Trump Supporters in Georgia Threaten to Destroy GOP, Boycott Runoff Elections

sounds like Proof Trump cheated, he should be disqualified

you really think Trump gained that many minority voters, get real.. fraud

yeah, I have no proof, but sure sounds fishy

 

One idiot said this.

 

As we've come to find out, one idiot saying something can do a lot of damage.

 

No worries FA. I have the proof.






I just can't show it to you now.

 

I'd not heard this story about Sanders. Can you supply a link and/or more details? How did the idea even come up? What was the, "indicat(ion)?" Not confirming one if their fellow Senators in a Cabinet position does not, to me, seem to bode well for the idea that McConnell will come back around to the idea of compromise. Do you remember how those radical-minded, Trump-hating Democrats blocked Senator Jeff Sessions, because of his perceived racist attitudes, from confirmation as Attorney General? Oh no, you don't; because that's not what a normal Senate would do. If that's what the potential leadership of this one is already saying (we won't know the leader, for sure, until after the GA run-offs), we're off to quite a start.

 

Sorry, for the first part of your question, I did read it in an article but didn't retain the link. I think I may have posted it somewhere, but maybe not. It was an article that came out before Biden even started mentioning names, with speculation about the most likely names, like 3 for each position. It listed Sanders as one of the three for Labor, and said that Sanders self-proposed for Labor (there was a quote of him saying so) but his chances were a long shot.

Doing a Google search, though, I have just located a different article saying the same thing as far as Sanders is concerned (minus the comprehensive speculation lists for all other positions):

https://apnews.com/article/sanders-warren-biden-weighs-cabinet-pick-66b0258f4208936bd8d4ebf48a2db8b7

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, reiterated his desire to serve as Biden’s Labor secretary on Thursday, describing himself as particularly well-suited “to focus on the many crises facing working families in this country.”

Then for the subsequent parts of your question I did retain a link. There was this article saying that McConnell indicated that this wouldn't be acceptable (yes, bad start):

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-resistance-looms-senate-bidens-150817442.html

Then there was another article, more recent, saying that Biden said that he does not want to nominate Sanders or Warren for Cabinet positions because he wants them right there in the Senate to work on a progressive agenda.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/politics/warren-sanders-biden-cabinet/index.html

Which is off course BS, because he knows that this "progressive agenda" doesn't stand a chance, with the Senate being controlled by the GOP (unless a miracle happens in Georgia with both Dems winning those seats which I think is unlikely - black voters who came out of the woodwork to support Biden against Trump are not as likely to turnout in droves to vote for Senate even though one of the candidates is black - but see, even that black candidate underperformed as opposed to Biden). Historically, runoff elections have low turnout and the GOP is more likely to prevail when there is low turnout. Anyway I think Biden knows that chances are that the Senate will remain with the GOP so he is using this excuse to keep Sanders and Warren there, so that he doesn't need to fulfill vague promises that he made to progressives.

I always thought that Biden will be a moderate president and whatever lip service he paid to progressives in order to keep their voters in the flock, he has no intention of fulfilling, once elected.

This is made clear by AOC and Omar now leading an online push for a petition so that Biden doesn't nominate Bruce Reed for the Office of Management and Budget. Why do you suppose they need to go through this kind of Hail Mary? Because Biden is not listening to them. If Biden were the puppet of the Far Left that the Trump campaign falsely depicted him to be, they wouldn't be needing to go to these extremes to try to get what they want. They'd simply order the puppet to do as ordered.

No, the idea that Biden is a puppet of the Far Left was just a campaign talking point. He's been a moderate for the last 47 years and is not about to change.

 

Sort of like the succession of "One idiot said this" who have been signing those Fake Affidavits?

Got it.

 

Exactly.

As I have stated several times since Biden Won, Biden should ignore the more extreme demands of the "Far Left".

They will always be there to support the Dem. Candidates when given a Binary Choice.

 

Well, not always. Twenty-five percent of the Bernie fans defected by abstaining or switching sides in 2016. They were known as the Bernie or Bust crowd, a group of immature and silly voters, many of them millennials, who shot themselves in the foot by getting bust such as a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.

 

True.

But based on how they turned out in 2020, they (seemingly) have learned their lesson.

A Bunch of Disgruntled "Bernie People" throwing the 2016 Election to Trump was one of the most egregious mistakes in political history.

Talk about "cutting off your nose in spite of your face".

 

Exactly.

 

Thanks for the links. The story confirms my bleak expectations of a Republican-led Senate: it will not be about compromise; only about obstructing, hand-cuffing, & extorting concessions from the Biden Administration and the Dems in the Senate trying to enact the new President's agenda. I think many, including President-elect Biden, have a dated, now unrealistic view of McConnell & the Senate Republican caucus. To wit, if you don't mind my re-purposing, here is an (edited) post that I recently directed towards a couple of others in our editorialist tribe, here at PF:

 

Yes, I had seen this post of yours before. Agreed.

By the way, what is the meaning of your avatar picture?

 

I'd like to point out a major inconsistency in your remarks. Because I DON'T see you as a hypocrite, I am assuming you don't realize this contradiction, yourself.

On the one hand, you say:

So you fear a RADICAL leftist agenda under a Biden Presidency, if the Dems control both Chambers of Congress, even if that Senate "control" is based on Vice-President Harris's tie-breaking vote (which, to me, sounds like a recipe for moderation & compromise). Yet, you also are of the following opinion:

Do you not see the inconsistency, in that: 1) enacting the stridently liberal agenda that makes you so anxious, requires the signature of the man you believe to be so moderate; and 2) it would also mean the liberal minority exercising control over the moderate Democratic majority, in not just the Senate but in Pelosi's House caucus?

Most ironic of all, is the clear implication of your stated views that you feel more confident in Joe Biden's ability to get moderate, bi-partisan legislation through Mitch McConnell's Senate-- which would be in stark contrast to the behavior of that caucus in recent years-- than you are that Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, et al, could prevent their own, far left minority from running the show, despite all recent history (e.g., see the Democratic Presidential Primary). Does your lean towards a reasonable McConnell, willing to make accommodations, really seem like the better bet, here?

 

Frankly, I don't see much contradiction. The spirit of both posts is that I don't want radical far left policies, and I want some checks and balances to prevent them. One of them is Biden himself. The other one is the Senate. Obviously if the Senate blocks far left legislation before it gets to Biden for signature, Biden will be under a smaller degree of pressure. It is much different if a bill just fails to survive Congress, as opposed to a Democratic-driven bill passing both chambers and landing on Biden's desk; he'd be under enormous pressure to sign it. Maybe he would resist doing it if it's too radical, but might cave in to keep his allies working with him, for something else. As for the House, yes, I think Pelosi opposes the left fringe there but she hasn't been always able to control them as Mitch is able to control the Senate. For example, Pelosi talked against impeachment for a long time, then caved in and went along with it. As for Vice-President Harris being a recipe for compromise, I'm much less sure about her than about Biden. Although I don't know her that well, she's been said to have a very leftist voting record.

I'm not saying I feel highly confident in Biden being successful in working with McConnell. Didn't I say "sounds like a tall order"? That is, while I'm suspicious of Mitch and think it's an uphill battle, at least I think that if someone can do it, that someone is Biden.

I don't know, maybe I'm blind to something; if you still feel I'm being contradictory, please further clarify.

 

What I saw as an inconsistency, obviously you do not. Since you well explained your perspective, vis-a-vis your misgivings about the Democratic Party, in relation to your hope surrounding a Biden-McConnell detente, I will have to change my terminology: we merely have disagreeing evaluations. You, like many, put more emphasis on your fears regarding the left-wing of the Democratic Party, and more trust in McConnell's returning to something resembling his former self, than do I, in both cases.

In my mind, even had Sanders become President, I knew that the things he was proposing would need to be substantially revised, if they would ever make it through Congress. Though I believe he sincerely wants all the changes he advocates, I also see him as realistic, appreciating the need for compromise-- his behavior in the Democratic Primaries, to me, underscores this impression-- but savvy enough to grasp the self-defeating nature of one negotiating against oneself; that is, I think Sanders understood that his policy goals were an ideal, & only his initial bargaining position, his first "offer." His vision, if he were ever able to manifest it, would look rather different, at its start.

Recall that Sanders is also fond of Joe &, right or wrong, sees him as a friend. So, to me, the idea that Biden could keep that part of his party adequately placated, without moving well out of his own comfort zone, seems a projection w/ far more experiential buttressing than imagining that McConnell's current stripes are only a temporary coat.

You surely haven't forgotten that Biden was Vice-President while McConnell kept the Garland SCOTUS nomination on the shelf for 8 months, prior to the 2016 election. And Mitch has only become less amenable to compromise, in the interim. McConnell, I would wager, sees give & take, now, as a weakness. He will only surrender something if will bring him something greater in significance: a pawn for a bishop, if not, for a queen. So to see him working for the good of the country with Biden, just appears far less plausible, IMO, than the same thing occurring between Biden & people who support him, in his own party (for all practical purposes), people who don't see compromise as a dirty word.

As for the impeachment trial, Pelosi never caved, to the left; she did not move in that direction until a majority of the MODERATES in her caucus called for it.

Perhaps we also differ in how negatively we view the potential government stalemate, if McConnell carries on his current path. Once more, I just don't understand the thinking that McConnell would be less entrenched, if his Senate were the sole piece of Republican power in government's law-making apparatus, than he has been, with a REPUBLICAN in the White House. The one thing, though, I think we both agree on, is our hope that I am wrong.

 

They're fake actors paid for by the Biden/Kamalla Team.

Wonder how much the going rate is for paid supporters. Someone call SAG-AFTRA.

Clearly this is another False-Flag operation funded by Joe and the Ho.

Emoji.

 

Excellent post, thanks.

Yes, like I said, it's a tall order. More likely than not McConnell will not cooperate. But I have a little bit of hope. Yes, Biden was veep when McConnell blocked the Obama administration, but McConnell hated Obama, and he doesn't hate Biden. There is a YouTube clip of a speech by McConnell, praising Biden. Quite impressive. Have you watched it?



Well, at least Biden will try. You heard his victory speech. And now he says he doesn't want to nominate Sanders or Warren. I think he is giving to McConnell all the opportunity to collaborate and start a national reconciliation process.

But again, just in terms of odds, I think that like you said, it's more likely than not that this reconciliation attempt will fail and McConnell will remain obstructionist.

 

That praise from McConnell does seem heartfelt, in the affectionate attitude it portrays. It might be enough for me, as well, to be more hopeful, had the occasion not been Biden's departure from the Senate Floor (as out-going VP). Mitch was quite possibly thinking he would never see Biden again, at least not on the opposing side of a political fight--I mean--disagreement. Goodbyes can bring out an overly-sentimental side of some people, that are not, customarily, part of their comportment. But thanks for sharing it.