The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(09-26-2020, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 05:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 04:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not saying the unraveling Republican presidents met my approval.  I just think they had a better ear to the American people.  We were in a selfish racist sexist time frame, and got the government we deserved.

Largely true. The Republicans also got lucky in 1980, gaining the services of a great communicator for the 1980 election for their corporate agenda (who scores 22-6 on my system). We got into the frame we did partly because he was able to deceive people that his neo-liberal trickle-down economics worked, although it did not. Even today a bare majority subscribe to Reaganomics. Partly that also consists of the welfare scapegoating dog whistle of the sort that the closet-racist Classic Xers like.

But the salesmanship and skill of the candidate (as opposed to the president) matters. That is why I am concerned about a future Kamala Harris nomination (score 4-16, you recall).

Eisenhower 18-8
Nixon 18-7
Reagan 22-6
Bush 14-6
Bush 17-2
Trump 9-4

JFK 13-6
Carter 12-4
Bill Clinton 21-3
Barack Obama 19-2

Ford 12-8
Dole 12-19
McCain 15-13
Romney 4-10

Stevenson 5-21
Humphrey 9-5
McGovern 9-10
Mondale 12-12
Dukakis 2-10
Gore 10-9
Kerry 8-12
Hillary Clinton 9-11

Can the Democrats pick 'em, or what?

It's worked for most, Biden's candidacy is proof that Reaganomics works for most Americans these days. It doesn't seem to have worked as well for Berniecrats/ quasi socialist/ Marxist/ BLM /Antifa/ identity politics/ social justice/ open boarders wing of the Democratic party these days. Honestly, I don't see how anything American related is ever going to work very well with them at this point. So, why do you keep using race against me when I don't give a shit if you're black or white or Hispanic or whatever race you identify with these days? Like I said, we KNOW which party is more racist and racially driven today. You're right about Harris because Harris represents the end of the Democratic party. I'm sorry but the racist whites with all the money and power associated with the bulk of the Democratic party's funding needs a minority to blame for the party's demise.

No, Reaganomics works only for the rich. That is clear in all the data. That is the minority to blame; the 1%. That's all who ever benefits from Reaganomics and trickle-down. It never trickles down, it tinkles down on us. Biden is irrelevant to that fact. 

You are a racist, but you keep it in the closet by saying "I don't give a shit if you're black or white or Hispanic or whatever race you identify with," but many times your other statements reveal your racism and I have already cited these.

Harris could represent the end of the Democratic Party if she is ever nominated for the presidency, because she is a weak candidate, and no she does not attract funding, which dried up during her campaign along with her audience. She does appeal somewhat to the identity politics wing of the Democrats, but there's not a whole lot of difference among the Democrats despite what their ideological opponents like yourself and CH86 say. As I said, anti-racism is part of the Democratic and liberal coalition, and that's how it's a gonna stay. The Democrats can't win without it, but the Democratic Party is also more than it. It's all part of the liberal package. If you don't like anti-racism, then that is racist. As long as racism and racial welfare and justice gaps exist, anti-racism will exist and be expressed. And those like you who don't want it expressed will continue to object and oppose it.

[pbrower2a]

(09-26-2020, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: It's worked for most, Biden's candidacy is proof that Reaganomics works for most Americans these days. It doesn't seem to have worked as well for Berniecrats/ quasi socialist/ Marxist/ BLM /Antifa/ identity politics/ social justice/ open boarders wing of the Democratic party these days. Honestly, I don't see how anything American related is ever going to work very well with them at this point. So, why do you keep using race against me when I don't give a shit if you're black or white or Hispanic or whatever race you identify with these days? Like I said, we KNOW which party is more racist and racially driven today. You're right about Harris because Harris represents the end of the Democratic party. I'm sorry but the racist whites with all the money and power associated with the bulk of the Democratic party's funding needs a minority to blame for the party's demise.

It has well served America's economic elites; nobody can deny that. It may have gone as far as it can without doing great harm to the political system and electoral politics. To keep going further one must have the sort of social order in which 95% of the people suffer for 2%  and a brutal system to enforce such. Such would imply the death of any semblance of democracy. 

The rest of us? Not so fast. Real wages are lower than they were when Carter was President.  If there is more prosperity, then it is because people are working more hours (mostly because both spouses are working) to pay more rent to landlords -- if they have the well-paying jobs that mandate that they live where those jobs are. I see nothing wrong with women getting equal opportunity including equal pay -- but if they are working solely to make landlords and other plutocrats richer, then such is exploitation. 

Attempting to put contradictory threads of politics (for example, Black Lives Matters has nothing to do with Marxism -- it's about trigger-happy cops, and not turning the assets of plutocrats over to the "vanguard of the proletariat") will not fool me. What you consider Marxist is what Americans really want -- a social-market economy that ensures that people who do the work can live well enough while having a market economy. Prosperity of the Reagan-Trump kind, the sort that depends upon mass poverty despite high productivity, is a gross fraud. If you support that tendency, then you are nothing more than a tool of people who would be delighted to have you die of hunger or exposure as an example if you ever violated the demands of the economic elites. 

Donald Trump is a racist. His view on almost every non-white group is that 'he knows a good one'. Sure. Every antisemite knew "one good Jew". And, yes, Donald Trump is an antisemite. I can only imagine how steamed he was when Ivanka dated Jared Kushner, and worse -- converted to Judaism. I know a few things about antisemitism, growing up in an antisemitic family who told things about Jews that I could not believe. When I got moved to a place where there were lots of Jews I found out how wrong many of my family members were. Donald Trump has been exposed. Jews are OK to him if he can use them. Well, plenty of white racists like the music of Duke Ellington and Scott Joplin, too. 

The Democratic Party attracts people of disparate origins. It gets the majority of Japanese-Americans and Arab-Americans. Tell me what they should have in common aside from distrust of people hostile to any cultural difference.

[Bob Butler 54]

The latest Trump scandal is the New York Times getting a hold of Trump's recent taxes, and revealing in inept businessman who has been running tax evasion schemes for years. Wonder why Trump has been reluctant to release his tax returns? Wonder no more.

I keep thinking all the anti Trump propaganda is coming out too soon. The various enemies, so called 'friends', the deep state, Democrats and coastal media couldn't possibly keep it coming until Election Day. Still, it keeps on coming. The problem is still so many stories, so little time.

[David Horn]

(09-28-2020, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The latest Trump scandal is the New York Times getting a hold of Trump's recent taxes, and revealing in inept businessman who has been running tax evasion schemes for years.  Wonder why Trump has been reluctant to release his tax returns?  Wonder no more.  

I keep thinking all the anti Trump propaganda is coming out too soon.  The various enemies, so called 'friends', the deep state, Democrats and coastal media couldn't possibly keep it coming until Election Day.  Still, it keeps on coming.  The problem is still so many stories, so little time.

The tax thing needed to get out now, if there is any chance a decent analysis can be complete before FINAL election day --  and that's the real problem. Voting is happening now.  If GOP voters are waiting to vote on election day, then some really bad news to discourage them makes sense if you're a Democrat.  On the other hand, it won't have any impact on people who already voted, and not much on people getting ready to vote now.

[pbrower2a]

(09-28-2020, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2020, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The latest Trump scandal is the New York Times getting a hold of Trump's recent taxes, and revealing in inept businessman who has been running tax evasion schemes for years.  Wonder why Trump has been reluctant to release his tax returns?  Wonder no more.  

I keep thinking all the anti Trump propaganda is coming out too soon.  The various enemies, so called 'friends', the deep state, Democrats and coastal media couldn't possibly keep it coming until Election Day.  Still, it keeps on coming.  The problem is still so many stories, so little time.

The tax thing needed to get out now, if there is any chance a decent analysis can be complete before FINAL election day --  and that's the real problem. Voting is happening now.  If GOP voters are waiting to vote on election day, then some really bad news to discourage them makes sense if you're a Democrat.  On the other hand, it won't have any impact on people who already voted, and not much on people getting ready to vote now.

Agreed. Some barber or bartender struggling to meet house payments who pays much more than $750 a year in federal income taxes because he has no means of dodging them can easily get furious about the low taxes that Trump pays. Some of us remember the late Leona Helmsley who once uttered the fatuous and offensive dictum "only the little people pay taxes".

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-28-2020, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2020, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The latest Trump scandal is the New York Times getting a hold of Trump's recent taxes, and revealing in inept businessman who has been running tax evasion schemes for years.  Wonder why Trump has been reluctant to release his tax returns?  Wonder no more.  

I keep thinking all the anti Trump propaganda is coming out too soon.  The various enemies, so called 'friends', the deep state, Democrats and coastal media couldn't possibly keep it coming until Election Day.  Still, it keeps on coming.  The problem is still so many stories, so little time.

The tax thing needed to get out now, if there is any chance a decent analysis can be complete before FINAL election day --  and that's the real problem. Voting is happening now.  If GOP voters are waiting to vote on election day, then some really bad news to discourage them makes sense if you're a Democrat.  On the other hand, it won't have any impact on people who already voted, and not much on people getting ready to vote now.

True enough.

[David Horn]

(09-29-2020, 02:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-28-2020, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2020, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The latest Trump scandal is the New York Times getting a hold of Trump's recent taxes, and revealing in inept businessman who has been running tax evasion schemes for years.  Wonder why Trump has been reluctant to release his tax returns?  Wonder no more.  

I keep thinking all the anti Trump propaganda is coming out too soon.  The various enemies, so called 'friends', the deep state, Democrats and coastal media couldn't possibly keep it coming until Election Day.  Still, it keeps on coming.  The problem is still so many stories, so little time.

The tax thing needed to get out now, if there is any chance a decent analysis can be complete before FINAL election day --  and that's the real problem. Voting is happening now.  If GOP voters are waiting to vote on election day, then some really bad news to discourage them makes sense if you're a Democrat.  On the other hand, it won't have any impact on people who already voted, and not much on people getting ready to vote now.

Agreed. Some barber or bartender struggling to meet house payments who pays much more than $750 a year in federal income taxes because he has no means of dodging them can easily get furious about the low taxes that Trump pays. Some of us remember the late Leona Helmsley who once uttered the fatuous and offensive dictum "only the little people pay taxes".

Leona and Donald could have been the Borgias of New York, if they didn't hate one another. 

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-29-2020, 10:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: Leona and Donald could have been the Borgias of New York, if they didn't hate one another. 

Perhaps when Donald joins Leona in hell, the devil will consider putting them together?

[Eric the Green]

(09-30-2020, 05:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: Leona and Donald could have been the Borgias of New York, if they didn't hate one another. 

Perhaps when Donald joins Leona in hell, the devil will consider putting them together?

They certainly deserve each other. Perfect hellfire match! They would both just love the constant battle and chaos.

[David Horn]

(09-30-2020, 03:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 05:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: Leona and Donald could have been the Borgias of New York, if they didn't hate one another. 

Perhaps when Donald joins Leona in hell, the devil will consider putting them together?

They certainly deserve each other. Perfect hellfire match! They would both just love the constant battle and chaos.

As a pair in the after life, they seem like a scene out of "No Exit" by Jean Paul Sartre: locked together as mutual punishment.

[Bob Butler 54]

According to CNN, the Great Divide has escalated to a new level, straight out of the Steinfeld's Soup Nazi.  An Iowa restaurant a bit peeved at the racial tensions there posted a new sign.  "No love, no tacos."

Take that!

[Bob Butler 54]

There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

[Eric the Green]

John Oliver lays out where we are with the clarity and humor that only he can do.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2020, 06:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-27-2020, 07:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 06:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 07:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 06:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-27-2020, 10:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 07:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 06:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

I'd rather have a Conservative judge that goes by the rule of law than a Liberal judge who views themself as being above the law and able to change laws as they please. You're playing with fire and you're going to get burned. If you're willing to place everything on the line and die for abortion, be my guest.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 07:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 06:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: There are two sorts of supposedly conservative judges.  The first look hard at the intent of the authors and reading the text as written.  I can live with that.  The other sort legislates from the bench.  They have a political agenda and will find reason to interpret the law as their political ideology would prefer it.  With the new appointment of another conservative judge, many are fearing that with the loss of the senate and the White House, the Supreme Court could become a third branch of congress, a way for Trumpism to linger past it's time.

What could the Democrats do about it?  Most by now have heard of a threat to increase the size of the court, to restore some semblance of balance after Biden gets in.

But I have started daydreaming about impeachment.  Any federal employee can be impeached.  With Trumpism, they have set the example that principle are expendable, only the raw vote counts.  That implies that if you can get two thirds of the senate to agree, the supposedly life time appointment can be terminated.

Do we want to set a course where legislation from the bench is grounds for impeachment.  Oh, the won't get enough senators this time around.  If the justices try doing stuff like killing health insurance in a pandemic, killing reproductive rights, etc... going in the face of the will of the people, should the Democrats throw one aspect of Trumpism back at them in 2022?  Wipe the court clean of conservative justices?  Anyone who legislates from the bench goes?

Anyway, it makes for an interesting daydream.

Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

I'd rather have a Conservative judge that goes by the rule of law than a Liberal judge who views themself as being above the law and able to change laws as they please. You're playing with fire and you're going to get burned. If you're willing to place everything  on the line and  die for abortion, be my guest.

I'd rather have all of you idiots voted out permanently and this country returned to the rule of law and decency, instead of burning up and flooding the country and taking away our democracy as your court is doing. You are willing to see your land flooded and burned, and you are going to get burned. The antifa and BLM are going to come fer ya, take yer guns, take yer air condishning, and burn your house down.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-27-2020, 11:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 11:14 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 10:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 09:50 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 07:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those two types of conservative judges, are the same judges. They just use the first type as a slogan to defend their second-type decisions.

Yet, you support packing the courts with Liberal judges and turning the Supreme Court into a legislative branch right.

But I am not claiming some kind of bogus originalist doctrine that is only a slogan and escuse for your conservative idiots to declare rulings regardless of what they mean for our country.

I'd rather have a Conservative judge that goes by the rule of law than a Liberal judge who views themself as being above the law and able to change laws as they please. You're playing with fire and you're going to get burned. If you're willing to place everything  on the line and  die for abortion, be my guest.

I'd rather have all of you idiots voted out permanently and this country returned to the rule of law and decency, instead of burning up and flooding the country and taking away our democracy as your court is doing. You are willing to see your land flooded and burned, and you are going to get burned. The antifa and BLM are going to come fer ya, take yer guns, take yer air condishning, and burn your house down.

You're seeing the ugly results of having people like us voted out permanently. Like I said, it's a race to the bottom and the Democratic side is winning and we're going to keep it that way.

[Eric the Green]

Joe Biden's biggest problem is that there is no vaccine for Trumpism

Biden's presidency won't suddenly cure COVID because Trump has helped to create a whole culture of resistance to COVID-19 regulations.

by Christian SchneiderOpinion columnist
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2...748453001/

As the 2020 presidential election hurls itself at us, there is one thing upon which the far right and far left agree: The COVID-19 pandemic should be over within days after Nov. 4.

The right says the “deep state” is holding on to a secret vaccine that it will introduce to the world once Donald Trump is thrown out of office. The left says that Trump is the primary cause of the virus’ spread, and that with the biological weapon in chief out of office, people will soon be out safely ingesting each other’s disgusting germs.

Alas, despite these extremes being so far out there that they meet again in the back, neither is right. Trump is not entirely to blame for the virus’ spread, and Joe Biden’s election will not be a panacea in stopping it.

Biden's plan won't be effective

Sure, Biden has a “plan” to solve COVID-19, and it contains all the commonsense proposals: vaccine funding, paid leave, more protective equipment and more funding for testing.

But America is past the “I have a plan” phase. A sizable contingent of regular citizens have decided either that the disease is a “hoax,” or that it’s not worth altering their everyday lives for in any major way.

In other words, COVID-19 is a cultural problem, not a governmental one.

It is the cultural component in which Trump has failed America the most. Over the summer, it appeared the virus was waning — businesses had quickly ramped up production of masks and ventilators needed in hospitals and emergency rooms and limited state shutdowns were being enforced. Infection rates were dropping around the country.

Then, in the wake of the death of Minneapolis man George Floyd’s at the hands of police, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest, effectively signaling the end of lockdowns. Science professionals who urged staying home were silent on the protests, leading those on the right to throw up their hands and say, “Well, I guess lockdown is over.”

That is where Trump’s mismanagement has cost America. In the early days of the virus, Trump said all the wrong things, telling Americans it was just “one person coming in from China” and it would “disappear one day, it’s like a miracle.” And speaking of miracles, he vowed to have churches open for Easter.

Say we were to give Trump some benefit of the doubt — in the early months of the spread, everyone was still figuring out what was happening, and rapid spread would have occurred under any president.

But that leeway evaporated later in the year, when Trump began to actively downplay the virus’ dangers, promising to “open up” America.

As the summer wore on, Trump continued to pitch fake cures like hydroxychloroquine, promising people there would be a vaccine by Election Day. Commensurately, his supporters proceeded to behave as if there was nothing to fear, even attending packed Trump rallies in which hardly anyone wore a mask.

Thus, the country fell into a dangerous cycle — enough people didn’t obey commonsense rules, so the virus spread, leading more people to believe those rules didn’t actually do any good, causing even more people to disregard the rules. All the while, Trump has been telling Americans the country had turned the corner, even as he himself contracted the virus.

And if the former vice president were to win, how would he correct all this? He won’t.

All the people who say wearing a mask is a government mind control plot are far less likely to wear one if it’s Biden making the demand. For these people, it’s not about health or safety but personal freedom — no mask mandate or social distancing regulation is going to infringe on the Trump-era personas they have adopted.

While Biden can cook up all the anti-COVID plans he wants, there is only so much government can accomplish if enough citizens reject enforcement. The rapidly increasing number of people who are dying do so quietly, away from the cameras. They just vanish, leading people to believe that the danger is ephemeral — and Trump’s supporters respond in kind. That culture will remain alive.

Unless Biden can legislate trust in the media and politicians, the pandemic will stretch well into his presidency. The reality is a sizable portion of America is carrying on, waiting for a vaccine — which, ironically, many of them won’t take because it will probably be Joe Biden at the helm of the country when it is released.

And sadly, there is no vaccine for Trumpism.



Christian Schneider, who lives in Madison, Wisconsin, is a senior reporter at The College Fix and author of “1916: The Blog.” Follow him on Twitter: @Schneider_CM