Qutzupalotl
Qutzupalotl's JournalThink of the starting amount as 100%.
10% more would be 110%.
100% more would be twice as much, or 200%.
When you say “more,” you’re adding to the initial 100%.
When you say “as much,” you’re multiplying or dividing.
It's easy to be glib about this and say Sayonara,
but this is a terrible, unworkable idea that undermines our democracy.
Even if we could manage to split the country with no bloodshed, the details are a nightmare. For instance: what happens to our national defense? Suppose we let soldiers choose which “country” they want to serve. Then we have two armies composed of people who hate each other. Vlad would be wetting his pants at that point.
When we’re focused on our own divisions, we are less able to respond to outside threats. That’s when our adversaries will pounce.
I truly do see Trumpers as an existential threat. And in a through-the-looking-glass sort of way, they see us as the threat. Understand that they’ve been led to believe that Trump-Russia was all a hoax, that the election was fraudulent, that Biden is a socialist, and that Antifa and BLM want to burn their cities and teach their kids to be ashamed of being white.
Maybe this site is not the forum for such sentiments, but we have to learn to live and work alongside people we strongly disagree with. It’s going to take a lot of listening and educating, remembering we’re all Americans. Maybe an external threat is needed to unite the country; I hope not. Our self-preservation is on the line now, not just our democracy.
That's wise, if that's their strategy.
It seems the media and therefore the public can only accept a single factual development in a given news cycle.
We've learned that Republicans won't vote for even a watered-down commission. Okay; let that percolate and generate outrage. Then we'll have even more public support when we launch a House investigation.
The delay in waiting at least one news cycle makes it abundantly clear that we extended a hand of bipartisanship, only to have it slapped away — again.
Some of this is Winner's Glow
from having won so big. Everyone loves a good winner.
Some of it is Trump's big lie falling apart and his worsening mental illnesses.
But a lot of it is Joe setting a good example, just keeping his head down and doing the work, and being able to get stuff done. We'd be in a very different place without Warnock and Ossoff.
Finally, Joe is a decent man and reminds most people of what this country used to stand for. I hope he runs again in 2024. He would win.
Governing from unity quells the need for revenge.
That's why I doubt there will be a hard swing of the pendulum away from Dems after Joe. They know he's decent and loves the country.
I'm so glad he was our candidate. If we had gone with a firebrand this time, I would expect a snapback afterwards. Now I wonder if the Rs will ever have a majority. Certainly demographics are not on their side, and they are tied to white supremacist policies, which will be like an anvil to them as they drown.
Granted, there was a hard swing after Obama, but it was not for lack of him trying to govern the whole country magnanimously. Republicans never accepted a black man in the White House. Trump to them was the anti-Obama: unreasonable, stupid and egotistical. May Republicans be ashamed of him forever.
If it's any consolation, this was the last of the battles that
had to respect the office of president. He is now a private citizen, subject to law, as Mitch and Castor said. No fixers like Cohen or Barr. No Rosenstein to land the plane. No Roy Cohn to defend him, just a circus of ineptitude and bad-faith bluster. And a trail of crimes a mile long.
If it's insider trading, yes.
Trading on non-public information.
Best way to avoid that is do what they should have done and warn the public, what with them being public officials and all. Then sell. But they would have made less money.
Shows you their priorities.
As an aside, I think you hit on the culture war we're in.
It’s more of an urban/rural divide than anything else.
In cities, you can see your tax dollars at work; there’s public transport, street repair, libraries, etc. In rural areas, you don’t; so they see government as taking their taxes and not giving them anything in return. We could argue that national defense helps them, and law enforcement helps them, but these are not as visible as public works projects. In most rural areas, law enforcement will not arrive fast enough in an emergency, so they rely on gun ownership for self-defense.
In this light, the D and R labels seem more like a symptom than the cause. I post this mostly to get us thinking of other ways to talk to any remaining rural voters who are not yet subsumed by the cult of Trump.
If Klobuchar is below 15% in most caucus locations,
where do her supporters go? Ideologically, probably closer to Biden or Buttigieg. For those wanting a female candidate, or someone who has never lost, there's Warren. 
In either case, I don't see Bernie picking up much of Amy's base.
Sanders and Warren share much of the same fan base, so Iowa will be zero-sum for them. If you can give everyone healthcare in a well-regulated capitalist system, that seems more viable to me than a socialist candidate. So I would favor Warren, but Bernie may beat her here.
All our major candidates are good, but I am leaning Biden at this point. We have to win it all, and he's the one who can win the midwest and thereby the EC. The fact that Trump is terrified of him, as we see in the trial, says a lot. If Biden's the nominee, Trump winds up in a New York jail and he knows it.
He was talking about 2016, right?
And worried about a Clinton/Sanders unity ticket.
Different field this time around. A lot of key events in the Ukraine saga coincide with the release of polls showing Biden trouncing Trump, which tells me he's terrified of Biden. I don't see Trump hunting for dirt on Sanders. Maybe he thinks he already has enough.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 14,302
