MSNBC �Morning Joe� host Joe Scarborough responded to criticisms directed at
President Joe Biden � following his widely-panned gaffe-filled trip to Maui �
and claimed they were little more than �shock opera nonsense� pushed by
conservatives to make Biden look bad.

Citing a few Maui residents who were apparently pleased by the president�s
visit � which came nearly two weeks after fires ravaged the Hawaiian island�s
western shore, devastating the historic village of Lahaina � Scarborough
argued that anyone who was criticizing him lived in an �alternate reality.�

�Note the overwhelmingly positive response from local residents in the Maui
paper and the stark contrast compared to the shock opera nonsense pushed by
Trumpy outlets today,� Scarborough said via X. �Same with the BS �sleep�
narrative that created an alternate reality.�

Note the overwhelmingly positive response from local residents in the
Maui paper and the stark contrast compared to the shock opera nonsense
pushed by Trumpy outlets today. Same with the BS �sleep� narrative that
created an alternate reality. https://t.co/2veNviTjHc

� Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) August 23, 2023

Scarborough shared an article that quoted Lahaina�s mayor, Richard Bissen, as
saying, �Hope. I think that�s the main thing. I think that�s what the
president brings when he comes to any community. People look to him as our
leader. We look at him as the one that controls all the federal agencies, and
he is able to get things.�

The article, which briefly mentioned the president�s visit, noted that he had
been quick to sign a disaster declaration and had promised whatever aid Maui
needed to recover and rebuild in the coming months.

But it left out some important context � namely that as the death toll in
Maui began to climb, Biden was approached near his Rehoboth Beach vacation
home and asked to weigh in on the tragic developments. His response quickly
sparked criticism as he replied, �No. No comment.�

He returned to Washington from Rehoboth Beach for a short time before a Camp
David summit with South Korean and Japanese leaders late last week and was on
another vacation in Lake Tahoe when he jetted to Maui, spending just hours
there before returning to Lake Tahoe.

While on the ground in Maui, Biden raised eyebrows by comparing a small
kitchen fire � which was contained in a matter of minutes � to the massive
fires that had destroyed homes and businesses in addition to taking more than
100 lives. He even joked with the devastated locals about how he had �almost�
lost his cat and his �67 Corvette.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:19 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough responded to criticisms directed at
>President Joe Biden — following his widely-panned gaffe-filled trip to Maui —
>and claimed they were little more than “shock opera nonsense” pushed by
>conservatives to make Biden look bad.
>
>Citing a few Maui residents who were apparently pleased by the president’s
>visit – which came nearly two weeks after fires ravaged the Hawaiian island’s
>western shore, devastating the historic village of Lahaina — Scarborough
>argued that anyone who was criticizing him lived in an “alternate reality.”

Which of course is ridiculous - Biden is subject to the slings and
arrows of outrageous fortune that the rest of us are and is entirely
capable of getting into trouble (and subsequently getting out of it
irregardless of whether he gets the "spin" he hopes for from the
public) entirely without the "assistance" of one Donald J Trump.

I >KNOW< Biden is not an idiot but some days he does a remarkable
imitiation.

lcraver@home.ca wrote:

> I >KNOW< Biden is not an idiot but some days he does a remarkable imitiation.

Biden's been a idiot long before his senility.

(Also, racist/bigot, liar, thief)

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 8/30/23 6:03 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:19 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough responded to criticisms directed at
>> President Joe Biden — following his widely-panned gaffe-filled trip to Maui —
>> and claimed they were little more than “shock opera nonsense” pushed by
>> conservatives to make Biden look bad.
>>
>> Citing a few Maui residents who were apparently pleased by the president’s
>> visit – which came nearly two weeks after fires ravaged the Hawaiian island’s
>> western shore, devastating the historic village of Lahaina — Scarborough
>> argued that anyone who was criticizing him lived in an “alternate reality.”
>
> Which of course is ridiculous - Biden is subject to the slings and
> arrows of outrageous fortune that the rest of us are and is entirely
> capable of getting into trouble (and subsequently getting out of it
> irregardless of whether he gets the "spin" he hopes for from the
> public) entirely without the "assistance" of one Donald J Trump.
>
> I >KNOW< Biden is not an idiot but some days he does a remarkable
> imitiation.
>

Sure. And he's President of the United States, while the rest of us are
bitching about him on Usenet.

Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?

Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 8/30/23 6:03 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:19 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough responded to criticisms directed at
>> President Joe Biden — following his widely-panned gaffe-filled trip to Maui —
>> and claimed they were little more than “shock opera nonsense” pushed by
>> conservatives to make Biden look bad.
>>
>> Citing a few Maui residents who were apparently pleased by the president’s
>> visit – which came nearly two weeks after fires ravaged the Hawaiian island’s
>> western shore, devastating the historic village of Lahaina — Scarborough
>> argued that anyone who was criticizing him lived in an “alternate reality.”
>
> Which of course is ridiculous - Biden is subject to the slings and
> arrows of outrageous fortune that the rest of us are and is entirely
> capable of getting into trouble (and subsequently getting out of it
> irregardless of whether he gets the "spin" he hopes for from the
> public) entirely without the "assistance" of one Donald J Trump.
>
> I >KNOW< Biden is not an idiot but some days he does a remarkable
> imitiation.
>

Hmmm... Nixon thought it was a good idea to burgle the DNC - and
resigned his office in disgrace. But not until a good number of his men
(including Chief of Staff and Attorney General) had gone to prison.

Ford thought it was a good idea to pardon Nixon, and promptly became a
one-half term president.

Reagan thought it was a good idea to sell arms to terrorists, and funnel
the money illegally to a group of foreign nationals. He got caught and
had to apologize and then pardon members of his administration who were
guilty of helping him.

W. Bush thought it was a good idea to attack a country that didn't
attack us first, and didn't pose a threat to the United States. By the
end of his administration, he nearly crashed the world economy (and DID
crash the US economy) - all the while miring us in a war to find some
WMD's that never existed.

Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
old age before I got half way through.

So far, Biden's biggest scandal is that he's old. And for that, you
call him an idiot. Are you sure you know what that means?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
>still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
>since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?
>
>Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
>Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...
>
I never said FDR was an idiot though I did say you had a heavily
exaggerated view of him.

One thing I >didn't< say previously but very definitely DO think is
that FDR was DANGEROUSLY (note I capitalize this!) soft on Communism
and of Stalin in particular and made several unforced errors that
badly weakened the United States (and by extension the entire Western
alliance) particularly in the period 1945-60.

- staying in the Soviet embassy during the 1943 Teheran conference
where he KNEW he was going to be wiretapped and eavesdropped every
moment he was there (if he didn't know then he wasn't fit to be
president - which I doubt)

- pushing so hard for Soviet intervention against Japan. To this end
he made several totally unnecessary concessions (I'm NOT talking about
at Yalta concerning Poland which while unfortunate was probably
unavoidable at that point) To wit:

-- extending Lend Lease to the Soviets past VE Day. My point is while
it's often said he didn't know for sure whether the Manhattan project
would be successful or if it would lead to Japanese surrender he DID
know the effect of the Tokyo firestorm of 10 March 1945 and that the
USAAF could re-create this over as many Japanese cities as he liked.
Note that the damage from this mission outdid Nagasaki Essentially
what I'm arguing is that even with a failed Manhattan project FDR
could force Japanese unconditional surrender without Soviet help
within 12 months.

-- NOT responding with full force diplomacy when the Soviets were
caught red handed loading stolen industrial processes (including many
covered under US patents held by private US corporations - in other
words NOT FDR's possession as property of the United States) onto
planes in the America to Siberia via Alaska route

- continuing to push for Soviet involvement against Japan (I simply
cannot believe FDR didn't know that Stalin would turn any captured
Japanese weaponry over to Mao's forces or that the Chinese Communists
and Nationalists would fight it out between them as soon as Japan was
defeated) and captured Japanese arms WOULD turn the balance against
Chinese Nationalists in the civil war that everyone in Washington knew
was coming.

Generally speaking however in my view the most damning indictment of
FDR is his totally sloppy security both with Teheran and Lend-Lease. I
could go on in more detail but think abject failure on either of this
files should remove him from consideration as "America's best
president in the last 100 years".

I have some reservations about some of the things FDR did in the 1933
to 1 Sept 1939 era (in particular in terms of naval war preparation
for supporting convoys in the Atlantic - where the U-boat war was
carried on primarily with the Royal Navy with an assist from Canada -
but in the first 6-8 months after Pearl Harbor U-boat sinkings reached
the highest level of the entire war and most of that was on the US
east coast, sometimes in sight of civilians on land) but no question
FDR's complete blindness concerning Stalin and the Soviets generally
and wartime Soviet espionage against the United States (both in
military and industrial espionage) in particular was FDR's single
biggest failure that in my opinion render any suggest he was best
president in modern times completely and utterly laughable.

My own candidate for best president of the last 100 years would be
Bush 41 since he was the guy in charge during the final collapse of
the Soviet Union - and I believe in less competent hands that was a
far greater threat to world peace than anything else post 1945.

Obviously that's my opinion and that too can be debated. But I
certainly don't think Jimmy Carter in the White House in 1988-1992
would have done nearly as well.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:14:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
>old age before I got half way through.

I assure you that I shall never debate the proposition that Trump was
the best president of the last 75 years.

Had he simply done what he actually did pre-COVID without the hoopla
his reputation would be much better - that UAE-Israel deal was
unexpected and seems to be holding - but as a crisis manager I'd award
him more than minimally failing results.

For what he actually did in terms of policy he wasn't significantly
outside the GOP norm. By what he said and how he said it I think he
hurt America's relations in the world fairly significantly. In my
opinion Trump's worst "file" was how he handled China - and he's not
the first president to do so (I'd give Obama the gold star for that)

On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
>> still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
>> since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?
>>
>> Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
>> Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...
>>
> I never said FDR was an idiot though I did say you had a heavily
> exaggerated view of him.

FDR? You think he was overrated?
WWII? The New Deal? Are you shitting me?

> The longest-serving U.S President is ranked third by scholars as among the top American presidents after Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

That ain't me.

-Creation of the emergency banking act to counteract the Great Depression

-Establishment of FDIC
The agency offers deposit insurance to protect bank depositors from
banks that fail to pay their debts and become bankrupt.

FDIC restored Americans’ trust in the banking system, making it
functional to-date. The banking act also differentiated investment and
commercial banking.

-Unemployment rate reduction to 5%

-Setup many institutions to support the New Deal
The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) – provided state
relief programs with loans and grants.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) – employed over 3 million manual
workers in natural resource conservation and development for nine
developments.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) – controlled floods, offered power
and modernized agriculture in Tennessee

The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) – gave subsidies to
farmers to lower crop production and increased farm income by about 50%.

The Public Works Administration (PWA) – developed public works on a
large-scale and drove the biggest construction effort of Americans to
spend more at the cost of $6 billion.

-Created the U.S. social security system
(Do you really need me to explain why THAT was a big deal?)

-Established the minimum wage and 40-hour workweek

-He took action to prohibit discrimination in employment

-Led America to victory in World War II

-Took part in the creation of the United Nations

I mean, sure... he was no Donald Trump... thank God!
--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
>> still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
>> since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?
>>
>> Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
>> Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...
>>
> I never said FDR was an idiot though I did say you had a heavily
> exaggerated view of him.
>
> One thing I >didn't< say previously but very definitely DO think is
> that FDR was DANGEROUSLY (note I capitalize this!) soft on Communism
> and of Stalin in particular and made several unforced errors that
> badly weakened the United States (and by extension the entire Western
> alliance) particularly in the period 1945-60.
>
> - staying in the Soviet embassy during the 1943 Teheran conference
> where he KNEW he was going to be wiretapped and eavesdropped every
> moment he was there (if he didn't know then he wasn't fit to be
> president - which I doubt)
>
> - pushing so hard for Soviet intervention against Japan. To this end
> he made several totally unnecessary concessions (I'm NOT talking about
> at Yalta concerning Poland which while unfortunate was probably
> unavoidable at that point) To wit:
>
> -- extending Lend Lease to the Soviets past VE Day. My point is while
> it's often said he didn't know for sure whether the Manhattan project
> would be successful or if it would lead to Japanese surrender he DID
> know the effect of the Tokyo firestorm of 10 March 1945 and that the
> USAAF could re-create this over as many Japanese cities as he liked.
> Note that the damage from this mission outdid Nagasaki Essentially
> what I'm arguing is that even with a failed Manhattan project FDR
> could force Japanese unconditional surrender without Soviet help
> within 12 months.
>
> -- NOT responding with full force diplomacy when the Soviets were
> caught red handed loading stolen industrial processes (including many
> covered under US patents held by private US corporations - in other
> words NOT FDR's possession as property of the United States) onto
> planes in the America to Siberia via Alaska route
>
> - continuing to push for Soviet involvement against Japan (I simply
> cannot believe FDR didn't know that Stalin would turn any captured
> Japanese weaponry over to Mao's forces or that the Chinese Communists
> and Nationalists would fight it out between them as soon as Japan was
> defeated) and captured Japanese arms WOULD turn the balance against
> Chinese Nationalists in the civil war that everyone in Washington knew
> was coming.
>
> Generally speaking however in my view the most damning indictment of
> FDR is his totally sloppy security both with Teheran and Lend-Lease. I
> could go on in more detail but think abject failure on either of this
> files should remove him from consideration as "America's best
> president in the last 100 years".
>
> I have some reservations about some of the things FDR did in the 1933
> to 1 Sept 1939 era (in particular in terms of naval war preparation
> for supporting convoys in the Atlantic - where the U-boat war was
> carried on primarily with the Royal Navy with an assist from Canada -
> but in the first 6-8 months after Pearl Harbor U-boat sinkings reached
> the highest level of the entire war and most of that was on the US
> east coast, sometimes in sight of civilians on land) but no question
> FDR's complete blindness concerning Stalin and the Soviets generally
> and wartime Soviet espionage against the United States (both in
> military and industrial espionage) in particular was FDR's single
> biggest failure that in my opinion render any suggest he was best
> president in modern times completely and utterly laughable.
>
> My own candidate for best president of the last 100 years would be
> Bush 41 since he was the guy in charge during the final collapse of
> the Soviet Union - and I believe in less competent hands that was a
> far greater threat to world peace than anything else post 1945.
>
> Obviously that's my opinion and that too can be debated. But I
> certainly don't think Jimmy Carter in the White House in 1988-1992
> would have done nearly as well.

Bush was booted after one term, and after victory in an extremely
successful war. Obviously, a lot of people disagreed.

I thought he was a decent man who did some pretty decent things, but he
was hardly transformative. And when the economy sank into a recession
in 1990, his goose was cooked.

The GOP coalition created in 1980 was built on tax cuts,
military-spending increases, and cuts in domestic spending. The latter
proved politically impossible, but the Republicans still cut taxes and
increased military spending, yielding a massive budget deficit.

Not to mention that it's nearly impossible to get more than 8 years of
same party rule these days, much less more than 12. Ask Hillary... she
lost to a reality tv show host with cotton candy hair and an orange
spray tan - who proceeded to lead us to almost a million deaths when he
tore up the guard rails Obama left him to deal with a pandemic.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:46 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:14:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
>> old age before I got half way through.
>
> I assure you that I shall never debate the proposition that Trump was
> the best president of the last 75 years.
>

He wasn't even the best president who was elected in 2016.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:46 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:14:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
>> old age before I got half way through.
>
> I assure you that I shall never debate the proposition that Trump was
> the best president of the last 75 years.
>
> Had he simply done what he actually did pre-COVID without the hoopla
> his reputation would be much better - that UAE-Israel deal was
> unexpected and seems to be holding - but as a crisis manager I'd award
> him more than minimally failing results.
>
> For what he actually did in terms of policy he wasn't significantly
> outside the GOP norm. By what he said and how he said it I think he
> hurt America's relations in the world fairly significantly. In my
> opinion Trump's worst "file" was how he handled China - and he's not
> the first president to do so (I'd give Obama the gold star for that)
>

I particularly liked where he praised murderous dictators and made
excuses for Nazis. And that were his high points.

Trump was WAY out of the GOP norm. They were always anti-Russia, pro
law enforcement, pro international freedom, and pro fiscal discipline.
Trump was none of those things.

Trump denigrated war heroes and championed pussy grabbing and sexual
assault. He was clocked in at over 30,000 cataloged lies.
That isn't normal, not even close.

They all lie... but that man was an absolute virtuoso. He LITERALLY
told us not to believe our lying eyes:
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

Then he told us to eat horse paste and inject bleach. And his
worshipers listened - and died.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:10:26 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
>>> still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
>>> since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?
>>>
>>> Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
>>> Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...
>>>
>> I never said FDR was an idiot though I did say you had a heavily
>> exaggerated view of him.
>
>FDR? You think he was overrated?
>WWII? The New Deal? Are you shitting me?

While both of those are "big files" what's clear from your statements
that you and I agree his New Deal performance was strong but disagree
on whether his wartime performance was. And I would say strongly that
his 1943-45 performance was notably weak particularly in his
"softness" in dealing with the Soviets where 'fanboi' would be an
exaggeration but not by much.

It is also an exaggeration but again not by much to say FDR's policy
directly led to the outcome in China and Korea. One might argue
whether despite US rhetoric the US >actually< had a "Germany First"
policy given the explosive growth in the US Navy since the war in the
Atlantic was MOSTLY won by the British and that (1) the Battle of the
Atlantic was not yet fully won by Operation Torch (Dec 1942) but (2)
WAS by summer 1943.

He got a lot of flack for the invasion of North Africa in Dec 1942 but
I do think given US + British capabilities at the time it was the best
that could be done THEN. Sicily was a reasonable operation but the
later landing in Italy should have been further north. Whether that
was an error at the political or millitary level can be reasonably
argued.

(I'm one of those who argues that the Operation Roundup proposal for a
landing in Normandy or other English channel landing spot in 1943 was
premature though obviously a successful 1943 French invasion would
have put the "Iron Curtain" further east of where it was to the
benefit of postwar Eastern Europe - but then I'm one who has argued
extensively on the counterfactual newsgroups that had France put
another 100 anti-tank guns at Sedan on the Meuse France never would
have been conquered in the first place - and Sedan was where the
decisive battle France lost in 1870 took place)

But no question FDR's massive errors concerning the Soviets started at
Teheran (where he provided critical intelligence to the Soviets by
staying in their embassy where their bugging of the American suite
gave nearly total knowledge to the Soviets on FDR's positions on
nearly everything) and got worse from there. I've stated previously
that I think FDR's softness concerning Stalin hobbled subsequent US
policy particularly in Asia.

The essential problem was that had FDR died in 1943-44 Wallace would
have been president thought despite Wallace's reputation (which has
been discussed endlessly in soc.history.what-if) I don't think Wallace
was any worse than FDR was as far as weakness where the USSR was
concerned in late war.

Given what he was handed I'd argue Truman did an amazing job as
president. (Which I appreciate is damning with faint praise)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:19:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My own candidate for best president of the last 100 years would be
>> Bush 41 since he was the guy in charge during the final collapse of
>> the Soviet Union - and I believe in less competent hands that was a
>> far greater threat to world peace than anything else post 1945.
>>
>> Obviously that's my opinion and that too can be debated. But I
>> certainly don't think Jimmy Carter in the White House in 1988-1992
>> would have done nearly as well.
>
>Bush was booted after one term, and after victory in an extremely
>successful war. Obviously, a lot of people disagreed.

Bush lost in 1992 43-39% (with 19% going to Ross Perot). One thing I
>haven't< seen discussed on the counterfactual groups is the probable
result had Perot stayed out. I >suspect< more of Perot's vote would
have gone GOP rather than DEM but as always with 3rd party candidates
how many of that candidate's voters would have stayed home on election
day had their man not been on the ballot?

Obviously the question of whether second term Bush would have done a
better job in the Middle East than first term Clinton can't be
determined though I thought Clinton did a poor job internationally in
his first term.

>I thought he was a decent man who did some pretty decent things, but he
>was hardly transformative. And when the economy sank into a recession
>in 1990, his goose was cooked.

Obviously Bush's 1992-96 record would never be regarded as stronger
than Reagan's in his second term - after all improving on 'winning'
the Cold War would be a tough act to follow even for President
Dukakis.

>The GOP coalition created in 1980 was built on tax cuts,
>military-spending increases, and cuts in domestic spending. The latter
>proved politically impossible, but the Republicans still cut taxes and
>increased military spending, yielding a massive budget deficit.
>
>Not to mention that it's nearly impossible to get more than 8 years of
>same party rule these days, much less more than 12. Ask Hillary... she
>lost to a reality tv show host with cotton candy hair and an orange
>spray tan - who proceeded to lead us to almost a million deaths when he
>tore up the guard rails Obama left him to deal with a pandemic.

FDR ran in 1940 primarily on "we need an experienced hand to cope with
the European situation" and may well NOT have run again had the Battle
in France still been stalemated by November 1940 (which based on WW1
is what a lot of people expected in the spring of 1940). Certainly his
health issues were somewhat known by then. He CERTAINLY wouldn't have
run in 1944 if WW2 had ended a year earlier... and as you've probably
noticed most of my arguments against FDR concern his performance 1940
and later.

Don't get me going on COVID - I am convinced by the evidence I've read
that the initial release of COVID was due to carelessness at a key
Chinese bio-lab in Wuhan and believe Elaine Dewar's book "On the
Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years" makes an extremely well
researched case for this. That doesn't overturn your case but DOES
suggest nearly a million Americans (not to mention many more
non-Americans) died needlessly due to negligence.

[I still remember with horror the old folks home in Ontario where the
Canadian military was sent in after its staff had abandoned the place
because one or more people had tested positive and it was found
several dozen incontinent seniors had been unchanged in more than a
week when army medics got there. I also remember a care home about 2
miles from my home that for a time was #1 "hot spot" in Canada during
the early stages in 2020. Obviously neither of those could be
attributed to president you know who]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:19:54 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/1/23 1:46 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:14:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
>>> old age before I got half way through.
>>
>> I assure you that I shall never debate the proposition that Trump was
>> the best president of the last 75 years.
>>
>
>He wasn't even the best president who was elected in 2016.

While I agree with you a lot of people would have said the same about
Honest Abe in 1860 particularly after South Carolina made their
declaration.

Mind you having sat through 3 seasons of the Apprentice (I must have
liked "reality" more than I thought I did to do that!) I shook my head
on election night 2016 and remain convinced that Hillary was the only
plausible Democrat Trump could have beaten.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:27:25 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>I particularly liked where he praised murderous dictators and made
>excuses for Nazis. And that were his high points.
>
>Trump was WAY out of the GOP norm. They were always anti-Russia, pro
>law enforcement, pro international freedom, and pro fiscal discipline.
>Trump was none of those things.
>
>Trump denigrated war heroes and championed pussy grabbing and sexual
>assault. He was clocked in at over 30,000 cataloged lies.
>That isn't normal, not even close.
>
>They all lie... but that man was an absolute virtuoso. He LITERALLY
>told us not to believe our lying eyes:
>"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
>
>Then he told us to eat horse paste and inject bleach. And his
>worshipers listened - and died.
>
This is why in November 2016 I was saying "a pox on both your houses!"
and by 2020 would have said that if I was an American I would be an
"Anybody but Trump Republican",

Today I would argue that the primary problem of US politics today is
that both parties are in thrall to their extreme wings and said so to
my cousins when I went to Washington last month for my aunt's wake.

On 9/1/23 1:18 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:10:26 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again... I'll ask my question again (since you've had a week, and you
>>>> still don't seem to be able to answer it) - name another president
>>>> since FDR that's accomplished as much in a few years?
>>>>
>>>> Yet, you still insist he's an idiot. So what does that make you, exactly?
>>>> Relatively speaking. I mean, if *HE'S* an idiot...
>>>>
>>> I never said FDR was an idiot though I did say you had a heavily
>>> exaggerated view of him.
>>
>> FDR? You think he was overrated?
>> WWII? The New Deal? Are you shitting me?
>
> While both of those are "big files" what's clear from your statements
> that you and I agree his New Deal performance was strong but disagree
> on whether his wartime performance was. And I would say strongly that
> his 1943-45 performance was notably weak particularly in his
> "softness" in dealing with the Soviets where 'fanboi' would be an
> exaggeration but not by much.
>
> It is also an exaggeration but again not by much to say FDR's policy
> directly led to the outcome in China and Korea. One might argue
> whether despite US rhetoric the US >actually< had a "Germany First"
> policy given the explosive growth in the US Navy since the war in the
> Atlantic was MOSTLY won by the British and that (1) the Battle of the
> Atlantic was not yet fully won by Operation Torch (Dec 1942) but (2)
> WAS by summer 1943.
>
> He got a lot of flack for the invasion of North Africa in Dec 1942 but
> I do think given US + British capabilities at the time it was the best
> that could be done THEN. Sicily was a reasonable operation but the
> later landing in Italy should have been further north. Whether that
> was an error at the political or millitary level can be reasonably
> argued.
>
> (I'm one of those who argues that the Operation Roundup proposal for a
> landing in Normandy or other English channel landing spot in 1943 was
> premature though obviously a successful 1943 French invasion would
> have put the "Iron Curtain" further east of where it was to the
> benefit of postwar Eastern Europe - but then I'm one who has argued
> extensively on the counterfactual newsgroups that had France put
> another 100 anti-tank guns at Sedan on the Meuse France never would
> have been conquered in the first place - and Sedan was where the
> decisive battle France lost in 1870 took place)
>
> But no question FDR's massive errors concerning the Soviets started at
> Teheran (where he provided critical intelligence to the Soviets by
> staying in their embassy where their bugging of the American suite
> gave nearly total knowledge to the Soviets on FDR's positions on
> nearly everything) and got worse from there. I've stated previously
> that I think FDR's softness concerning Stalin hobbled subsequent US
> policy particularly in Asia.
>
> The essential problem was that had FDR died in 1943-44 Wallace would
> have been president thought despite Wallace's reputation (which has
> been discussed endlessly in soc.history.what-if) I don't think Wallace
> was any worse than FDR was as far as weakness where the USSR was
> concerned in late war.
>
> Given what he was handed I'd argue Truman did an amazing job as
> president. (Which I appreciate is damning with faint praise)
>

I don't disagree with your assessment of FDR's performance, especially
at Yalta. But knowing how it all turns out later on is a lot easier
than knowing what to do at the time.

Most Americans rightly view FDR as the post WWII president who delivered
for the little guy. And he did, despite being one of the ruling elites.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:40 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:19:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/23 1:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:04:03 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> My own candidate for best president of the last 100 years would be
>>> Bush 41 since he was the guy in charge during the final collapse of
>>> the Soviet Union - and I believe in less competent hands that was a
>>> far greater threat to world peace than anything else post 1945.
>>>
>>> Obviously that's my opinion and that too can be debated. But I
>>> certainly don't think Jimmy Carter in the White House in 1988-1992
>>> would have done nearly as well.
>>
>> Bush was booted after one term, and after victory in an extremely
>> successful war. Obviously, a lot of people disagreed.
>
> Bush lost in 1992 43-39% (with 19% going to Ross Perot). One thing I
>> haven't< seen discussed on the counterfactual groups is the probable
> result had Perot stayed out. I >suspect< more of Perot's vote would
> have gone GOP rather than DEM but as always with 3rd party candidates
> how many of that candidate's voters would have stayed home on election
> day had their man not been on the ballot?
>
> Obviously the question of whether second term Bush would have done a
> better job in the Middle East than first term Clinton can't be
> determined though I thought Clinton did a poor job internationally in
> his first term.
>
>> I thought he was a decent man who did some pretty decent things, but he
>> was hardly transformative. And when the economy sank into a recession
>> in 1990, his goose was cooked.
>
> Obviously Bush's 1992-96 record would never be regarded as stronger
> than Reagan's in his second term - after all improving on 'winning'
> the Cold War would be a tough act to follow even for President
> Dukakis.
>
>> The GOP coalition created in 1980 was built on tax cuts,
>> military-spending increases, and cuts in domestic spending. The latter
>> proved politically impossible, but the Republicans still cut taxes and
>> increased military spending, yielding a massive budget deficit.
>>
>> Not to mention that it's nearly impossible to get more than 8 years of
>> same party rule these days, much less more than 12. Ask Hillary... she
>> lost to a reality tv show host with cotton candy hair and an orange
>> spray tan - who proceeded to lead us to almost a million deaths when he
>> tore up the guard rails Obama left him to deal with a pandemic.
>
> FDR ran in 1940 primarily on "we need an experienced hand to cope with
> the European situation" and may well NOT have run again had the Battle
> in France still been stalemated by November 1940 (which based on WW1
> is what a lot of people expected in the spring of 1940). Certainly his
> health issues were somewhat known by then. He CERTAINLY wouldn't have
> run in 1944 if WW2 had ended a year earlier... and as you've probably
> noticed most of my arguments against FDR concern his performance 1940
> and later.
>
> Don't get me going on COVID - I am convinced by the evidence I've read
> that the initial release of COVID was due to carelessness at a key
> Chinese bio-lab in Wuhan and believe Elaine Dewar's book "On the
> Origin of the Deadliest Pandemic in 100 Years" makes an extremely well
> researched case for this. That doesn't overturn your case but DOES
> suggest nearly a million Americans (not to mention many more
> non-Americans) died needlessly due to negligence.
>
> [I still remember with horror the old folks home in Ontario where the
> Canadian military was sent in after its staff had abandoned the place
> because one or more people had tested positive and it was found
> several dozen incontinent seniors had been unchanged in more than a
> week when army medics got there. I also remember a care home about 2
> miles from my home that for a time was #1 "hot spot" in Canada during
> the early stages in 2020. Obviously neither of those could be
> attributed to president you know who]
>

On covid, yeah, it clearly could have been from a Chinese lab leak...
but we can't really prove it. I leave that to the future to figure out.

What I can't excuse is the actions taken both BEFORE and after we knew
it was coming. We HAD a pandemic team and a pandemic playbook that
would have made it so much less deadly - and Trump, in a fit of pique
dumped both. Because Obama was responsible, and he couldn't handle
anything that smacked of Obama.

People worldwide died because he hated Obama, and wanted to eradicate
anything the man was responsible for. Then, once we were into it, he
turned around and fucked the blue states that didn't vote for him.

And more people died needlessly, because we had a president that
prioritized his petty need for revenge on those who slighted him. I'll
never forgive him for that.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:43 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:19:54 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/23 1:46 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 06:14:04 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shall I go on? Because if I start in on Trump, both of us could die of
>>>> old age before I got half way through.
>>>
>>> I assure you that I shall never debate the proposition that Trump was
>>> the best president of the last 75 years.
>>>
>>
>> He wasn't even the best president who was elected in 2016.
>
> While I agree with you a lot of people would have said the same about
> Honest Abe in 1860 particularly after South Carolina made their
> declaration.
>
> Mind you having sat through 3 seasons of the Apprentice (I must have
> liked "reality" more than I thought I did to do that!) I shook my head
> on election night 2016 and remain convinced that Hillary was the only
> plausible Democrat Trump could have beaten.
>

Hillary had her problems in that she was unlikable. There were a series
of factors that lost her the election... any of which you remove, and
she wins in a cake walk.

The final nail in the coffin was the FBI. Take Comey's grandstanding
out of the equation 11 days before the election, and she wins.

Take the Russian hack out of the equation, and she wins.
Take the media's obsession with her emails out of the equation, and she
wins.
Take her stupid decision to not campaign in the Blue Wall states, and
she wins... so not everything that cost her the election was out of her
control.

And I've got to say, you were DEAD wrong about her calling Trump
supporters "deplorables". The were, and are - and history has proven
her right about that one.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 9/1/23 1:48 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:27:25 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I particularly liked where he praised murderous dictators and made
>> excuses for Nazis. And that were his high points.
>>
>> Trump was WAY out of the GOP norm. They were always anti-Russia, pro
>> law enforcement, pro international freedom, and pro fiscal discipline.
>> Trump was none of those things.
>>
>> Trump denigrated war heroes and championed pussy grabbing and sexual
>> assault. He was clocked in at over 30,000 cataloged lies.
>> That isn't normal, not even close.
>>
>> They all lie... but that man was an absolute virtuoso. He LITERALLY
>> told us not to believe our lying eyes:
>> "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
>>
>> Then he told us to eat horse paste and inject bleach. And his
>> worshipers listened - and died.
>>
> This is why in November 2016 I was saying "a pox on both your houses!"
> and by 2020 would have said that if I was an American I would be an
> "Anybody but Trump Republican",
>
> Today I would argue that the primary problem of US politics today is
> that both parties are in thrall to their extreme wings and said so to
> my cousins when I went to Washington last month for my aunt's wake.
>

Nope. It isn't a both sides issue. One side is clearly ANTI Democracy
and keeps proving it.

Democrats aren't perfect, but they aren't trying to overthrow the
government and terminate the Constitution. MAGA *is* and they've
literally said as much. Democrats aren't standing trial for it, either.

Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.

You can't make any serious case that both sides are in any way
comparable to each other. January 6th proved that, and the fact that
they haven't stopped their coup is further proof of it.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:49:52 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't disagree with your assessment of FDR's performance, especially
>at Yalta. But knowing how it all turns out later on is a lot easier
>than knowing what to do at the time.
>
>Most Americans rightly view FDR as the post WWII president who delivered
>for the little guy. And he did, despite being one of the ruling elites.
>
While I generally agree on your second point, I definitely disagree
in the strongest possible terms on your first.

As a war leader FDR was no Churchill who played a weak hand very very
well. It would not be unfair to say that IN WAR FDR played a very
strong hand very weakly particularly in matters dealing with the
postwar settlement. I am NOT saying the United States should have gone
to war with the Soviets 9 May 1945 but I _am_ specifically saying that
actions taken at the presidential level both weakened Chiang Kai-Shek
and strengthened America's enemies both in China and Korea to a degree
that facilitated Communist takeovers in both countries and unlike the
lamentable situation in Poland and the Baltic states WERE preventable.

And that that was very much against the interests of the United States
and her allies.

Even if FDR had had the benefit of George Kennan's "Long Telegram"
(sent in Feb 1946 and many decisions in the Truman and Eisenhower eras
flow directly from it) I am skeptical that FDR would have acted on it
as I really do think he had blinders on with respect to Stalin.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm

About a month ago I finished Derek Leebaert's "Unlikely Heroes"
(subtitle: Franklin Roosevelt, His Four Lieutenants and the world they
made")

https://nvdpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S32C961531

which covers FDR's term of office (e.g. in both peace and war) and
while he is nowhere as kind to FDR as you and I have been he's
probably stronger than I have been on his wartime diplomatic record.

Here's an excerpt from the review: ""Drawing on new materials,
Unlikely Heroes constructs an entirely fresh understanding of FDR and
his presidency by spotlighting the powerful, equally wounded figures
whom he raised up to confront the Depression, then to beat the Axis.
Only four people served at the top echelon of President Franklin
Roosevelt's Administration from the frightening early months of spring
1933 until he died in April 1945, on the cusp of wartime victory.
....."

I'm NOT one of those who believes Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy but
Harry Dexter White (#2 in the US Treasury Department for most of the
war) DOES seem to have passed secrets to Moscow and was protected by
FDR.

You can read The Long Diagram in a single reading but Unlikely Heroes
is definitely worth your time. Leebaert builds the case against White
very well. But no question a LOT of stuff that should not have gone to
the Soviet Union DID go to the Soviets via the Alaska Lend-Lease route
that very much hurt US post war interests and nearly all of that was
on FDR's watch. It also quickly helped Soviet postwar industrial
production. Which definitely would have prevented some of the things
Stalin did in the postwar era.

I would also recommend the first two volumes of Stephen Kotkin's bio
of Stalin (birth to 1927 when he took power in the Soviet Union, 1927
- 22 June 1941 and the German invasion). He was supposed to have
finished it 3 years ago but COVID had other plans and prevented him
from accessing the Soviet archives which Kotkin had access to and has
used as primary sources. His publisher now says volume 3 will be in
late spring 2024. (Be aware that each book is 800+ pages so not light
reading and from Kotkin's comments on various Youtube videos one would
not expect volume 3 to be any shorter)

So sorry - I just can't share your view of FDR.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:57:53 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On covid, yeah, it clearly could have been from a Chinese lab leak...
>but we can't really prove it. I leave that to the future to figure out.

Which unfortunately was exactly the view of the aforementioned writer
I referred to.

>What I can't excuse is the actions taken both BEFORE and after we knew
>it was coming. We HAD a pandemic team and a pandemic playbook that
>would have made it so much less deadly - and Trump, in a fit of pique
>dumped both. Because Obama was responsible, and he couldn't handle
>anything that smacked of Obama.

I've never said Trump did a good job on the COVID file nor anything at
all close to that.

>People worldwide died because he hated Obama, and wanted to eradicate
>anything the man was responsible for. Then, once we were into it, he
>turned around and fucked the blue states that didn't vote for him.

Unless you're one who expects the US to solve every international
problem you can't believe that. No question the US contribution was
important in getting the pandemic to where we are now (i.e. starting
to see the tail lights but not quite there yet) and I am firmly
convinced that Trump's COVID response (which I would grade at 4/10 and
THAT's being generous) was the #1 reason he lost in November 2020.

>And more people died needlessly, because we had a president that
>prioritized his petty need for revenge on those who slighted him. I'll
>never forgive him for that.

My wife died in March 2022 and despite no COVID symptoms the coroner
ran a COVID test post-mortem without my advance knowledge or consent.
(Which tested positive - everyone else in the immediate family had had
all their shots by then) However the main reason I'm irate is that
they haven't let me see the report - she was very much anti-vaccine
and while she thought government action was over the top took very
special care to limit her exposure. (Among other things by neglecting
veterinary care for our dog and cat which had consequences later) My
question of course is whether her choices directly influenced her
death or not and I intend to eventually show the report to my GP (who
was her GP as well).

In my case it's the not knowing that has been unbearable.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:03:48 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hillary had her problems in that she was unlikable. There were a series
>of factors that lost her the election... any of which you remove, and
>she wins in a cake walk.
>
>The final nail in the coffin was the FBI. Take Comey's grandstanding
>out of the equation 11 days before the election, and she wins.
>
>Take the Russian hack out of the equation, and she wins.
>Take the media's obsession with her emails out of the equation, and she
>wins.
>Take her stupid decision to not campaign in the Blue Wall states, and
>she wins... so not everything that cost her the election was out of her
>control.
>
>And I've got to say, you were DEAD wrong about her calling Trump
>supporters "deplorables". The were, and are - and history has proven
>her right about that one.
>
On your last point you may or may not be right BUT and this is a very
big BUT thinking that is OK. Actually SAYING that in public on camera
in September 2016 was getting down on your knees and praying for
attack ads to be run with that sound bite in the 10 days before
Election Day.

No experienced pol would fail to understand that but she did it
anyhow.

And the point of those ads was NOT to win over pro-Democrat voters but
to enrage Republicans particularly those who were soft as to whether
or not they'd bother to go to the polls on Election Day.

It isn't even Politics 101 to know that your campaign's #1 job is to
do your best to rally voters on your side to get to the polls on the
day and that #2 is to AVOID doing anything that would be a rallying
cry for the other side.

People expect candidates to take positions on issues but whether or
not a particular voter is a part of a 'basket of deplorables' ISN'T a
"position" and it's very clear that party leaders in both Canada and
the UK stayed well away from anything like an equivalent diatribe.

Opinions may vary but I am personally convinced that the "deplorables"
comment cost her an election that was far closer than it should have
been.

At this point I'm concerned that US presidential candidates seem to be
working to widen the gap between the two sides and that US politics is
more divided than it's ever been in my lifetime and I'm old enough to
remember LBJ's win in 1964. (And was interested in that election as my
grandfather was then in the first of his two runs for the Canadian
parliament - which definitely piqued my interest in politics)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:11:43 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Democrats do have their extreme wing, but they're not trying to kill the
>republic. And that extreme wing doesn't control the party, or it's voters.
>Republicans are fully behind their extremists - so much so that their
>extremists aren't the extreme any more, they're the mainstream.

I would dispute that since much of Biden's recent announcements DO
seem to be pandering to that wing of his party. And there's no
question that Newsom on the west coast and the Squad on the east coast
seem to be leading the charge. And I do know what 'pandering' means
and do believe both the President and Democrat congress-critters are
going a long way to do just that.

While I certainly have no time for that type of Republican I do think
Congressional moderate Republicans are making a devil's deal to avoid
splitting their party. Which is why I'm hoping the indictments remove
Trump as a 2024 candidate. Because with Trump 2024 I see no way the
polarization of America can end and that that is a very bad thing both
for America and the rest of the world.

We are now in a new Cold War and the world needs a strong voice in
Washington more than ever to prevent further expansion of Chinese
totalitarianism which between Beijing herself and her "Belt and Road"
allies is now the West's biggest challenge since 1991.

On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 16:43:30 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:03:48 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hillary had her problems in that she was unlikable. There were a series
>>of factors that lost her the election... any of which you remove, and
>>she wins in a cake walk.
>>
>>The final nail in the coffin was the FBI. Take Comey's grandstanding
>>out of the equation 11 days before the election, and she wins.
>>
>>Take the Russian hack out of the equation, and she wins.
>>Take the media's obsession with her emails out of the equation, and she
>>wins.
>>Take her stupid decision to not campaign in the Blue Wall states, and
>>she wins... so not everything that cost her the election was out of her
>>control.
>>
>>And I've got to say, you were DEAD wrong about her calling Trump
>>supporters "deplorables". The were, and are - and history has proven
>>her right about that one.
>>
>On your last point you may or may not be right BUT and this is a very
>big BUT thinking that is OK. Actually SAYING that in public on camera
>in September 2016 was getting down on your knees and praying for
>attack ads to be run with that sound bite in the 10 days before
>Election Day.
>
>No experienced pol would fail to understand that but she did it
>anyhow.
>
>And the point of those ads was NOT to win over pro-Democrat voters but
>to enrage Republicans particularly those who were soft as to whether
>or not they'd bother to go to the polls on Election Day.
>
>It isn't even Politics 101 to know that your campaign's #1 job is to
>do your best to rally voters on your side to get to the polls on the
>day and that #2 is to AVOID doing anything that would be a rallying
>cry for the other side.

Well that's the problem. While her husband was great at managing
people, she lacked that talent. From what I've heard she may be a
smart woman and would have done well in the actual decision making of
being the President but at managing the people she needed to vote for
her, eh.. she quite frankly sucked at that. As said before she may
have been the only likely candidate that would have lost to Trump
because she did so many things wrong that led to her loss. Things that
she should have known were a bad move, or at the very least the people
around her should have known and advised her so.
>People expect candidates to take positions on issues but whether or
>not a particular voter is a part of a 'basket of deplorables' ISN'T a
>"position" and it's very clear that party leaders in both Canada and
>the UK stayed well away from anything like an equivalent diatribe.
>
>Opinions may vary but I am personally convinced that the "deplorables"
>comment cost her an election that was far closer than it should have
>been.
>
>At this point I'm concerned that US presidential candidates seem to be
>working to widen the gap between the two sides and that US politics is
>more divided than it's ever been in my lifetime and I'm old enough to
>remember LBJ's win in 1964. (And was interested in that election as my
>grandfather was then in the first of his two runs for the Canadian
>parliament - which definitely piqued my interest in politics)

On 9/1/23 7:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:57:53 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On covid, yeah, it clearly could have been from a Chinese lab leak...
>> but we can't really prove it. I leave that to the future to figure out.
>
> Which unfortunately was exactly the view of the aforementioned writer
> I referred to.
>
>> What I can't excuse is the actions taken both BEFORE and after we knew
>> it was coming. We HAD a pandemic team and a pandemic playbook that
>> would have made it so much less deadly - and Trump, in a fit of pique
>> dumped both. Because Obama was responsible, and he couldn't handle
>> anything that smacked of Obama.
>
> I've never said Trump did a good job on the COVID file nor anything at
> all close to that.
>
>> People worldwide died because he hated Obama, and wanted to eradicate
>> anything the man was responsible for. Then, once we were into it, he
>> turned around and fucked the blue states that didn't vote for him.
>
> Unless you're one who expects the US to solve every international
> problem you can't believe that. No question the US contribution was
> important in getting the pandemic to where we are now (i.e. starting
> to see the tail lights but not quite there yet) and I am firmly
> convinced that Trump's COVID response (which I would grade at 4/10 and
> THAT's being generous) was the #1 reason he lost in November 2020.
>
>> And more people died needlessly, because we had a president that
>> prioritized his petty need for revenge on those who slighted him. I'll
>> never forgive him for that.
>
> My wife died in March 2022 and despite no COVID symptoms the coroner
> ran a COVID test post-mortem without my advance knowledge or consent.
> (Which tested positive - everyone else in the immediate family had had
> all their shots by then) However the main reason I'm irate is that
> they haven't let me see the report - she was very much anti-vaccine
> and while she thought government action was over the top took very
> special care to limit her exposure. (Among other things by neglecting
> veterinary care for our dog and cat which had consequences later) My
> question of course is whether her choices directly influenced her
> death or not and I intend to eventually show the report to my GP (who
> was her GP as well).
>
> In my case it's the not knowing that has been unbearable.
>

Well, I hope you get to make peace with that. I'll only say that covid
isn't a one-shot thing. It can lead to a multitude of contributing
factors in that it's not a clean thing.

Covid may not have led directly to someone's death, but it may have
aggravated other medical conditions they already had. That's why it's
so important for people to listen to the experts, and not the part-time
epidemiologists you meet on social media.

And even so, we each have to make a determination as to the cost/benefit
assessment of the pros and cons of vaccination. I trusted the science
because I know the vaccine was the safer bet in my circumstances. Your
mileage may vary...

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0