USA MY Take on Trump v Biden

[Josiah]

Here's MY take in what's going on.... eager to hear yours.

TRUMP. I think there is passionate support here, but it's often not driven by issues or accomplishments but by emotion - especially anger. We find ourselves in a very caustic, emotional, divisive political landscape (perhaps the worse since the Civil War)... a LOT of people are angry! Angry at politics and politicians... angry at promises made but then the opposite done.... angry at corruption.... angry at biased press and lies.... lots are angry and frustrated! At "the swamp." And Trump seems to "feel their pain" (as Clinton used to say like a broken record), he is giving voice to their emotions and fears and hopes, he seems to be the only one who "gets it." Now, I'm not sure they can point to what he's DONE to "drain the swamp" but he 'gets it', he seems to be the only one who HEARS them. And they rally behind him. I think some of them watched the debate and thought, "the nuts shut me up... but they can't shut up TRUMP! He's fighting for me!" It's not so much an issue issue, it's an anger issue. Don't underestimate this... a LOT feel they can't say anything to posters, they can't give voice without being silenced, but Trump is doing it for them. Nixon use to speak of "the silent majority" and they ended up electing him (twice). Liberals are vocal - because they feel they can be.

BIDEN. I think this side is driven not by Biden. Not a bit, not at all. His supporters rarely even mention him. One Democrat said to me, "He's a _____ old fool who doesn't even know why he's a candidate but he's not Trump and he can defeat him." I think that comment gets to the point. This election has nothing to do with Biden. This side is driven by HATRED. Intense, personal, at times almost pathological hatred for the man. Not for anything he's done but for who he is (one person on facebook when on and on with LOTS of "four-letter-words" in her intense hatred of Trump "and his orange face." No one on this side seems to like Biden (or even mention him), there's just this almost pathological HATRED for a man. I had a conversation with a city council member some weeks ago... who went on this irrational TRIAD (left me speechless) filled with pathological hate.

Frankly, I don't think any of this is healthy. I think this is largely a product of the very caustic, divisive society in which we find ourselves. But I find it a bit scary (and I can't think of some lessons from world history). And unlike previous times in US history, THIS horrible mess seems to have little to do with issues. I think this horrible situation is a result of the caustic situation.





.

 

[Josiah]

When it comes to ISSUES, I'm clearly on Trump's side. I wish there was a discussion of issues because I think Trump's view would gain him a clear re-election. In terms of accomplishments, I think he's done better than usual for a first term. I think of his two peace treaties, to ended wars, to bringing troops home.... I think of actions to address the horrible massive infanticide in our country.... I think of the stock market and economy (even in the midst of the worse pandemic in a century)...and much more. True - nothing significant about the health care problem but at least he didn't make it worse as Obama did. On the other hand, I find him often an embarrassment... I wish he'd shut up a lot of the time.... we would have reason to respect him rather than be embarrassed by him. I understand it's not a politican, but as a businessman, I can tell you he doesn't present himself as a respectable businessman either. His wife should slap him in the head and tell him to behave.

When it comes to ISSUES, I think Biden has none. He has been a career politican for 47 years and no Democrat seems able to think of a single thing he's done, a single issue he's advanced. He's held pretty much every position on every issue there is - but did nothing about any of them. He's ran for president before but had NOTHING to offer other than his "working man" persona he likes to promote (he's never worked a day in his life) He did nothing as VP. In order to appease the socialist/communist now dominate part of the Democrat Party, he's SOUNDING liberal (and now passionately pro-abortion) but I have no idea what he thinks or if it matters since he doesn't seem to do anything about anything. There's a reason no one is talking about him, there's nothing to talk about. And what happened to all the women who accused him of "inappropriate" behavior, etc., etc., etc., etc. He's not one known for integrity or character.




.

 

[tango]

From what I can see you nailed it pretty well there. "Good ole Joe from Scranton PA" has that nice working-class ring to it but the guy in his 70s who has been a national-level politician for 47 years clearly isn't working class anything and probably never has been. It's hard to take him seriously when he talks of what he'll do in his first 100 days when he already had 8 years as VP but didn't see fit to do any of it then, and has been at the national table for nearly half a century and didn't see fit to do any of it at any time. Either he didn't care about it back then (in which case why does he suddenly care now?) or he lacked the ability to get it done then (in which case why should we believe he can get it done now?). Throw in the idea that he's notionally a moderate but still nominated the kind of far-left nutjob to appease the nutjob wing of his party and the potential for the automatic appointment of President Harris if Biden doesn't make it the full four years and the ticket looks worrying, even to some on the left. Given the left's pathological hatred of the orange man it's not difficult to see that turning into pathological hatred against Biden for not being progressive enough. For good measure the incessant racism from the left as they squeal about getting rid of racism is appalling. Of course there are very competent women out there, there are competent black women out there, but to insist that candidates for a particular position have to be black women is to discriminate against white women and black men, not to mention white men (not that white men count for anything in the uber-progressive world). I'm sure we can look forward to an enhanced version of their howling from 2016 and the claim that the only reason not to vote for the far-left black female Harris is some combination of racism and sexism rather than an opposition to her political stances.

In many ways Trump gets a pass on at least some issues. Yes, he can be a jerk but he's from NYC so to an extent being a bit of a jerk is somewhat expected. He's a businessman used to getting things done rather than a politician used to spending months talking about why nothing can be done. As you say, he gets it when people are upset at politicians who promise the earth and deliver nothing or, worse, promise the earth and then take things away from me so they can give someone else the earth. Politicians who talk about give and take when what they mean is that I keep giving and they keep taking. But then his rants make him look unhinged. It's easy to make a case that the left-leaning media (which, let's be frank, is most of it in the US) is using COVID to make him look bad. It's easy to make a case that failing to differentiate between deaths from COVID and deaths with COVID inflate the numbers. It's easy to make a case that the Democrats would have botched their response to the virus. But the claims that the virus isn't even real, or that it will just go away by itself in a few weeks, help nobody. Sometimes it's hard to figure just what he's really saying given the hostility towards him from just about every media outlet out there - even if he did say what they attribute to him word-for-word it's hard to know whether it's taken out of context. I think it was NBC who quoted AG Barr as saying something about history being written by the winners, conveniently omitting him continuing to say that he thought a decision was just and fair and history would look back with favor.

The hostility against Trump really is remarkable. You'd have thought that things like a peace treaty between Israel and neighbors would be celebrated but it seems the left-leaning media was more worried that two leaders shaking hands violated social distancing protocols. Perhaps they would rather the leaders went back home and continued shooting each other.

The growing sense of hatred between the two sides is the biggest concern of all. Add in the concept that democracy is not entirely unfairly described as two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner and it's worrying whoever comes out on top in November. On that note I'm more concerned with the "cancel culture" of the left than with anything from the right.

 

[tango]

One other thought, I read something years ago about Bill Clinton and his ability to meet with just about anyone and have them conclude that "he understands me, he's like me". A guy who can make a hedge fund manager from NYC like him and can also make a coal miner from rural WV like him obviously has a lot of talent where connecting with the people is concerned. It seems Bill Clinton connected with people, made them feel like he understood them and had their backs.

Looking at how people feel like the two candidates "get" them, understand them, have their backs etc I think Trump comes out on top. The people who feel ignored or even victimised by "the establishment" feel like Trump has their back to stop the rot and fight back against the silliness. The "orange man bad" brigade will hate him whatever he does - he could hand deliver gold bars to people and they'd still find something to complain about. Biden doesn't seem to really connect so well with people - he seems to be more a notional figure whose primary function is to not be the orange man.

 

[JRT]

Trump doesn't seem to know what a debate is. He did exactly what I thought he would do --- he played to his base in the usual school yard bully mode that is so popular at his rallies. Biden also did what I sort of expected --- he actually tried to address the issues in a calm rational way. He was clearly exasperated with Trump at times but managed to keep his composure. He was not a "sleepy Joe" nor was he vague and unfocussed as Trump's base likes to paint him. He clearly won the debate. I'm not inspired by his personality but as a rational person I think him to be the only choice because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

 

[tango]

I forget which of the international papers commented that the debate was little more than two angry septuagenearians who clearly loathe each other.

Truth be told I find the thought of either winning to be pretty awful.

 

[MrW]

Here's MY take in what's going on.... eager to hear yours.

TRUMP. I think there is passionate support here, but it's often not driven by issues or accomplishments but by emotion - especially anger. We find ourselves in a very caustic, emotional, divisive political landscape (perhaps the worse since the Civil War)... a LOT of people are angry! Angry at politics and politicians... angry at promises made but then the opposite done.... angry at corruption.... angry at biased press and lies.... lots are angry and frustrated! At "the swamp." And Trump seems to "feel their pain" (as Clinton used to say like a broken record), he is giving voice to their emotions and fears and hopes, he seems to be the only one who "gets it." Now, I'm not sure they can point to what he's DONE to "drain the swamp" but he 'gets it', he seems to be the only one who HEARS them. And they rally behind him. I think some of them watched the debate and thought, "the nuts shut me up... but they can't shut up TRUMP! He's fighting for me!" It's not so much an issue issue, it's an anger issue. Don't underestimate this... a LOT feel they can't say anything to posters, they can't give voice without being silenced, but Trump is doing it for them. Nixon use to speak of "the silent majority" and they ended up electing him (twice). Liberals are vocal - because they feel they can be.

BIDEN. I think this side is driven not by Biden. Not a bit, not at all. His supporters rarely even mention him. One Democrat said to me, "He's a _____ old fool who doesn't even know why he's a candidate but he's not Trump and he can defeat him." I think that comment gets to the point. This election has nothing to do with Biden. This side is driven by HATRED. Intense, personal, at times almost pathological hatred for the man. Not for anything he's done but for who he is (one person on facebook when on and on with LOTS of "four-letter-words" in her intense hatred of Trump "and his orange face." No one on this side seems to like Biden (or even mention him), there's just this almost pathological HATRED for a man. I had a conversation with a city council member some weeks ago... who went on this irrational TRIAD (left me speechless) filled with pathological hate.

Frankly, I don't think any of this is healthy. I think this is largely a product of the very caustic, divisive society in which we find ourselves. But I find it a bit scary (and I can't think of some lessons from world history). And unlike previous times in US history, THIS horrible mess seems to have little to do with issues. I think this horrible situation is a result of the caustic situation.





.

I disagree that the Trump side is driven by anger. It is driven by accomplishments—promises made; promises kept.

I agree the democrats are driven by intense, unfounded anger and the insane notion their policies are actually good. They’re reprobates.

 

[Josiah]

I disagree that the Trump side is driven by anger. It is driven by accomplishments—promises made; promises kept.

I agree the democrats are driven by intense, unfounded anger and the insane notion their policies are actually good. They’re reprobates.

Then we agree. The Biden side was driven by intense, personal anger and hatred. While Biden did publish his views on issue at his website (pretty much carbon copies of Bernie Sander's radical views) I know of no one who read them and not one who actually referenced any issues Biden supports. The whole Democrat campaign was about their obsessive hatred of the president. I recall one of my friends posting on Facebook... on and on and on, post after post, always about how Trump as "orange skin." But I suspect people WILL learn his views (or at least Harris'.... some think Biden is just window dressing, the REAL president will be the junior Senator from The People's Republic of California).



.

 

[MrW]

Then we agree. The Biden side was driven by intense, personal anger and hatred. While Biden did publish his views on issue at his website (pretty much carbon copies of Bernie Sander's radical views) I know of no one who read them and not one who actually referenced any issues Biden supports. The whole Democrat campaign was about their obsessive hatred of the president. I recall one of my friends posting on Facebook... on and on and on, post after post, always about how Trump as "orange skin." But I suspect people WILL learn his views (or at least Harris'.... some think Biden is just window dressing, the REAL president will be the junior Senator from The People's Republic of California).



.

Window dressing is right. She went from the bottom of the heap of dem presidential primary candidates to a heartbeat away from the presidency (if dems prevail). Something underhanded and devious is going on in the background for that to happen.

And my theory is Biden may hold office for just over two years, and then she will take over and be eligible to be president for 10 years, total. Of course, it is possible they will dump him sooner, but then she could only be elected once.

 

[tango]

Window dressing is right. She went from the bottom of the heap of dem presidential primary candidates to a heartbeat away from the presidency (if dems prevail). Something underhanded and devious is going on in the background for that to happen.

And my theory is Biden may hold office for just over two years, and then she will take over and be eligible to be president for 10 years, total. Of course, it is possible they will dump him sooner, but then she could only be elected once.

I found it curious how the party of diversity and inclusion started with such a wide and diverse pool of candidates, then weeded out the fake Cherokee, the non-white woman, the gay man and so on, ended up with yet another angry old rich white guy, then gushed about how committed they were to diversity as they applied race- and gender-based requirements to the VP candidate so they could put one of the candidates they rejected back on the ticket.

Given the promised blue wave never appeared and Biden now looks like the shaky head of a very broad but very shallow coalition that has little holding it together beyond a belief in orangemanbad it's easy to see the coalition crumbling once the orange man isn't in the White House any more. As one commentator put it, people were still voting Republican but not at the top of the ticket.

Donald Trump got the second-highest popular vote in the history of the country (the highest being Joe Biden). That's a remarkable achievement in the face of four years of relentless promotion of everything orangemanbad throughout most of the media. The way the projections of a massive blue wave turned into nothing of the sort - a failure to flip the Senate and a reduced majority in Congress - makes me wonder which way the electorate will swing come the mid-terms.

 

[MrW]

You are right, tango. The midterms are going to be very interesting.

 

[MrW]

I don’t have permission to reply/post on many of the threads.

 

[Lamb]

I don’t have permission to reply/post on many of the threads.

Non-trinitarians and those who don't adhere to the Nicene Creed cannot post in certain areas of the site.

 

[MrW]

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

1 Corinthians 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic1 and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

Fit 1 Corinthians 15 into it, and remove "catholic" and change it to "universal" and clarify that the one baptism for the remission of sins is 1 Corinthians 12:13, and I'm good with the creed.

 

[Albion]

First, there is nothing wrong with "catholic" in the Creed because it means what you said and doesn't require any additional commentary to that effect.

But also, there are people who read the Nicene Creed and imagine that it refutes rather than affirms the triune nature of the one God as it actually does.

 

[MrW]

One must also take into account the colloquial usage of a word. A word means what it means to the people who use it. Most non-Catholics, when they read or hear the word "catholic", do NOT think of "universal". They think of "Catholic", which is someone who thinks the pope is the head of the church instead of Christ and who venerates and prays to Mary and the saints. I can't affirm the word "catholic", even though centuries ago it meant "universal", because it no longer means that. I refer you again to my post #14.

 

[Albion]

One must also take into account the colloquial usage of a word. A word means what it means to the people who use it. Most non-Catholics, when they read or hear the word "catholic", do NOT think of "universal". They think of "Catholic", which is someone who thinks the pope is the head of the church instead of Christ and who venerates and prays to Mary and the saints. I can't affirm the word "catholic", even though centuries ago it meant "universal", because it no longer means that. I refer you again to my post #14.

So....although it's known among people with some religious training that catholic means universal (universally true, not universal in a geographic sense), that lone source of misunderstanding--which is not, we should emphasize, a defect in the Creed itself--is enough for you to disavow the Creed?

 

[JPPT1974]

The country and for that fact the world can do a lot better than these two. All they want to do is argue. Just saying. Leave it at that.

 

[MrW]

So....although it's known among people with some religious training that catholic means universal (universally true, not universal in a geographic sense), that lone source of misunderstanding--which is not, we should emphasize, a defect in the Creed itself--is enough for you to disavow the Creed?

I don’t “disavow” it. I just don’t want to lie. There are a couple of statements I have issues with—almost all of it I certainly affirm, but not every word.

What I DO believe is the KJB.

 

[Albion]

I don’t “disavow” it. I just don’t want to lie. There are a couple of statements I have issues with—almost all of it I certainly affirm, but not every word.

You reject it. But you reject it over the word catholic, even though you and the people who wrote the Creed mean the same thing by it?

That's weird IMO.