The De-Trumpification of America -- life after the Trump revolution

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Lurch

...having high-priced lawyers with kidd gloves...

"Kid gloves". Only one d in it. They're made from the fine leather of baby goats, aka "kids".

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Egg

This is all good stuff and highlights some serious economic problems that need addressing, but if the wealth divide is the key factor here, wouldn't we then expect most Trump voters to be from lower income groups?

According to American National election Study data from the 2016 election, only around 35% of Trump voters earned under $50k (see Washington Post article here). Education levels had a higher correlation.

I don't think it's quite that simple. There are many wealthy individuals who are highly displeased with the influence of wealthy corporations over policy and government. And there are many wealthy individuals who are opposed to things they believe will be more likely under Democratic leadership: wealth transfer beyond what they feel is reasonable, welfare state economic approaches, increased government surveillance and censorship - especially with respect to the internet, 'special rights' as opposed to 'equal rights'.

Whether you agree that those are more likely under Democrats than Republicans is irrelevant - many conservatives believe it to be so.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I would humbly suggest that titans of private industry are uniquely disqualified to be regulators. The conflict of interest is obvious.

Agreed, albeit not so humbly.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

We can't make greed go away by getting rid of capitalism. The same people would just seek out positions of power, via the shame shady means, in the new system.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Pro-tip: Don't trust social media. It's full of idiots and attention-seekers.

For sure. However, I'm not talking about some randos on social media - these are people I know IRL (even family) or friends/family of people I know.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Neither? Perhaps suspicious instead, combined with a bit of denialism. While it is generally unlikely to occur in large numbers, there are loopholes when it comes to voting. For example, in some states, all that is needed in order to register to vote is a driver's license or state ID. Which is great in terms of not restricting access to citizens. On the other hand though, some of those states only ask for proof of address and residence in order to get those licenses and ids. Which leads to a situation where non-citizens can get a driver's license or id, which then would allow them to vote - even though they aren't actually supposed to vote because they aren't citizens. When you pair that with states that are known to be pretty lax about immigration enforcement and fairly welcoming and protective toward undocumented residents, it's a fairly natural suspicion to land on. It's a clear loophole that could potentially present a problem.

Many people recognize that those undocumented residents are highly unlikely to try to vote, because they're not dumb and it presents a risk to them. But it's still a loophole that lends itself to suspicion. It's pretty easily foreseeable that the party who loses in one of those states would look to that loophole as a potential explanation in the face of defeat.

I'd prefer loopholes like that to be closed, simply because it shuts down one avenue of suspicion and exposure. But then, a pretty considerable chunk of my career is around risk mitigation and management, so I'm predisposed to think that way.

I can understand a bit of suspicion and of course voting has to be secure and trustworthy, but we're getting to the point where the suspicion and denialism could just as easily be called gullibility and ignorance.

Perhaps a better example is the Covid denialists. Good/nice people I know were/are still saying it's no worse than the flu (against medical experts), while hospitals are at capacity and the case numbers are spiraling out of control.

I do understand how you're seeing liberals as demonizing Trump supporters and how that's a danger to society. However, from what I'm seeing, regarding these people as gullible and ignorant is the kindest option. The only other possibilities I'm seeing is that they're morons or that we're walking among genocidal, sociopathic monsters who are just pretending to be ignorant. Seriously, I'm open to other suggestions for the sake of my sanity.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't think it's quite that simple. There are many wealthy individuals who are highly displeased with the influence of wealthy corporations over policy and government. And there are many wealthy individuals who are opposed to things they believe will be more likely under Democratic leadership: wealth transfer beyond what they feel is reasonable, welfare state economic approaches, increased government surveillance and censorship - especially with respect to the internet, 'special rights' as opposed to 'equal rights'.

Whether you agree that those are more likely under Democrats than Republicans is irrelevant - many conservatives believe it to be so.

Okay, I can see that. Yes, these would be people where there's a value judgement that I just disagree with - that certain economic issues outweigh everything else that comes with a Trump administration. Maybe some denialism in there too, though.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Egg

For sure. However, I'm not talking about some randos on social media - these are people I know IRL (even family) or friends/family of people I know.

I can understand a bit of suspicion and of course voting has to be secure and trustworthy, but we're getting to the point where the suspicion and denialism could just as easily be called gullibility and ignorance.

Perhaps a better example is the Covid denialists. Good/nice people I know were/are still saying it's no worse than the flu (against medical experts), while hospitals are at capacity and the case numbers are spiraling out of control.

I do understand how you're seeing liberals as demonizing Trump supporters and how that's a danger to society. However, from what I'm seeing, regarding these people as gullible and ignorant is the kindest option. The only other possibilities I'm seeing is that they're morons or that we're walking among genocidal, sociopathic monsters who are just pretending to be ignorant. Seriously, I'm open to other suggestions for the sake of my sanity.

To be fair, I see conservatives demonizing Democrat supporters too. It's rampant on both sides of the political spectrum (and that's before you get all the way out to the fringiest fringe where you get super-progressives like my niece who refused to vote for Biden because he wasn't progressive enough for her).

What's entertaining is that if you observe from different perspectives... you see the same claims being made. Each side sees the other as immoral sociopaths bent on the destruction of everything good. The variables in their moral formulas differ, and what is considered good differs, but the arguments are the same.

It's just the case that on ISF specifically, there's really only the one side of this passion play.

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

...

Each side sees the other as immoral sociopaths bent on the destruction of everything good. The variables in their moral formulas differ, and what is considered good differs, but the arguments are the same.

...

I was actually trying to make the point that I don't think Trump supporters are sociopaths (in most cases), but you seemed to be pushing back against calling them ignorant. For many of these issues, there are objective facts, not just value judgments and I know we can't always be certain we have the facts right, but we can be following science, checking the reliability of sources and knowing enough about how things work to recognize conspiracy theories for what they are.

I'm not even getting into QAnon CTs or Biden crime family nonsense here. If someone is downplaying Covid, is there another option than ignorance?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Egg

I was actually trying to make the point that I don't think Trump supporters are sociopaths (in most cases), but you seemed to be pushing back against calling them ignorant.

More a case of pushing back against assuming malice and idiocy on the part of "them". Regardless of who "we" are.

Unfortunately, it's something that humans are highly prone to do. We create "others" and then we demonize them. It's deep down in there. It takes effort and will to overcome it, at least somewhat.

Originally Posted by Egg

For many of these issues, there are objective facts, not just value judgments and I know we can't always be certain we have the facts right, but we can be following science, checking the reliability of sources and knowing enough about how things work to recognize conspiracy theories for what they are.

I'm not even getting into QAnon CTs or Biden crime family nonsense here. If someone is downplaying Covid, is there another option than ignorance?

Yes, there's another option. There's also the perspective of the tradeoff in place between semi-lockdown with very limited business functionality in order to prevent disease spread... and the economic impact (which may be a long term thing) of those limitations. For some people, it's not a case of ignorance, it's a case of their risk assessment.

I can empathize with that view. I'm in a pretty safe position, able to work from home in an industry that's not going under from covid shut-downs and limits. But I know people who've had their businesses go under, who have been let go, who have had massive reductions in their income as a result. For them, the risk of getting sick doesn't outweigh the risk of losing their homes and their income and going bankrupt.

For many people, when they say "Covid isn't that big a deal", they're not saying that people aren't getting sick and some dying. They're saying "I don't know anyone who has died from this personally... but I just lost my job and I won't be able to pay my mortgage and there's no new job in sight for me for the foreseeable future, so the tradeoff isn't worth it."

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

More a case of pushing back against assuming malice and idiocy on the part of "them". Regardless of who "we" are.

Unfortunately, it's something that humans are highly prone to do. We create "others" and then we demonize them. It's deep down in there. It takes effort and will to overcome it, at least somewhat.

Sure. Hence why I'm seeing ignorance as the more humanizing explanation. I mean, if I believed some of the stuff they seem to, I'd be angry too. I think we have more shared values than we think, but not so much shared facts.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Yes, there's another option. There's also the perspective of the tradeoff in place between semi-lockdown with very limited business functionality in order to prevent disease spread... and the economic impact (which may be a long term thing) of those limitations. For some people, it's not a case of ignorance, it's a case of their risk assessment.

I can empathize with that view. I'm in a pretty safe position, able to work from home in an industry that's not going under from covid shut-downs and limits. But I know people who've had their businesses go under, who have been let go, who have had massive reductions in their income as a result. For them, the risk of getting sick doesn't outweigh the risk of losing their homes and their income and going bankrupt.

For many people, when they say "Covid isn't that big a deal", they're not saying that people aren't getting sick and some dying. They're saying "I don't know anyone who has died from this personally... but I just lost my job and I won't be able to pay my mortgage and there's no new job in sight for me for the foreseeable future, so the tradeoff isn't worth it."

I can empathize with that too, but there's a difference between finding the best restrictions vs economics balance and actually spreading false information about what we're actually dealing with, which is a pretty key factor in making such risk assessments (and not personally knowing someone who died is reason to be thankful in such crappy times, not to doubt statistics).

ETA: To be clear, when I say downplaying, I'm referring to "no worse than the flu", "only 6% of the reported deaths are covid", "doctors lie about the cause of death to get more money" - you've surely heard these kinds of things from Trump supporters?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, I see conservatives demonizing Democrat supporters too.

Quite literally, in fact; a particular group of evangelical conservatives will straight out claim that the Democrats are agents of Satan. And it's maybe a bit of a warning about arguing a moral equality between two sides when the language used to describe them is metaphorical about one side and literal about the other.

Dave

[The Great Zaganza]

Things to look forward to:

FOX will be forced to re-align itself, simply because blind support to Trump doesn't pay.
Fox&Friends, Hannity and Carlson might draw a ton of viewers, but the only companies willing to advertise to the Deplorable crowd are pillow and catheter salesmen.
And OAN will drain viewers to the right, so soon Fox won't even have that.

In comparison, Fox Business has few viewers, but rakes in more money because of high-end advertisers.

So Fox will reign in its Opinion section to become palatable to advertisers again.


Murdoch doesn't let politics get in the way of money.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair, I see conservatives demonizing Democrat supporters too. It's rampant on both sides of the political spectrum (and that's before you get all the way out to the fringiest fringe where you get super-progressives like my niece who refused to vote for Biden because he wasn't progressive enough for her).

The fringiest fringe on the left won't vote for the mainstream candidate.

The fringiest fringe on the right chants "Jews will not replace us," drives cars into protest crowds, and is gearing up for the coming race war.

BOTH SIDES YOU GUYS

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

And what, pray tell,would you replace Private Business with? Government Agencies? It's has been tried, and has not worked out too well.

Of course the reverse has also been tried and sure you get worse service and more expense but you get to line the pockets of the rich so it is still a win.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Of course the reverse has also been tried and sure you get worse service and more expense but you get to line the pockets of the rich so it is still a win.

Honestly will probably never leave the town I live in currently because it has municipal power and internet service. It's cheaper than Comcast and better service. Always funny when neighboring towns are sitting in the dark after a storm waiting for the lowest bidder lineman while good ole municipal workers have fixed up our town in a less than an hour.

The government can absolutely do certain jobs better than private industry. Nobody will miss health insurance or the for profit health system we have now.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I see this sort of sentiment a lot. How do you know what their interests and values are? How have you determined that they're acting against those interests and values? Are you quite certain that you're not assuming what you believe their interests and values ought to be?

So what are the values and interests that are being furthered by the republican party? It seems to be mostly about keeping the right kind of people down far more than anything of economic benefit to them.

As for bringing manufacturing jobs to rural areas, that is pretty silly. Manufacturing is increasingly high tech and automated, even things like stacking bags of wood stove pellets on pallets by a 3 man company are now practical to do with robots. So you need the workforce that is skilled in doing that and the numbers are just never going to be what they used to be.

This has been a shift going on for the past 400 years, it is not a new problem and not one that anyone has come up with a solution for yet.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

More a case of pushing back against assuming malice and idiocy on the part of "them". Regardless of who "we" are.

Unfortunately, it's something that humans are highly prone to do. We create "others" and then we demonize them. It's deep down in there. It takes effort and will to overcome it, at least somewhat.

So what is the motivation of their support? Clearly going back to how it was before obamacare is a clear thing they want, so bringing back preexisting conditions and lifetime maximums. Sure they make broad claims about wanting everyone to be able to get health care for less but they never have a plan about how to actually achieve that, so it is either totally magical thinking of wanting something enough will make it happen or they know that it isn't going to happen.

So keeping the Mexicans, blacks and gays in their place really seems to be the biggest alignment of their ideals and the achievements of the republican party.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The fringiest fringe on the left won't vote for the mainstream candidate. *Or suggests that people who voted for Trump should have MAGA carved into their foreheads because badges on their clothing is too easy to remove*

The fringiest fringe on the right chants "Jews will not replace us," drives cars into protest crowds, and is gearing up for the coming race war.

BOTH SIDES YOU GUYS

Isn't selective perception fun!

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Isn't selective perception fun!

The metaphor understander has logged on.

The Republican apparatchiks that made Trump's disastrous administration possible should carry the shameful reputation for the rest of their careers. Reputation is the primary currency of politicians, and we shouldn't allow these ghouls to try to weasel their way out of the part they played in the last 4 years of disaster for our country.

AOC made the reasonable suggestion that attempts by Republicans to whitewash their involvement with the Trump machine should be resisted. This has been interpreted by the reasonable right that Trump voters are going to be sent to gulags.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The metaphor understander has logged on.

The Republican apparatchiks that made Trump's disastrous administration possible should carry the shameful reputation for the rest of their careers. Reputation is the primary currency of politicians, and we shouldn't allow these ghouls to try to weasel their way out of the part they played in the last 4 years of disaster for our country.

AOC made the reasonable suggestion that attempts by Republicans to whitewash their involvement with the Trump machine should be resisted. This has been interpreted by the reasonable right that Trump voters are going to be sent to gulags.

There is nothing republicans fear more than being held accountable in any fashion for their actions.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Isn't selective perception fun!

Yep. You should start from yourself.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The metaphor understander has logged on.

The Republican apparatchiks that made Trump's disastrous administration possible should carry the shameful reputation for the rest of their careers. Reputation is the primary currency of politicians, and we shouldn't allow these ghouls to try to weasel their way out of the part they played in the last 4 years of disaster for our country.

AOC made the reasonable suggestion that attempts by Republicans to whitewash their involvement with the Trump machine should be resisted. This has been interpreted by the reasonable right that Trump voters are going to be sent to gulags.

Um... I don't know what you're talking about. This is what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Distracted1

MAGA tattoos. Right on their foreheads, by Executive order.
Can't take those off.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Maybe carved in with a knife?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Maybe a badge of some sort, sewn into their clothing? Something pointy. And we don't want to go with Red, White, or Blue - those are too patriotic... so how about yellow?

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Nah. Clothing can be removed as easily as a red cap.
Needs to be up front, and permanent.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Um... I don't know what you're talking about. This is what I'm talking about.

Are you drawing equivalence between what is clearly hyperbolic and non-serious suggestions on an internet forum and the very real instance of neo nazis marching in public before committing a terror attack?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Edit: Deleted, unclear exactly if this role is a paid position or not.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Isn't selective perception fun!

Are you saying your niece isn't the fringiest fringe on the left just for refusing to vote for Biden, or are you saying your niece would carve a MAGA sign into people's foreheads? Because you said the former, but now you're suggesting I'm supposed to have perceived the latter.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Are you saying your niece isn't the fringiest fringe on the left just for refusing to vote for Biden, or are you saying your niece would carve a MAGA sign into people's foreheads? Because you said the former, but now you're suggesting I'm supposed to have perceived the latter.

My niece has a lot of very fringy ideas, including accelerationism of civil war by any means in order to get the grand revolution and convert (by force) the country into a communist utopia.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

My niece has a lot of very fringy ideas, including accelerationism of civil war by any means in order to get the grand revolution and convert (by force) the country into a communist utopia.

Does that mean she would carve a MAGA sign into people's foreheads, or not?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Does that mean she would carve a MAGA sign into people's foreheads, or not?

That was said by posters here on ISF.

She might though. Her head's not right, tbh.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

It always has been completely bizarre to me to see socialists describe capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods and services in the private sector where both parties benefit from the exchange in a non zero sum way, as "greed" and describe the greed-based ideology of socialism as somehow not based on greed.

Capitalism and greed are not the same, but greed makes its home in capitalism. This has been known for very long time, long before 'socialism' started being used as a derogatory epithet.

Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea

Quote:

Not long ago, the pursuit of commercial self-interest was largely reviled. How did we come to accept it?

We sometimes forget that the pursuit of commercial self-interest was largely reviled until just a few centuries ago. “A man who is a merchant can seldom if ever please God,” St. Jerome said, expressing the prevailing belief in Christendom about the relative worthiness of a life devoted to trade. The choice to enter business didn’t necessarily deprive one of salvation, but it certainly hazarded his soul...

The problem of money-making was not only that it favored earthly delights over divine obligations. It also enflamed the tendency to prefer our own needs over those of the people around us and, more worrisome still, to recklessly trade their best interests for our own base satisfaction. St. Thomas Aquinas, who ranked greed among the seven deadly sins, warned that trade which aimed at no other purpose than expanding one’s wealth was “justly reprehensible” for “it serves the desire for profit which knows no limit.”

The second move Smith made was to effectively redefine “Greed.”... He acknowledged that pursuing our interests often entails getting what we want from other people, but he maintained that not all of these pursuits, morally speaking, were equal... That is how we distinguish the merchant from the mugger. Both pursue their own interests, but only one does so in a manner that confers legitimacy on the gains.

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

and by the way, social spending and welfare for the needy, is not socialism, It is the fruits of capitalism that provide us with the means to provide such goods and services to the less fortunate.

You don't get to redefine terms just to fit your argument. Social spending and welfare for the needy is indeed socialism, which has many forms.

Quote:

The current economic system in China is formally referred to as a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. It combines a large state sector that comprises the commanding heights of the economy, which are guaranteed their public ownership status by law, with a private sector mainly engaged in commodity production and light industry responsible from anywhere between 33% to over 70% of GDP... The current Chinese economy consists of 150 corporatised state-owned enterprises that report directly to China's central government. By 2008, these state-owned corporations had become increasingly dynamic and generated large increases in revenue for the state, resulting in a state-sector led recovery during the 2009 financial crises while accounting for most of China's economic growth.

Most countries with private sector 'market' economies also have state run enterprises that generate income for social services, and most governments are also involved in education, research, and support for businesses. It's not all 'the fruits of capitalism'.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

My niece has a lot of very fringy ideas, including accelerationism of civil war by any means in order to get the grand revolution and convert (by force) the country into a communist utopia.

"My niece represents what all liberals think". Good to know.

Or are you saying she doesn't? In which case what relevance does this have?

[dirtywick]

I think it would be wise to rebrand socialism since the well has been poisoned

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Egg

I can empathize with that too, but there's a difference between finding the best restrictions vs economics balance and actually spreading false information about what we're actually dealing with, which is a pretty key factor in making such risk assessments (and not personally knowing someone who died is reason to be thankful in such crappy times, not to doubt statistics).

ETA: To be clear, when I say downplaying, I'm referring to "no worse than the flu", "only 6% of the reported deaths are covid", "doctors lie about the cause of death to get more money" - you've surely heard these kinds of things from Trump supporters?

Everybody has.

But to be clear, these attitudes don't make them Trump supporters - Trump is supporting them. He simply tells them what they already want to hear, often regurgitating their own memes.

And it's not about risk assessment, but refusing to change their behavior for the benefit of others and/or because they don't like being told what to do. We know it's often not about personal risk either, because they deliberately take risks just to show that they can't be pushed around, sometimes with fatal results - and even then won't admit they made a mistake. IOW, it's all about asserting their 'right' to be pigheaded, even if it hurts them.

You may ask, why does this behavior seem mostly limited to conservatives and not liberals? The reason is deep-seated psychological differences between the conservative and liberal mind. Conservatives can't handle change, so they have to deny that it is sometimes necessary. Liberals are more open to change and can see its advantages.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

The former is by far less plausible. We're all screwed.

You believe that if there were a coup attempt, it's more likely to be a success than a failure?

I think any coup in America would be more likely to fail than succeed, and especially one led by Donald Trump. His surrogates are disputing the Pennsylvania ballot count across the street from a dildo shop.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Cain

I think any coup in America would be more likely to fail than succeed, and especially one led by Donald Trump. His surrogates are disputing the Pennsylvania ballot count across the street from a dildo shop.

And it would be nice to think that one result of a failed coup would be severe moral opprobrium and long term exclusion from power and society for all those involved, but in the current post-fact era of spurious equivalences any attempts at any such response would be drowned in arguments that the Democratic Party conspired to seize power by legally winning the election and somehow that's just as bad.

Dave

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And it would be nice to think that one result of a failed coup would be severe moral opprobrium and long term exclusion from power and society for all those involved, but in the current post-fact era of spurious equivalences any attempts at any such response would be drowned in arguments that the Democratic Party conspired to seize power by legally winning the election and somehow that's just as bad.

Dave

I think they'd be contributors on Fox News

[Egg]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Everybody has.

But to be clear, these attitudes don't make them Trump supporters - Trump is supporting them. He simply tells them what they already want to hear, often regurgitating their own memes.

Yes, good point. It's not like he's really producing anything original (except maybe the injecting sunlight and bleach thing), just amplifying and giving disinformation and conspiracy theories the biggest platform they've ever had- and exposing such things to many more people in the process.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

And it's not about risk assessment, but refusing to change their behavior for the benefit of others and/or because they don't like being told what to do. We know it's often not about personal risk either, because they deliberately take risks just to show that they can't be pushed around, sometimes with fatal results - and even then won't admit they made a mistake. IOW, it's all about asserting their 'right' to be pigheaded, even if it hurts them.

You may ask, why does this behavior seem mostly limited to conservatives and not liberals? The reason is deep-seated psychological differences between the conservative and liberal mind. Conservatives can't handle change, so they have to deny that it is sometimes necessary. Liberals are more open to change and can see its advantages.

Well I guess that would be a decent explanation why false information is so quick to spread in right-wing social media bubbles. Easier to believe something that doesn't mean accepting things are changing or need to change. I can see that applying to quite a broad range of issues.

Perhaps much of the time it's "hopefully ignorant" instead of "willfully ignorant"?

[The Great Zaganza]

Biden has a strong if secret ally in the De-Trumpification of America:

Mitch McConnell.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Biden has a strong if secret ally in the De-Trumpification of America:

Mitch McConnell.

Yeah but Biden's base is shaky. Either a significant number of or small but loud percentage of people on the Left are:

- Mad that it was Biden and not Bernie because they wanted a progressive obstructionist not a centrist who might actually get something accomplished.
- Mad that it was Biden because Biden won and their entire persona is based on a "America is rotten and not savable and I'm better than you because I'm already dancing on its grave" mentality that would have been served a lot better via a Biden loss.

He can't be seen "playing nice" with McConnell.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but Biden's base is shaky. Either a significant number of or small but loud percentage of people on the Left are:

- Mad that it was Biden and not Bernie because they wanted a progressive obstructionist not a centrist who might actually get something accomplished.
- Mad that it was Biden because Biden won and their entire persona is based on a "America is rotten and not savable and I'm better than you because I'm already dancing on its grave" mentality that would have been served a lot better via a Biden loss.

He can't be seen "playing nice" with McConnell.

I don't want to see him playing nice with Mitch McConnell because Mitch McConnell is a proven snake with a history of promising absolutely anything when he needs bipartisan cooperation before stabbing Dems in the back first chance he gets. Am I a Bernie Bro or do I hate America?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I don't want to see him playing nice with Mitch McConnell because Mitch McConnell is a proven snake with a history of promising absolutely anything when he needs bipartisan cooperation before stabbing Dems in the back first chance he gets. Am I a Bernie Bro or do I hate America?

If you don't want Biden to work with McConnell because it simply because you think it won't work, you are neither and I agree with you.

If you don't want Biden to work with McConnell because you don't want things to get better because so much of your persona is wrapped up in being angry, you're most probably one or the other (or minor variation on similar) and are just a horrible person.