Biden depends on unity to beat Trump's "divider in chief"

Joe Biden-Unity in 2020

It's not enough that Democrats are angry with Donald Trump's election and the direction he has taken the country in. There also has to be an influx of Republicans who have made a left turn and feel the same way. In a former blog I quoted a reliable source that said 20% of Trump's 2016 voters have soured on him. I closed the post saying, 'Hold that thought.' Joe Biden avoids the anger for Trump approach with an appeal for unity in America. Will it win in 2020?

Joe Biden doesn't believe anger will win in 2020, even when T-rump used " it to win over the Republican base in 2016, saying he gladly carries the 'mantle of anger.'" He's been mad ever since and just look at what shape he has put the country in. A good economy does not excuse the Oval Office lunatic's white nationalism, bigotry, blatant racism and women's abuse, to name only a few. I did a post yesterday that explains it: "Less than half of Trump supporters like him."

Rebecca Traister, author of the book "Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger," retorted, "Biden is 'deeply wrong' that 'Anger at injustice has catalyzed transformative change; 'unity' has not.'" Another voice...this a writer from Rolling Stone, Jamil Smith added, "Women, people of color, and other Democratic constituencies aren't angry like Trump and his followers. They've been pissed off in a whole different way. "She doesn't explain how.

Biden also mentions reaching across the aisle as an approach to unifying Congress, something that many Democrats have criticized. With people like Senate head, Mitch McConnell, sitting on the other side of the aisle, I can understand the reluctance of the Dems. And then there's Barack Obama, to back or not to back. To begin with, the former president hasn't offered and second is whether this would help or hurt Biden.

Lee Drutman of Vox speaks of the Joe Biden “epiphany” theory "that Republicans will have an epiphany about the power of bipartisanship once Trump is gone and start working with Democrats again." Drutman says no way, and I wholeheartedly agree, at least as long as the ogre of the Senate is still around. Drutman argues...

"The problem with Biden’s theory is that Republicans’ hostility to Democrats did not begin with Donald Trump (see, the Obama administration). 

Today, as in 2012, the partisan hostility is highly transferable. It is based neither in opposition to one president nor loyalty to another. It is based in the underlying zero-sum electoral logic that defines the American two-party system and the winner-take-all elections that make the two-party system possible."

Not said, but certainly not forgotten, is racist Mitch McConnell's hatred of President Barack Obama, with his vow that he would make Obama a one-term president if it was the last thing he ever did. He didn't, which shows what a lowlife this jerk is, and the fact that he may not be as powerful as he thinks he is, perhaps just a fat blowhard. Biden talks about Trump's divisiveness while we regularly see the maniac's favorability improve, still holding on to his loyalists.

In one case in Pennsylvania, Joe Biden jumps back and forth between his unity issue and the put-down of Donald Trump. This state is important to Biden in 2020, where Trump barely won in 2016; part of the "blue wall" of Democratic industrial states. The former V.P. is headquartered in Philadelphia and in rallies continued to call Trump the 'divider in chief.' Biden spent time on the issues, including climate change and health care, making comparisons with Obama.

If there is anything this country needs it is unity, something we haven't seen for years, back through many presidents. We need it on the local level, between states, and most of all in Washington. The U.S. Congress is in a complete state of diversity, inconsistency, division, discord, strife, disarray, hostility, almost all-out warfare. There aren't enough antonyms of unity to show the disunion of that body of outright incompetent morons. Maybe Joe has the right idea.
 

Wrap-up from weekend left field politics

POLITICS ON THE RUN

GOP says Jared Kushner clueless...Nobody wants to work for Trump...4 ways Trump really screwing rural voters...Trump wants "patriotic" sacrifices from farmers in trade war...Trump says unwed LGBT couples' kids aren't citizens...James Carroll of The Atlantic says, "abolish the Priesthood"...Former Regulatory Nuclear Commission member says nuclear power industry should be banned

How old is too old for U.S. president?

The question is, does age matter?

Art Cullen in the Guardian says that age-70 may be too old for being President of the United States, referring to Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the latter turning seventy before inauguration. Considering who will be running in 2020, Trump will be 72, Biden 76, Sanders 78 and Warren 69. He cites Ronald Reagan in his 70s while in the White House, and Nancy Reagan and Al Haig actually running things as the Gipper passed into neverland.

Here's how Cullen describes the situation...

"Trump is batty and losing it more each day. Bernie impresses as a grumpy and impatient Trotskyite, Biden as a familiar Irish pol who wants to hug you up and keep you warm, hearkening to days when unions had teeth and Scranton had steel. They confront a candidate written by Rod Serling for the Twilight Zone."

 "Warren seems a pup in their presence. Young of mind, she is a fan of Game of Thrones. She is full of vim and vigor and maybe is no more likely to die of a stroke than Pete Buttigieg, 37. She could beat me in a foot race any day of any distance. But if she wins she will be 75 at the end of her first term – slightly older than Reagan at the end."

You'll note here that he spends twice as much space on Warren as any of the other three. After this Cullen draws comparisons between Einstein, Mark Twain, Eisenhower and the Kennedys, alluding to their accomplishments at various ages. He says, "War would be rarer if women ran the world." then adds, "But we are talking, in the main, about three old white men. At least the national cable media are. Biden nearly has the nomination cinched, to hear it told."

That doesn't bode well for Democrats with the rest of the field relatively weak, except, perhaps, for Kamala Harris. Sorry, but I still have a warm spot for the Bern, and as a Democratic Socialist myself, believe that most of his issues could fly. My concern is Medicare for All-Single payer plan, and just how feasible that is. Here's a definition...

"Single-payer is a more general term used to describe a government system, typically backed by taxes, in which everyone gets health care from one insurer, run by the government. Think of Medicare for all as a brand-name single-payer plan. Some advocates also like the term 'national health insurance.'”

Consider the possibility of not doing away with insurance companies, which would be an almost impossible sell. Have the government use insurance companies, allocating coverage out to the lowest bidder, with obvious restrictions on the quality of coverage. I solidly believe Bernie deserves a shot at the presidency with his honesty and integrity.  And I have no problem with his age...I am 86.

John Bolton,war monger, is in Trump's head

John Bolton the warmonger

Here's how AlterNet put it: "The most dangerous man in the world is at Trump’s right hand." That's heavy since we have so many opportunities for conflict with Trump in the White House, Iran and No. Korea to name a couple. Just recently Bolton warned the Tehran government that...

“any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

Trump followed with talk about negotiations commenting... “I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.” This sort of rhetoric makes both of these dufuses sound like the idiots they are, but one is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and that is purely pathetic. In the Venezuelan situation, Trump said "his national security adviser was trying to pull him “into a war.” This is when...

John Bolton demanded military plans to oust the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. Trump said no.

Bolton demanded “regime change” in Iran and the Pentagon produced a plan to put 120,000 troops into the region, Trump said no. Sounds like John Bolton just can't catch any luck with his warped ideas, and rightfully so. The Guardian said...

"Donald Trump’s national security adviser [John Bolton] is stoking tensions with North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, in line with decades of taking the most hawkish position on any given issuer"

The Guardian puts John Bolton in the "driving seat" on all three of the uprisings, No. Korea, Iran and Venezuela, also described by the publication as "one of the most fervent believers in American military power ever to work in the White House." The hawk who sits right next to the Oval Office. Bolton would like to go to war with...well, just about anyone. It seems that climbing to the pinnacle of warmongering is John Bolton's goal.

And linking to the past through NBC News...

"Former national security adviser Michael Flynn told investigators that people linked to the Trump administration and Congress reached out to him in an effort to interfere in the Russia probe, according to newly unredacted court papers filed Thursday."

Bolton's predecessor has just rocked Donald Trump's boat again with this new revelation...

"The court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller is believed to mark the first public acknowledgement that a person connected to Capitol Hill was suspected of engaging in an attempt to impede the investigation into Russian election interference."

After checking Twitter, nothing from Donald Trump at this writing, but you can bet there will be.

Please give me your comments

Under 50% of Trump supporters like him

I really am loyal but I don't like the jerk. Those are my words, but it is actually a fact that less "than half of Trump supporters ascribed any positive traits to their chosen candidate, according to a June-July 2016 Pew survey." The survey also found...

"Very few consider him well-informed or admirable. Only a minority expected that he would be willing to work with those he disagrees with, that he could unite the country, and that he is honest."

And there's more...

"They did, however, feel that he has deeply held beliefs and that he is extreme."

Wow! I knew that Donald Trump supporters were double-digit maniacs, but this kind of information leads me to believe that they are complete morons. There are more interesting demographics...

Trump draws more men than women; And the voters are older, 40+,the 18 to 29-year-ages don't care for him; his followers are uneducated; they are in a lower income group; his flock is mostly white, only 7% black, around 25% Hispanic; and he attracts evangelicals, which is a huge surprise based on his blatant immorality; Finally there is a racial diversity with his anti-Muslim and immigrant policies.

The study by Pew Research, one of the highest rated and respected in the field, illustrates just what the typical Trump supporter looks like...

"They are primarily white, older men with low levels of education and income. They believe that immigrants and free trade deals have harmed their earning power (and they're right about the free trade deals), and they prefer an America in which white people are the majority. Trump's worldview and platform ​seem to resonate with them."

But, looking toward the future, Pew also claims that 20% of Trump's voters have soured on him. Please hold that thought until 2020.

Please let me have your comments.

Did Trump predict his war with Iran?

CURRENT WRAP-UP ON TRUMP'S IRAN WAR

Trump and man who would start ANY war-John Bolton

In 2011, Trump warned "a desperate president" would attack Iran to win re-election...Trump plans air strikes and ground invasions against Iran...No de-escalation plan for Iran threat...Bernie Sanders says, war with Iran would be "many times worse than the Iraq War"...John Bolton most likely responsible for Iran aggressiveness...Heavily armed US carrier strike group headed for Iran

Is Trump's White House another version of "The Godfather?"

Just call me Donald Corleone

Just yesterday there were new discoveries about Michael Flynn that shows he was approached by individuals allied with Trump who wanted to influence his dealings with Mueller and perhaps buy his silence.” Does that sound like Marlon Brando telling one of his made-guys to take care of a situation? This is brand new from the Mueller Report and "confirms the feeling a lot of folks have had, that we might just be living in the midst of a mob movie, "according to CNBC.

Here's more from MSNBC...

"Rachel Maddow had a similar reaction, calling the news a 'mafia-esque' move' from the president’s goon squad.”

As we know, Flynn lasted only 24 days on the job, and T-rump had been warned repeatedly not to hire him. There's more...

"He pleaded guilty back in December of ‘17, lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, and he’s been cooperating with the special counsel’s investigation ever since.”

And here's something even more startling and disturbing...

"A newly unredacted court filing made public late today says Flynn told Mueller’s team that people connected to Congress as well as individuals tied to the Trump Administration tried to influence his cooperation with the Russia investigation."

Both Congressional staff and people from the Trump administration tried to influence Michael Flynn. At this point, how could there be any doubt over Donald Trump's obstruction of justice?

More reading on Donald Trump's obstruction:

"Trump would be in jail if he wasn't president?"

"Trump even worse than Nixon says John Dean"
Please give me your comments on this issue