The battle over Trump is beyond the standard liberal vs. conservative…

Just politics as usual, but its still seems pathetic and embarrassing that most Republican candidates prostrate themselves before the altar of Trump after spending so much time telling everyone why Trump should not be elected.

I fear even Nikki Haley may forgo any dignity she has left if she fails to win or at least get close in Tuesday night’s voting in New Hampshire, the first actual primary election for the 2024 election. She wants to be a contender the next time around and even a vice president or other cabinet member for Trump, should he win another shot at the presidency in November.

It ain’t over till it’s over, though. But the polls show Haley, former governor of South Carolina, behind Trump in her own state. Always a bad sign when your own people don’t want you — just ask Al Gore or look at the late George McGovern’s loss of his home state, South Dakota, in 1972. At least the McGovern loss was a blowout. Gore could have won if he could have carried Tennessee in 2000.

Some observations:

What political parties stand for is at times incomprehensible, at least in principle or policies, except that their goal is to win.

But, In my lifetime I’ve seen the Democratic Party go from the champions of the working class to maybe champions of progressive thought and progressive social elites. I don’t see progressivism as a bad thing, except carried too far it can be detrimental to free thought and civil liberties, just as can happen with ultra conservatism.

Socialism and communism are considered left wing or liberal ideologies and progressivism is usually considered a mildly left leaning ideology since it certainly seems the opposite of conservatism. And, by the way, I’m not trying to give a lesson here, I’m not qualified. But those who follow this kind of thing know the left (liberal) and right (conservative) tags come from the seating arrangements in the old French parliament.

The Republicans, oh my! They seem to have been taken over by almost Nazi-like fascists in the mold of Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. A cult of personality and bullying  and intimidation and outright violence.

A new faction of unruly characters with a strange new ideology that is part conservatism and part populism, but a non-liberal brand, and part anarchist, has taken over from the old guard in the Republican Party. The old guard can’t seem to deal with it.

I used to think Republicans were the party of business. But some of the Trump Maga faction and campaign drop out Ron DeSantis rails against the corporate intetests.

I don’t think the Democratic Party has been affected as much by the political realignment, because it has long been a party of coalitions that struggle for power but somehow compromise around candidates and issues. But there is that pull of the liberal activists.

The old left/right, or liberal/conservative designations may no longer fit, at least not in the Republican Party.

Former president Donald Trump does not fit into any conventional ideological designations, except, perhaps fascism, which itself is not much of an ideology. It’s just a branch of conservatism that employs cult of personality combined with intimidation and violence. Super nationalism and the denigrating of immigrants or folks with lifestyles they consider out of the norm is a big thing with fascists.

The Nazis set fire to the German parliament. The Trumpists stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Ok, history says the fire was of unknown origins, but was used by Hitler as evidence he had to take control. He blamed it on communist agitators. Intetestingly, some have tried to pin Jan. 6 on leftist, anti-Trump agitators. No evidence of that.

Fascism and communism are supposedly diametrically opposed ideologies or political systems, yet they in the end are twins. Both have no place for personal freedom or free elections. They both tend to use leaders who require adulation and use thugs and/or police to enforce their power. Sounds a little Trumpian to me.

This current thing in the United States is not really a liberal vs. conservative struggle. It’s more like civilized vs. uncivilized.

While I might guess that the majority of folks who are now expressing a willingness to vote for Trump at the same time did not approve of the riot or attempted insurrection of 2021 that took place after a defeated Trump urged people to fight to overturn the election, I think at some level they’ve bought into the resist-at-any-cost attitude. They are willing to look the other way.

It is a struggle between the status quo and the folks who perceive themselves as outsiders. But the outsiders are a disparate group of people, including rabble at the lower edge of society — who else would threaten the lives of police and capitol officials and defecate on the capitol floors? — along with working class folks, small business owners, and even some college-educated folks.

From the time I was a kid I heard that at some level the opposing political parties almost appear identical.

But, over time, as union workers earned more money, as people realized civil rights legislation would give some new advantages to other folks, and as they realized American soldiers were being sacrificed as cannon fodder for questionable causes, old allegiances broke down.

And, I would suggest the advent of social media with all of its unchecked propaganda, has added fuel to a fire.

At some level racism has reared its ugly head, but it’s only part of the problem.

Civics and American history is no longer stressed in our schools. There is some indication a sizable number of folks are willing to sacrifice democracy for what they think or hope will be security or a return to the good old days, which were not necessaily good, or good for all.

I don’t want that kind of security.

(I understand rigid rule works for some in Singapore where you can be lashed for spitting on the sidewalk.)

————————-

And, why does it have to be Biden or Trump?

Not sure the modern presidential election primary system is working. Going back to delegates horse trading on the convention floor and party leaders meeting in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms might be better. Who knows? the current situation with two unwanted candidates expected to face off it might return by popular demand.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THREATENS TO ABOLISH HUMAN THOUGHT, AND THEN WHAT VALUE IS IT?

So, artificial intelligence absorbs human input and with computer speed sorts it out and comes up with an interpretation of sorts. Over time humans might quit the tedious job of research and just totally depend upon AI.

(Interestingly, when AI can’t come up with an answer it sometimes just seems to make things up — that’s scary, maybe AI is almost human.)

But, once that stops (human effort), no more new knowledge, and, in fact humans will become so helpless civilization as we know it will crumble.

There is some thought or conjecture over whether AI in some cases now actually thinks, free of human input, something called being “sentient” (able to perceive or feel things),
couldn’t say myself, although I doubt it, but maybe something close to it.

What I can say is that I think AI can be a great tool, but it is also promising to make society dumber than it already is.

— kind of like the strore clerks who can’t count change on their own or figure out what a 90 percent discount would come to. Just a simple example, but once we all forget or never learn to think for ourselves, we’re done.

There are opportunists and would-be dictators out there who would love us to have no minds of our own.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE THREATENS TO ABOLISH HUMAN THOUGHT, AND THEN WHAT VALUE IS IT?

So, artificial intelligence absorbs human input and with computer speed sorts it out and comes up with an interpretation of sorts. Over time humans might quit the tedious job of research and just totally depend upon AI.

(Interestingly, when AI can’t come up with an answer it sometimes just seems to make things up — that’s scary, maybe AI is almost human.)

But, once that stops (human effort), no more new knowledge, and, in fact humans will become so helpless civilization as we know it will crumble.

There is some thought or conjecture over whether AI in some cases now actually thinks, free of human input, something called being “sentient” (able to perceive or feel things),
couldn’t say myself, although I doubt it, but maybe something close to it.

What I can say is that I think AI can be a great tool, but it is also promising to make society dumber than it already is.

— kind of like the strore clerks who can’t count change on their own or figure out what a 90 percent discount would come to. Just a simple example, but once we all forget or never learn to think for ourselves, we’re done.

There are opportunists and would-be dictators out there who would love us to have no minds of our own.

We know Trump could get re-elected, but we also know he can be defeated…

I feel bad for the moderates in the Republican Party. They seem to have lost control.

Ok, it was only the quirky Iowa caucas former president Donald Trump walked away with Monday night, and that was expected. But political analysts seem to see a change where possibly the appeal for a strongman who isn’t fettered by social manners and small d democratic principles and the rule of law is not limited to low educated, ill-informed people.

Too, I think Republican partisans see what, like it or not, is the winning path, and in politics winning is everything.

Why then Trump lost in 2020 is hard to see, well except enough Democrats and others who were aghast at Trump’s fascist style voted.

Same is true in 2016, but the strange system of the Electoral College denied the candidate with the overwhelming popular vote the win. Also, the losing candidate, Hillary Clinton, either turned off or underwhelmed just enough voters to lose, in, what was it? Wisconsin? Or enough normal supporters were complacent, thinking, surly someone as outlandish and rude and antithetical to civility could win.

Well, everyone has to know now, he could.

As for the ongoing legal actions against Trump, the only serious ones to me are dealing with his leadership role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, an attempted coup of sorts, and Trump’s attempts to pressure voting officials to rig the election for him that he ironically claims was rigged against him.

Yes, the secret documents case is important, but it seems we may have a flawed system with too many supposed “secret documents” floating around. He did refuse to turn over documents and hid them, though.

But these cases should have been filed and tried much sooner, not just prior to or during or after a presidential election.

Even the appearance of pure politics in them almost irrevocably threatens their credibility.

The 14th Amendment disqualification theory and legal actions to deny Trump a candidacy seem questionable and not likely to survive the Trump appointee-dominated Supreme Court.

Trump must be defeated by the voters.

Maybe, just maybe, the specter of two old geezers running for president while the world falls into complete chaos will cause some seismic shift in our political system.

The Democratic Party would do well to thank Joe Biden for his excellent service in saving us all from a second Trump term, give him his gold watch, and wish him well in his twilight years, then find a new, younger and dynamic candidate to take on the old but feisty and evil self-centered Trump.

Maybe Trump doesn’t get the nomination, and maybe Old Joe can whip him again.

————-

I’m personally not convinced that Biden is as doddering as people say he is, but I don’t see him in person, and not much elsewhere, except edited videos. But, crap! Can’t we find someone younger?

Kamala Harris, we had such hope for you. What happened? Can you get your mojo back?

I failed to address the possibility Nikki Haley might ultimately win the Republican nomination (even though the Trump trend is on). I think she could beat Biden.

But I also think America is afraid to elect a woman president, with women themselves denying the necessary support.

Haley vs. Harris? Haley wins. That’s not my endorsement, just an observation.

We must protect trade on the high seas by whatever means appropriate…

The U.S. and allies have every right to fight back against Houthi terrorists menacing international shipping in the Red Sea, off the coast of Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula.

President Biden has already authorized at least two strikes on targets in Yemen said connected to drone and missile attacks on ships.

He’s catching flack from both Republicans and some in his own Democratic Party for failing to notify Congress beforehand. Maybe he should have, but have you watched Congress lately? Who has time for its nonsense? While Congress plays petty politics and can’t pass a budget, Biden is protecting the well being of our economy by defending international trade. To be precise it’s the fractured Republican majority in the House, who can’t even support the revolving door of speakers they choose.

I don’t think we should be backing Israel in the complete ungodly disaster of Gaza, and I don’t think we need to get involved in some kind of expanded conflict in the Mideast, but we can’t allow terrorists or any group to threaten or hinder world trade on the high seas.

We didn’t put up with it in our early days as a nation, knowing that world trade is our life blood. We sent our Navy and Marines to deal with pirates, and landed on the shores of Tripoli.

Hopefully, with our modern technology and weapons, we won’t have to land the Marines on the shores of Yemen.

But, should that be necessary, we have to do what must be done..

Incidentally, I fully understand what Israel is doing and don’t argue that Hamas must be stopped. But a way around killing off a whole nation of people must be found.

When we bring ourselves down to the morality of terrorists, we’ve lost.

Also, I wouldn’t promote the idea of boots on the ground in Yemen or elsewhere without there being a sound plan and willingness to carry the mission through.

We haven’t lacked for a good military since 2000, but we have lacked in foresight and resolve among our civilian leadership at times.

U.S. needs to use its influence to stop Gaza slaughter, never should have gone so far…

(As I post this, there are some reports that Israel is scaling back its military effort in Gaza. What’s left? one wonders.)

——————————————-

Right or wrong, by continuing to help arm Israel the United States is complicit in the slaughter and devastation in Gaza.

The enemy is a terrorist movement called Hamas. But it’s all but physically impossible to go after Hamas without destroying civilian infrastructure and killing and wounding and starving thousands of non combatants, including a disproportionate number of children, or at least the Israeli government almost seems to have concluded.

It should have never gone this far.

The current Israeli military operation in Gaza of course is in reaction to the devastating terrorist attack on Israel Oct. 7 by Hamas in which more than a thousand civilians, including babies, along with soldiers and police were killed and many more wounded. The terrorists gunned down kids at a dance, raped women, killed babies, and took hostages.

Statistics change and are debated, but we know that the Oct. 7 Hamas attack resulted in more than a thousand Israeli casualties and more than 200 hostages being taken. The subsequent invasion of Gaza by the Israeli military has resulted in thousands more casualties and leveled a large part of the buildings and homes in Gaza, making it all but inhabitable. People have little to no food and water and hospitals have been destroyed.

More than 2 million people live in Gaza. It’s estimated more than half are children, or under 18.

Since the Oct. 7 attack came out of the Palestinian enclave of Gaza and since hostages were taken there, Israeli forces invaded with the mission of destroying Hamas and rescuing hostages. It’s a densely populated and relatively small space (it’s called the Gaza Strip). You can’t simply go in there and capture and arrest Hamas, a guerilla army that blends in with non-combatants, without taking lives and inflicting harm on civilians and their homes, work places, stores, businesses, and hospitals, and services, everything that defines civilization. Israel has pretty much leveled the whole place, we see in videos.

Israel may have inflicted much damage on Hamas, but it seems doubtful it can kill it, and in fact has likely created thousands of new recruits. Hamas or a successor will just grow from this.

For 75 years there was supposed to be an independent Palestinian state. Each side and the factions within, blame one another for that not happening.

Seems, though, Israel ought to negotiate — not with Hamas — but with some representative group of Palestinians, and once and for all cede lands for a free Palestine. This might include some land in the West Bank (another Palestinian enclave) that Israel pushed Palestinians off of.

The terrorist attack on Israel was as horrendous as things can get, but Israel has to ask itself why Palestinians resent it so much.

Could it be over the land essentially stolen from Palestinians? Could it be over Palestinians being treated as second-class citizens in what President Jimmy Carter called a system of segregation or “apartheid” as it was called in South Africa before desegregation there? Of course the U.S. has its own history in segregation.

The Israel vs. Palestinian issue is long and complicated. I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs. The land where this all takes place has been under various jurisdictions and, if I am correct, the Arabs we call Palestinians have never been in control. But the current state of Israel was a creation of Western powers feeling guilty over wrongs committed against European Jews (whose ancestry goes back to what three major religions consider holy land, now modern Israel) and their own political and commercial interests (of the West, that is), and pressure from the Jewish Zionist movement.

The big sticking point is that since and before modern Israel’s creation, both Israelis and Palestinians have refused to accept the political existence of each other. Over time there have been hopeful breakthroughs in the impasse but they always break down.

While I am aghast at what the Palestinians in Gaza are going through, I also must ask myself: at what point do Palestinian citizens realize that terrorists such as Hamas don’t really represent what is best for them?

If only they would or could turn on Hamas, then support a more civilized and moderate leadership that would prevail upon both Israel and its Western supporters to create once and for all an independent nation-state, Palestine.

Terror or violent action is used by people who consider themselves repressed, be it American colonists, Zionists pushing for a Jewish state in the 1940s, or Palestinians today. There can be right and wrong on all sides in this.

Palestinians have been and are represented by various groups. We used to always read about the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Then the Palestinian Authority, which supposedly oversees the West Bank (but under the thumb of Israel), but was pushed out of Gaza by Hamas.

Then there are outside groups, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iran, who claim to represent the interests of Palestinians (but of course for their own interests).

The U.S. supports Israel for a variety of reasons. It is a democracy, a trade partner, is located in an important trade route and near major oil sources, and is  foothold in the Mideast where the U.S. continues to vie  for interest with the competition of Russia and China. And, as already mentioned, the U.S. and others tend to back the Jewish state in the interests of protecting the well being of Jews, much put upon through the ages.

But the madness needs to stop. As I wrote at top, it’s already gone too far and shouldn’t have got to this point.

Other Arab nations in the region should aid, in peaceful ways, Palestinians, and the United Nations, perhaps, help oversee, once and for all, the creation of an independent Palestine.

(Israel has said it has no interest in governing Gaza.)

Hard to believe now, but maybe a decade or more ago, I read about the belief that Palestinians could be integrated socially and politically within the nation of Israel. Their was supposedly a Palestinian politician, who it was speculated could, theoretically at least, become the prime minister of Israel. No need for a separate Palestine. But, Israel is, if not officially, essentially a Jewish theocracy. The-two state solution seems the answer. I have read that neither Egypt nor Lebanon wants to absorb the Palestinians.

I personally don’t mind the U.S. being an ally of Israel. But the U.S. should not be obligated to blindly back its military moves.

Terrorists made a move reminiscent of the Holocaust but that does not call for the annihilation of the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza.

Can’t help, though, thinking of the fact that the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, instantly killing thousands of civilians and leaving survivors with lifelong suffering from radiation.

It was a judgment call. Israel made one in the current situation.

I’m just saying, the U.S. needs to step back and use its available pressure for peace.

On the other hand, moves backed by Iran and Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen, to interfere with international shipping and fight against American forces in the region need to be met with corresponding force by the U.S. (and allies). Why we still have ground forces in the region is questionable, however. But the U.S. has historically and must continue to defend its ability to move goods by sea.

————————–

All wars result in civilian casualties, that just has to be accepted. Those who wage war have to consider that, if they care.

Nikki needs her gun, so controlling firearm access out of the question…

I learned at least one thing from the Nikki Haley Iowa town hall performance Thursday night: we can’t enact stricter gun control because that might interfere with her right to carry a concealed weapon — she has a permit to do so, she told us.

Asked whether she would support increased gun limits, she said no, because that would get in the way of self protection for citizens.

A citizen had asked her in light of a mass shooting at a school the same day in a nearby school in Iowa, at which a 17-year-old shot and killed a sixth grader and wounded seven others, what she thought the answer was for how to curb such incidents.

She immediately went into a prolonged screed of sorts about the need for increased mental health treatment. I believe it was after a followup question that she addressed gun restrictions, which she is against.

Oh the left will call for gun control, she warned. But, to her, that has no place in the discussion about gun violence.

The idea of increased attention on mental health is rich coming from a Republican. Republicans generally eschew government funding for healthcare, at least in their rhetoric. In fact, Haley suggested that her method would be to turn health care back to the states and to enlist volunteers and fire bureaucrats — actually that was the plan she put forward in running government in general.

My personal take is people tend to complain about government spending, except when they themselves are the beneficiary, they stay silent, or claim they deserve it.

About cutting down on the bureaucracy, bureaucrats or public employees are an easy target. Certainly, horror stories about dealing with overly-cumbersome bureaucracy abound. But I have to be honest here: I have had some good experience with the bureaucracy. Dealing with Social Security, I found almost or all the workers most helpful. Also, I recently had my passport renewed. The paperwork seemed confusing (it was simple, fairly brief, yet sometimes unclear as to what was wanted). But the folks at my local county clerk’s office walked me through. They were so cheerful.

Back to Haley and her idea on how to curb gun violence. I agree with her that identifying likely subjects in need of mental health treatment is a sound approach.

However, you just know Republicans are wired to vote against increased funding, though. The private sector won’t step-in for free.

But, anyway, the situation is this: we have a free flow of weapons in our society, a large number that go way beyond game hunting and self defense. By the ever-increasing numbers of mass shootings by deranged individuals, it is all too apparent that it’s just too easy for these troubled folks to get their hands on them. Seems logical that eliminating such easy access has to be the first step.

(The school shooting referred to here reportedly involved a handgun and shotgun — access to all weapons may need to be tightened, not eliminated.)

Mental health treatment is a long process that has no guarantee. We’re not going to come up with a process or even funding to develop a system that instantly diagnoses and successfully treats mental health.

I think the the mental health line is a dodge to avoid the hot button issues around gun control. Haley and others are reluctant to utter anything close to gun control. She might moderate on that in a general election, and go for some compromise, such as she has done on abortion. She’s trying to be all to all. And that’s not necessaily bad. A president is supposed to represent everyone.

It would be refreshing if some candidate would step out of his or her comfort zone to lead, rather than just pander to the safest position.

I mean I imagine a majority of gun owners would prefer there be less easy access to weapons by irresponsible and deranged people. They, we, need leadership to help us get there.

Ousted black professor a victim of a vendetta, poor personal judgment, skimpy research on her part…

She’s accused of failing to condemn outright the calling for genocide against Jews, and for plagiarism in her scholarly works.

There is no doubt Claudine Gay, a black woman, was targeted in a wider war of politics (conservative or reactionary vs. Woke) that goes way beyond her personal situation.

If you listen to all she said, you might not feel that she failed to condemn genocide. And, the plagiarism accusations seem debatable, especially since some of the original writers defend her, but I have not seen the full evidence.

I feel it’s sad that she apparently depended upon bad legal advice when she seemingly couldn’t or didn’t give a straight or unequivocal answer at a congressional hearing as to whether calling for genocide against Jews was or should be against policy at Harvard University.

(Some students at U.S. universities have demonstrated against Israel in its current conflict in Gaza. Some Jewish students on U.S. campuses have reported threats and fear for personal safety.)

She, along with administrators from two other universities, in what can only be seen as canned and overly cautious legal responses, claimed it depends upon “context”.

She was forced to resign as Harvard University President this week under intense pressure, albeit after the university’s board had just earlier claimed to support her in the controversy.

Yes, as one of my siblings pointed out to me, people often say, “I’d like to kill” someone. They obviously or usually don’t mean that in a litteral sense.

Still, I think if individuals or groups are openly calling for genocide or murder against any group or person, that is wrong and should be against a university’s policy. And the response should have been something to the effect: “we would never condone genocide”.

If in an actual case a defendant or defendants wanted to make a rhetorical defense for such remarks, well, let the courts and lawyers and juries weigh that.

But for Gay and the two others at that hearing to throw out common sense and hide behind bad legal advice, it puts their judgment into question.

Elizabeth Magill resigned as president of the University of Pennsylvania shortly after the congressional hearing. The anti-woke forces have their sights set on the remaining president, Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T.

(The targeted three all women, one black.)

They, perhaps, understandably, were trying to play it safe. The same anti-woke people who lambasted them for their answers might jump on them in another issue (context?) and accuse them of barring free speech.

They were set up.

My reading indicates this is part of a rebellion against wokeism and/or affirmative action.

Part of the charge is that less-than-qualified people have been hired and promoted in academia (and elsewhere) in an effort to promote diversity and racial balance.

Her critics claim that Gay has published relatively little original research. She faces the rath of both jealous colleagues and I guess mostly right-wing political opponents for what they call wokeism.

(To avoid plagiarism charges, up front, l note the following explainer is from Wikipedia:

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination”. Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.)

—————-

To sum up, I see at least two things going on in the current brouhaha:

A political vendetta among opportunistic forces, just as likely concerned more for their own power than the cause of academic rigor and educational standards, and at the same time an awakening to the overplaying of wokeism. Awake to woke, as it were.

And I do question the lowering of standards in academia and elsewhere in the name of diversity. To promote someone on the grounds of diversity has the opposite effect as supposedly intended.

You want to be top because you are, not because you can check the correct diversity box in your application.

—————————————-

Congresswoman Elaine Stefanic, who was Gay’s interrogator at the congressional hearing that led to Gay’s downfall, had attended Harvard and served on a board there but reportedly was ousted for her supporting Donald Trump’s Biden election denial and insurrection activities. Guess she got her revenge.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, Gay retains her professorship status at Harvard.

2024, the year of old men? Or, the year of a woman president?

This old man ruminates on the presidential politics of our new year, 2024:

It’s a presidential election year. The prospects are that we will be faced with the choice between two old men that reportedly the majority of voters don’t want to lead our nation. Just a political conundrum.

President Biden, however, would seem a likely shoo in, especially against Donald Trump — having beat him decisively once already. But, Biden is too old now. He shows it. Trump is just behind him in age but manages so far to maintain a public perception of cognizance, weird syntax we’re used to notwithstanding (his appearances tightly controlled; don’t see so much of Biden yet either).

Trump is vile, profane, non intellectual, not curious, but power hungry and adept in the ways of a charlatan or demagogue. He appeals to hate, selfishness, racism, the baser instincts of humanity. But he is pragmatic. Since he has no principles, he is capable of switching course mid steam and taking the path of least resistance. He’ll readily make a deal with an enemy.

During his one term in office his foreign policy was erratic and transactional. He shunned old alliances and seemed to have love affairs with dictators, something akin to a mutual admiration society. This was not all bad. He avoided starting new wars, I think I’m correct in saying.

In domestic policy I think his major achievement was in creating an environment or feeling that the government was getting off the backs of business, lowering taxes, and creating an economy to work for all. But, was that true? Sometimes perception is everything.

He would say, still does, the nastiest and most cruel things that would even make some of his supporters cringe. But, then, they’d come back with the fact that they liked his policies, even if they couldn’t describe them in detail.

Evangelicals readily overlooked his sins because he was their champion for policies that force others to follow their dictates.

On the Covid pandemic he played it both ways: first he pushed through a lightning-fast program to develop vaccines, then sensing a resistance to vaccines and mask wearing from his base he largely took their side. I recall once when he urged mask wearing he got boos — he gave that up.

But Trump’s worst sin was that unwilling to accept defeat in his bid for re-election in 2020, he urged on a mob that attacked the capitol and tried to thwart the constitutional election process. He also took other steps, such as presenting phony electors and also attempting to use his presidential powers to intimidate election officials.

It could be that neither of these geezers will wind up on the ballot come next November.

Trump continues to face a multitude of legal challenges. Biden might decide or maybe already has, to withdraw from the race closer to the election — staying in for now only to maintain his own and his party’s power, which would likely all but evaporate should he drop out of the race now.

How about Nikki (what about slavery?) Haley vs. Kamala (giggle girl) Harris? Haley wins most likely. I dislike disparaging Harris. I just beg her to give me a reason not to. It is difficult for a vice president to stand out. She should have spent more time in the senate, perhaps.

Why not a woman president, though, be she Republican or Democrat? Women, in general, can be better at thinking things through, weighing options, seeking consensus, rather than acting on impulse and for self glorification.

Actually, most any Republican wins without Trump in the race. Voters like to change up.

Even Trump can win. The polls indicate that, but of late they’ve been often less than accurate, perhaps with pollsters failing to adapt to communication changes in society.

The analysts say Biden has made many legislative accomplishments in a highly divided political environment and has improved economic conditions.

Problem is, many voters can’t seem to touch or feel these things. Perception is everything.

The decline in reading, the near death of traditional journalism, the proliferation of social media infected with AI-generated nuisance and propaganda, and the general softening of society have created a dangerous political environment.

In politics, political parties, as corrupt as they could be at times, have given way to something far worse, the party of individual free agents seeking personal gain over healthy policies for the general public. At least traditional parties tended to force some sense of cooperation that was more likely to result in policy aimed at what’s best for a broader society, rather than individuals or narrow interest groups.

And, yet, we’ve survived this long, since 1776; we might just keep on keeping on.

Happy New Year!

———————————–

The thought that we have or will continue to have a geriatric — or nearly so, if either old guy wins — with control of our nation and the so-called nuclear football, is unsettling to say the least.