"Biden did not have the strength or will to stop his administration from governing from the far left."
This is nonsense. The investment in infrastructure has been one of the Biden administration's successes and it's disingenuous to conflate this with inflation rising - a worldwide problem which they've also tackled reasonably effectively - but I don't expect a conservative commentator to recognise that public spending can be beneficial. It's a perfectly economically sound strategy, practised by centrist governments across Europe, for example. To label this as "far left" is a sign of where the Overton window sits in US politics.
If Biden has moved the party slightly to the left, that's because Democrats, particularly younger Democrats, have demanded it - precisely because they are sick of the "politics as usual" that the author rightly decries.
I totally get the idea of wanting radical change, an end to the broken system where rapacious global behemoths hoover up ever larger quantities of capital and power. The Democrats are not offering this. I don't even know whether it's in the gift of any government to do so these days - I mean technically it is but in practice corporations dictate to politicians, not the other way round.
I understand the need to listen to people we disagree with and try to see the viewpoints that form their opinions rather than dismiss Trumpsters as thick, racist and/or mentally ill (not nice to say but I believe many are some combination thereof).
The dam is cracking whatever the result of this election. I wish I knew what the solution was, but I am absolutely certain that it doesn't involve electing a narcisstic lunatic like Donald Trump and all that this would usher in.
Whether he wins or loses, these are dangerous times and the forces that propelled Trump to this position will persist after he's gone.
... open a window into the Trumpista mindset, rather than justifiying it?
but that piece is normalising Trump's insane behaviour far too much for me. Giving him credit for working hard and having great energy for a 78-year-old rather misses the point.
Hearing a lot of "yeah Trump's horrible but..." comments lately.
He's a nut job serial criminal whose former subordinates have either been sent to prison or stated that he's unfit for office.
"Own the libs".
He's a senile, narcissistic orange-faced clown with the logical reasoning and communication skills of a particularly stupid and petulant toddler.
Deep state.
He's stated he wants to end the constitution and tried to overthrow democracy by whipping up a mob of crazed cultists who only failed because they were too stupid to properly organise themselves. He would have extra powers next time.
Yebbut, Kamala is not a great public speaker.
I'll concede one thing, he is great at conning people. Why some of them keep going back for more, you'd have to ask them.
Honestly, I am staggered at the false equivalence.
Here's a nice example of one particular yebbut's incoherence being exposed. Ignore the rather hyperbolic headline.
?si=6Lfu5YaS3mmsVRUJ
https://www.thetimes.com/article/a3c06599-57db-4be1-9790-dd5d09b5318f?shareToken=5848b0e0749babee7eb7d972f8de3fe2
play the games / hold the election as they say.
But I've noticed that there's more and more concern about what Trump will do if he loses. Is this just anxiety, or am I missing something? He's a dotard with a few armed nutjobs, not a general with the backing of the army and air force. There might be some low-level violence, especially if the count drags on for a few days, but I don't see any risk of general social unrest / 18 Brumaire 1799 / Santiago 1973. Or am I wrong? (And to be clear: *any* violence around an election is a disaster for a country that until 2020 had managed the peaceful transfer of power in every election since 1796.)
So, this happened. But it is what it is, until it isn't.
Responses