Big Magilla wrote:
While it's true that a lot of Trump's support was from bigots and idiots, a lot of it was from people who were genuinely frustrated by the failure of Obama and the Democrats to get much of anything done in the eight years they held the White House since 2008.
I know we're all supposed to say this (along with "I'll give him a chance"), but as far as I'm concerned they're one and the same.
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but there's a lot more overlap than this binary characterization implies.
Yes, but it goes back further than that. I've read other articles in which the campaign laughed off Bill Clinton's pleas throughout the campaign to pay more attention to the working class. The campaign's response was that they didn't need them, they scoffed at the former President insisting that it was the same Democratic Party that elected him in 1992. Unlike Trump, who listened to the advice of his family, the last person Hillary wanted advice from her husband.
I don't share the view that Hillary and her team were elitists, but hindsight being better than foresight, I can see where that is coming from.
One example of a foolish mistake was an invitation from the University of Notre Dame for Hillary to speak on St. Patrick's Day that was ignored. The event would have been heavily publicized and would have helped greatly with the Catholic vote. The response from Brooklyn was that they didn't need the Catholic vote.
While it's true that a lot of Trump's support was from bigots and idiots, a lot of it was from people who were genuinely frustrated by the failure of Obama and the Democrats to get much of anything done in the eight years they held the White House since 2008. Hillary talking about how she spent her life working to make things better for women, children and minorities failed to move them because many of them, too, spent their lives helping to make things better for women, children and minorities, but now it was time somebody helped them and all they sensed from her was that they were going to see more of the same - the rich get taken of, the poor get taken care of, but the working class gets nothing, as usual.
The sad part is that they aren't going to get anything from the Republicans either, but a coalition of the Democrats and Republicans under Trump might work if they can work together on infrastructure and other things everyone agrees are needed. That is, if rebuilding infrastructure can be given priority over building a wall on our Southern border, increasing military spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy, which can be put on a back burner at least until the economy starts working for the working class. That's a big "if".
I was trying to give Clinton and her campaign a break, thinking they did what they could and the wave of Trump voters was unforeseen, not just by her but by everyone. I mean, it's only natural for supporters to over-blame the losing candidate, and I tried to avoid that.
Oh boy, was I wrong. I want my fifty dollars back.
I just woke up with the crazy idea that Pence's luncheon with Biden yesterday was to offer him Secretary of State. It's unlikely to have happened, but I can't think of any of other move on Trump's part that would both calm international concerns and domestic fears.
Big Magilla wrote:Next to that nut-case, Giuliani would be a relief, but why they can't find someone more diplomatic within the Republican Party for the position is beyond me. It would be perfect for Romney.
Yes, Romney would be perfect but he was vehemently against Trump so it would be unlikely-- although they are considering Romney's niece for a position.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
The latest scuttlebutt is that Gingrich is out of it. Giuliani had been rumored to be in line for Attorney General which would mean the first thing he would do is go after Hillary, his arch rival from her first run for Senator from New York which was against him before he dropped out. Now he's being mentioned for Secretary of State. He'd be almost as scary as Gingrich as the nation's top diplomat, but here's the catch. The leading contender now is alleged to be John Bolton, George W. Bush's lunatic Ambassador to the United Nations, the worst in the 70 year history of the position and a long-time advocate of bombing Iran. So much for Trump keeping us out of wars. Next to that nut-case, Giuliani would be a relief, but why they can't find someone more diplomatic within the Republican Party for the position is beyond me. It would be perfect for Romney.
Christie is basically done in this campaign. He was dumped from the transition team after letting a mother of four go to prison for an act he himself ordered.
As for Giuliani, he's unhinged. He hasn't tried working with Democrats since he was Mayor and that was a very long time ago. Add to that his very awful comments during the campaign, many of them racist and awful and you have a man I wouldn't trust to run an animal shelter let alone anything in government.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Actually, I think he'll do certain things he promised, but maybe not quite in the manner he presented them during the campaign. As long as the economy is solid and he can find a way to bring jobs back to some of those areas, his supporters will stay on board. He was a Democrat far longer than he was a Republican, so this won't be too surprising. He says gay marriage is "fine" and "settled law," but of course he's also going to appoint a conservative who'll overturn Roe vs. Wade. If marriage is ever revisited by the court, that same judge would likely vote to reverse that as well. So it's something to watch for. Obviously, you can be for one of those things and not the other, but many people lump those issues together in their minds.
Giuliani and Gingrich, despite their rhetoric in support of Trump this last year, are well-known for their willingness to work with Democrats on some ideas. They aren't the far-right boogymen that they are sometimes made to be. Both would likely offer good advice to Trump. Bannon is someone to be a little more worried about, and perhaps Pence (though only in terms of possibly taking Trump's place). His '60 Minutes' interview is encouraging, though.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Can you imagine the betrayal his supporters would feel if he didn't accomplish anything he said he would, instead finding themselves deeper in debt, less solvent, and more likely to end up imperiled than they ever were before. I feel bad for them to an extent. Of course, they also deserve what they get since they excused all of his impolitic behavior.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Apparently, Trump is signalling a slightly different agenda than many thought he was proposing as a candidate. Could be that the former version of Donald Trump is re-emerging.
In other words Trump-the-president may go from loudmouth to pliable, unexciting Republican politician at the beck and call of his GOP overlords who are calling the shots. How amusing would that be?
This wouldn't surprise me, but I'll wait for more than a few hints before I feel assured of this.
Apparently, Trump is signalling a slightly different agenda than many thought he was proposing as a candidate. Could be that the former version of Donald Trump is re-emerging.
I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt except for the fact that he is still surrounded by the likes of Bannon, Conway, Giuliani, Gingrich, Carson, Sessions and worst of all, the oh-so-smooth Pence.
