The results are the results: Welcoming President Biden and what's next

Have you ever read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell? It's about how we "size up" people within seconds of seeing them. I imagine it takes a bit longer here depending on how much of someone's posts one is willing to read through. Just wanted to point out there is some psychological basis by which people *think* they know all about others within a relatively short period. It's really interesting.

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking Kindle Edition
by Malcolm Gladwell

 

That's easy, they simply didn't have enough time to make as many phony ballots as they needed if they voted for anything but President on each. No wasting time on down ballot elections. They'll be easy to spot on the re-counts and pulled aside for further investigation.

 

The impeachment was based on evidence that was quite strong implying Trump had an unAmerican relationship with Putin personally & Russia generally. The evidence was conclusive of wrongdoing. Spineless Republicans who failed to live up to their oath of office to "preserve & protect the Constitution of the U.S." caused conviction of Trump to fail--NOT lack of evidence.

 

The words 'democracy' appear in the Constitution exactly...ZERO times. The Framers never wanted democracy, despised democracy the very uttering of those words if they were alive today would cause shudders.

And our democracy, something of a joke when lobbyists buy out politicians makes Britain look like a human rights expert by comparison.

 

Really? LOL. And pray tell, why wouldn't they have that time? Look, I filled my ballot in a minute, both sides, dozens of races. Are you slow? How long did you take to fill yours?
That's entirely absurd. Even if they were pressed for time, control of the Senate is pretty darn important and it comes right next to the presidential sector of the ballot... how long would it take to also fill the little dot for the Dem senator? Answer: 3 seconds.

 

You folks should have been thinking about the consequences of your sabotage, boycotts, "RESIST", witch hunts, phony impeachments in the middle of the pandemic before. Now you're the government, the country is your responsibility and we won't boycott or resist. We'll cooperate and we'll be easy to satisfy, like I explained in my previous post, good judges, good America first policies, we are not asking for much.

 

The election fraud was just one way the election was stolen, the multibillion dollar illegal in-kind campaign contribution by MSM was an even more outrageous kind of fraud, MSM became a free democrat super PAC, lying smearing, slandering non-stop, resorting to suppression of information and Stalinist/Pravda like censorship. Joe "Usurper" Biden stands.

 

Great, so we can impeach Biden over his clear as day, quid pro quo using OUR tax dollars, not to mention the scandal of the laptop and influence pedelling.

 

1. There was no election fraud.
2. Breitbart, InfoWars, and even Fox News are just as bad or worse than the MSM, not to forget Nazi sites like Daily Stormer. And there are plenty of rightist newspapers too... like that dirty rag, the NY Post. And you have plenty of rightist-leaning publications like the WSJ, Forbes, from abroad but pretty influential here, The Economist, and a number of right-wing online magazines and websites like The National Interest, The Federalist, The Washington Examiner, etc. So, stop whining about the MSM.

 

Thank you. I might give it a look.

It's a fascinating subject. I've been called everything from a fascist for opposing illegal immigration to a communist for supporting workers' unions. It always amazes me that people on an internet forum think they can know others. What kinda troubles me is that anyone cares how people identify politically, and that they think someone would lie about it. Pretty bizarre thought. Being independent doesn't help. I agree with both sides on some issues and neither side on others. The only issue here is Trump, and it's easy for a Trump supporter to get angry over losing, I guess. Gotta blame someone.

 

What do you mean "didn't have enough time?" Kentucky and South Carolina. Leave the president box alone; change the Senate votes. Bada bing bada boom. But seriously, if the Democrats were gonna cheat, they would have won Texas. The ballgame would be over now. That they didn't, shows they're not cheating.

 

The Democrat Party is the party of affirmative action, which negatively affects middle-class whites and Asians and those lower on the socioeconomic scale, including the working class. It does not affect rich whites, especially well-connected whites, such as Chuck Schumer, who is white and both of whose daughters went to Harvard, one going to both Harvard and then Yale, which is really astronomically rarefied to the point of absurdity. The Trump Administration went after affirmative action; Biden will do, to quote you, "quite the opposite." The policy on affirmative action is purely an example; it is based on the Democratic model of the rich being treated one way, the poor the other. And as for your argument about raising taxes on the rich, guess who ultimately pays those higher taxes? Those relatively less poor, through higher prices and unemployment.

 

Affirmative action deals with discrimination; it has nothing to do with financial status. "Tax the rich" is anti-plutocratic by definition.

 

Sorry to point this out in front of everyone, but I believe you made a typographical error.

You typed "President Biden," but that's incorrect. It's spelled "President Harris."

Sorry. Hope I don't mean to offend.

 

No, he typed it correctly. Harris will be our 47th president.

I think Harris will be an active VP. As active as Cheney was, perhaps. The difference being that Biden will be calling the shots.

 

Affirmative action is plutocratic, as it does not affect the rich: it affects others lower on the socioeconomic scale. Thus it is plutocractic. The notion of "tax the rich" being emblematic of plutocracy is simpleminded absurdity: the rich can move their money elsewhere, and any rise in taxes is ultimately forwarded to the consumer and the employee who has lost their job due to a tighter budget: taxing the rich more impacts the poor, increasing the gap between poor and rich.

 

Are you saying that Harris will be an active VP to a man that she implicitly called a racist? Interesting.

 

Affirmative action levels the playing field with regard to employment and historic systemic discrimination. It has nothing to do with rule by the rich.

That's a ridiculous argument, but it doesn't matter. "Tax the rich" is anti-plutocratic by definition.

Unless y'all have some alternate definition of "plutocracy," the OP makes little sense.

 

No, that would be on you. I don't obsess over meaningless minutiae.

 

Plutocracy=rules for the top, made by the top. That's why we had a 'political class', which we have returned to after four short years. Don't worry, as Washington "returns to normal", you'll learn why even you at one point were interested in Trump. I on the other hand have a short memory on what we went through as a nation in my adult years.

Biden said the mandate will return, yippie.

 

plutocracy
[plo͞oˈtäkrəsē]
NOUN

1. government by the wealthy.
   • a country or society governed by the wealthy.
   • an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

Joe Biden's power has come from the People, exclusively. Trump's power has come from money, and once from the People.

You are twisting the meanings of words. Perhaps you're referring to aristocracy, I don't know, but claiming Biden represents/supports plutocracy and Trump doesn't just isn't consistent with the definition, no matter how you twist it.

 

How do you think the Average Joe(pun intended) got into power? By greasing his knuckles(whether he liked it or not) with those with money and therefore they can/and do influence the politicians. Now, with Trump the difference is that while he certainly used his wealth(as they all do) to buy out politicians, he used his own self-made wealth(we can argue about the means/methods, but it's semantics at this point) to propel himself. Thus, as many complained: He did things in his own interest, not their interest.

It depends on whether you want a brought and paid for President, or a President who can pay his own way. Me personally, I want to take the money out of politics, but the creation of an Empire takes the politics out of the country and that's even better.

 

This is an entire separate argument. I don't disagree with it entirely, but it has absolutely nothing to do with plutocracy.

Biden supports labor unions and wants to tax the rich. These are not the signs of a plutocrat.

 

Far be it for me to be a die hard Trump supporting denialist, but it's not official yet and there's a slim, but plausible chance of a hail Mary flip in the states that are leading blue. We just saw the opposite happen with Georgia.

 

Affirmative actions discriminates against people on the basis of race. It is actual systemic racism. De jure systemic racism. It's just systemic racism against middle-class to poor whites, so it's considered virtuous by people like you. As for it having nothing do with the rich, that is completely incorrect. Rich whites were the ones who crafted it, knowing that they nor their offspring would ever have to worry about the repercussions of it: either their name, their connections, or their wealth would bypass what the middle-class to poor whites have to undergo. George W. Bush got into Yale. Fredo Cuomo got into Yale. If you're rich and white, and you have no political connections and your parents are not alumni, a few million dollars in donations sent to the school before your application is reviewed will make those reviewing your application overlook your whiteness.

I believe you had said in an earlier post that you love the Bush's; and that you see nothing wrong with establishment Republicans. Establishment Republicans think like you do: they see nothing wrong with affirmative action. They justify it the way that you do, knowing that they don't have to worry about it. They can grandstand and virtue signal all day, but they would never in a million years undergo its yoke. The freshman class of Harvard, for example, is less than 50% white, (1) even though whites make up 60% of the population. (2) And of those whites at Harvard, none, not one, would give up their prestigious spot for a minority. See, because sacrifice for social justice must be laid on the backs of the middle-class and lower.

That's plutocracy!

No, it's not a ridiculous argument to say that the rich, if they get taxed more, will move their money around or pass it on the the consumer or the employee. That's just called reality.

1. https://features.thecrimson.com/2018/freshman-survey/makeup-narrative/#:~:text=In line with the trends,0.7 percent identified as transgender.
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/270272/percentage-of-us-population-by-ethnicities/