@Col3814444 She should be indicted. Ginni's group hired the busses that got the traitors to the insurrection and she actively promoted the fake electors plot
Every election seasons I hope we can move closer to have more in touch, pragmatic/benevolent and generally smart individuals at the helm.
In the past we definately had some pretty smart folks running the show, though a good swath of them did not use this for benevolence or pragmatism in the slightest.
But now it seems we are more or more being saddled with options of mentally deficient options at the highest posts. Some of it because of age, others because they are abusing media (or the media is abusing them).
Its really sad, and kinda scary. This isnt really a problem with democracy (or republics), it happens all to often in all forms of government, probably even historically moreso in others, but still. Its scary.
Am I the only one who thinks another Trump run is the best possible outcome for Democrats? That or him running third party.
I acknowledge and recognize the 2016 hubris that got us here, but it's not 2016 anymore, and I don't think you will have well-meaning folks thinking how bad can he be. At this point he's going to get votes from the trump faithful and a smaller chunk of R who are still willing to hand him power, I'd imagine.
I don't claim any particular expertise, but while I do want him convicted and don't want him as president, I think I'm OK with him running for the office one more time.
On the other hand, if the GOP went with desantis or someone else, a number of the die hards might not vote Republican at all. It’s hard to say how it’ll all shake out.
EDIT: Oh, I see you mentioned him running third party. Yeah, that might be the best case scenario for Democrats.
I actually think DeSantis would be almost as good for the Dems as Trump would be - but I get the feeling that even R has figured out he's a bad play. I could be wrong of course...
I think a Trump 3rd party run is the only surefire Democratic victory. I believe that a Trump GOP run will mirror 2016 in which the popular vote is a razor thin (yes, I'm calling a 3-4 Million lead razor thin) victory overshadowed by the electoral college.
I seriously worry about the Cornell West Green Party campaign splitting the Democratic vote for Biden. Biden isn't my first pick, but I would have preferred to see West try to primary Biden and then once West gets any traction, platform planks can be transplanted into the Dem platform. That is not even a possibility for this 3rd party approach.
Also, Jill Stein was a Russian shill to disrupt Sec. Clinton so I can't believe Cornell West has thrown his lot in with the Green Party.
The best case for the country is Trump quietly passes away in his sleep.
When he runs, no matter what, there will be violence. Something will not go his way, he will make some unsubtle plea for retribution, and people will get hurt.
Actually, no. Even quietly in his sleep would be seen as some kind of conspiracy, and people will riot and hurt others. Hell, even if he had a heart attack just after admitting guilt on live TV, with his weirdo doctor examining him DURING the event and saying, "This is a heart attack that Donald Trump is having", it would STILL be seen as a conspiracy and innocent people will get hurt.
The problem is not that fat orange fuck. It's the circumstances and people that allowed him to become their avatar of hate and ignorance. They are still here and primed for violence.
I agree that we need something to stop the hate machine, but it occurs to me that there are still people who carry water for him that in the event of his sudden absence and power vacuum, another toady political figure is going to immediately take up the reins. I wonder how many decades it will take for the reverberations of Trumpism to fade. The Whigs existed in America well until the Civil War... and has even been revived in the last 10 years.
For a guy who is on the US House Armed Services Committee, he sure as hell understands surprisingly little about World War II and the Cold War. Russia has expansion interest since after World War II. In fact, that's how a lot of Soviet Russia was formed. The allies bombed the fuck out the nations, the nations were destitute, broken down countries are really easy to just sweep in and take over. The thing as we all know about that last part is that, it's easy to topple leadership in a country, it's mighty difficult to maintain your grasp on the nation cough Iraq cough.
NATO aims to combine a military strength to act as a deterrent towards expansion into member states, which is why a lot of Europe is in NATO. The only thing guiding NATO is the fourteen articles of the North Atlantic Treaty, outside of that, nations are free to govern themselves. This is in opposition to how Russia was going about adding Ukraine, Moldova, and so on to their collective group.
NATO in very loose terms is a different way of doing a USSR, if that helps Matt Gatez to understand "WHY" we can't just:
extend NATO to Russia and make it an anti-China alliance?
Russia isn't interested in upholding the means by which nations govern. It's like asking the San Francisco 49ers why they won't invite the Boston Red Soxs to come play a game. They aren't doing things that have enough similarities to not have a ton of friction on the collaborative and still call it "football" or "baseball" as we know it. We can totally invent something completely different, but per the definition of things being what they claim to be: Something completely different is in fact completely different than NATO currently be, and thus, we would just invent something different (oh say like a G and some number after it) that has less friction to facilitate interchange in that regard.
But even then when we try something different and invite Russia, they still just have to go edgelord and fuck their membership up. So we literally tried to take Chad to get ice cream at McDonald's as a way to see if they're ready to go to an actual sit down place, AND Chad just couldn't help but to take a shit in the ball pit. So since Chad still is shitting in ball pits, we cannot take Chad to the sit down place with the nice dessert. That's just how it be currently.
So hopefully that's dumbed down enough for even him to understand why we "just don't go and do that thing". If Russia cannot help itself to fuck it's membership up with the G8, they sure as shit aren't going to act proper in a setting like NATO. How is this a thing that eludes this guy?
Even if he understands, it doesn't suit his narrative. He is a far-right politician who says what his owners (domestic and otherwise) want to hear on the cameras. It's a coin toss whether he actually believes some of the things that he says, but largely inconsequential at the end of the day because he isn't going to argue in good faith even if someone miraculously trips over a genuine belief that he holds close to him.
newsweek.com
Active