine whether you're a Trumpist or simply don't like Democrats or Democratic policies...

Are you having difficulty with those questions?

You want to debate after that determination, fine by me...but I was asked what the definition of Trumpism is and I answered coherently. How come you're struggling with this?

More TAATs ?

[MDlaxfan76]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

Ok, you're a Trumpist.
Got it.

You clear now on the definition?

[kramerica.inc]

It's the economy, Joe.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3827

On four separate issues, Biden receives his lowest grades so far on each of them. Americans were asked about his handling of...

the response to the coronavirus: 45 percent approve, while 50 percent disapprove;
climate change: 41 percent approve, while 48 percent disapprove;
the economy: 34 percent approve, while 59 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 33 percent approve, while 55 percent disapprove.
When it comes to Biden's personal traits, Americans were asked whether or not Biden...

Cares about average Americans: 47 percent say yes, while 47 percent say no;
is honest: 42 percent say yes, while 51 percent say no;
has good leadership skills: 37 percent say yes, while 57 percent say no.

Roughly 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent) say the nation's economy is getter worse, 21 percent say it's staying about the same, and 16 percent say it's getting better.

That's compared to a survey in late October when 55 percent said the nation's economy was getting worse, 28 percent said it was staying about the same, and 15 percent said it was getting better.

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (68 percent) say increased prices for things such as food and gasoline have caused them to change their spending habits and 30 percent say it has not.

...

Americans were asked about their recent shopping experiences:

53 percent say they are not finding groceries they want to buy at a grocery store;
50 percent say they are not finding consumer goods they want to buy at a retail/online store;
52 percent say they are experiencing long delays in the delivery of items they purchased.

[get it to x]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

Ok, you're a Trumpist.
Got it.

You clear now on the definition?

OK, your obtuse/willfully blind.
Got it.

See how that works.

You would have more credibility if you would refute my assertions instead of resorting to playground name calling.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

Ok, you're a Trumpist.
Got it.

You clear now on the definition?

OK, your obtuse/willfully blind.
Got it.

See how that works.

You would have more credibility if you would refute my assertions instead of resorting to playground name calling.

You asked for my definition, I gave you it, and you then self-qualified under that definition.

Are you offended to be called a Trumpist?

[get it to x]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

Ok, you're a Trumpist.
Got it.

You clear now on the definition?

OK, your obtuse/willfully blind.
Got it.

See how that works.

You would have more credibility if you would refute my assertions instead of resorting to playground name calling.

You asked for my definition, I gave you it, and you then self-qualified under that definition.

Are you offended to be called a Trumpist?

Proud Trump supporter. In fact, the more you hate him, the more I like him.

[a fan]

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

If I understand what your sales pitch is here: each city has a different ballot, with dozens of elections and propositions, etc.

What you and the rest of the folks who think the election was fraudulent are telling us is....all those thousands of down-ticket election results are fair and valid. The ONLY part of those ballots that are fraudulent are the Trump votes.

Do you not understand that that doesn't make any sense?

You know what would help convince a guy like me? If the Republicans who won their part of the election on those supposedly fraudulent ballots refused to take their seats.

Not one of them did that. And not one single ballot problem was found in Republican controlled States. How do you explain that?

[Kismet]

Not until Republicans bury Trumpism, put a stake through it's vampiric heart, will the GOP remotely be capable of becoming a governing party.

Youngkin and DeSantis are unwilling to cut the ties with Trumpism, they are kowtowing at each turn to the social hater crowd that drives the Trumpist movement. Paul is among the very worst Trumpist bootlickers. George P is an embarrassment to his family; he's a Trump bootlicker. Rick Scott, too, is a Trump bootlicker.

Hogan and Baker yes, Romney yes, but they are darn few and far between.

A fan will tell you, and painfully I agree, that Republicans gave up on actually governing well before Trump himself rose to prominence. But at least they weren't actually trying to destroy democracy. Up until the Obama Presidency, they were at least ostensibly partners in democracy. Under Clinton, Gingrich, arguably, gave us the early warning sign of this non-governing impulse, but he too was, at least back then, willing to participate in the process of reaching compromise. And obviously W was a traditionalist, at the core, as a participant in democracy.

This broke in reaction to Obama's election.

Could you define Trumpism?

Its a moving target, one that waffles depending on which which way the wind blows, and is at the users discretion.....oh, and it can only applied to anyone with (r) by their name.

Actually, there may be a few I Trumpists, though I think the polling indicates that almost all those have moved to R...mostly that was voters who rarely voted at all, some never before in decades of eligibility to vote. So, no prior affiliation. There may have been some D's originally as well, but those have moved too.

Trumpism is primarily the cult of the one man, whatever he says it is at any given moment. There do not appear to be any sort of firm principles, certainly not ones we'd recognize as 'traditional' principles. Except for loyalty to Der Leader.

So, rule of law simply doesn't apply TO Tump and Trumpists, only a tool against perceived 'enemies'. There is no objective truth, only the statements of Der Leader.

Thus, the Big Lie is embraced by Trumpists, non-Trumpists of all stripes easily reject it.

There are other 'policy' aspects, but note that these are fleeting, only useful in the moment to rally support to Der Leader. They could just as easily be jettisoned if no longer useful for that purpose.

And yes, there's a strong fascist element to Trumpism.
Elevation and loyalty to the 'strong' leader, hatred of 'enemies', demonization of the Other to explain various ills, frustrations, and anxieties, whether social or economic.

Wow. Rule of Law doesn't apply? So the FBI, the DOJ, SDNY, Mueller/Weissman and the US House of Representatives never really got him on anything criminal. The two impeachments were so weak only the Romney types gave them any credence. The House impeached because they felt like it.

I would counter by saying that most Trumpists were looking for results, and largely got them, in these areas:

1) Strong national defense
2) Tight border control
3) Low unemployment
4) More economic opportunity
5) Middle East peace accords

Also, I see way more demonization of the "other" coming from Dems. The unvaccinated, white men, law enforcement. I don't recall Trump ever calling fellow citizens terrorists, or siccing the DOJ on his enemies without cause. Maybe you're ok with Judge Garland targeting parents.

Reading Comprehension 101.

Did I say that every Trump voter is a Trumpist???

I quite understand that there were policy choices favored by some voters that aligned with what they thought Trump might favor. And that's a reasonable decision. People of good faith can disagree.

So, try reading what I wrote and try replying again.

But first, let me help you out.
Did Joe Biden win the election, fair and square, Yes or No?
Or did Trump actually win and was cheated out of the election? Yes or No?

If you have difficulty with this pair of questions, you're a Trumpist.

After that we can discuss what the rule of law means.

To answer your questions, Joe Biden is the President. This, in spite of the fact that several swing state Governors changed election law when under the US Constitution only state legislatures are vested with changing election law. Between mail out ballots and chain of custody issues, stopping the vote count in the middle of the night and kicking out Republican observers only to have large ballot dumps favoring Biden by huge margins, no I don't have confidence that all of the votes were legally cast.

Some anomalies for you:

- Trump won 19 of 20 historical "bellweather" counties.
- Polling at 53% on "Are your better off than 4 years ago?", Trump set the record. No candidate over 45% previously had ever lost.
- Trump had the highest vote % ever as an incumbent in the primaries. He was well above the threshold for prior Presidential winners, even with
little opposition.
- Biden won 477 counties. Even Obama won 873.

There are at least 15 more examples I could cite.

You're either being obtuse or willfully blind.

Can you cite a source for the anomalies you reference? Or is this your personal analysis? thx

[a fan]

Americans were asked about their recent shopping experiences:

53 percent say they are not finding groceries they want to buy at a grocery store;
50 percent say they are not finding consumer goods they want to buy at a retail/online store;
52 percent say they are experiencing long delays in the delivery of items they purchased.

You're seeing the temporary failure of the global free market, coming out of a pandemic. Customs clearances are fine, by all accounts, including mine.

Pretend you're running against Joe: tell me what you would do to fix the global supply chain.