There's a chance pandemic protections would have lasted longer. As far as I know, there were no plans on trumps end to stop them. Also, trump was the one that started the Afghanistan withdrawal. Trump also signed the bill that allowed hemp and weird cannabis analogues to be quazi legal. That's more movement on weed at the federal level than I've ever seen
I hope hexbear isn't trending toward the need for me to say I don't support trump, but federation and it's consequences have been brutal.
I think we’re all sensible enough to know that no one here supports Trump (or Biden, or the electoral system, for that matter). Being on the outside of that gives us the opportunity to look more clinically at the whole mess and point out things like you’ve mentioned. It’s not about being pro-Trump or even anti-Biden, it’s just that there are some things that are true, or at least can be said to be true based on the information available. A lot of it points to Biden being a hardline ideologue on a handful of substantial issues where Trump, having no real ideology beyond his own narcissism, could easily have a better position by accident, or as a result of inertia or blind opposition.
The one thing that makes Trump a potentially better harm reduction candidate, more than just by accident, is that his ability to implement policy i limited. Even where his positions are as bad or worse than Biden’s, his efforts are less likely to succeed and more likely to backfire. If there were more sunlight between the two of them then it would be easier to point to Biden as the superior option, but there isn’t much evidence of that, imo. If that’s the case, I’d rather see someone in the office who would be more likely to cause damage to the system that offered up such terrible options in the first place.
When he accidentally does the right thing, it's likely more a result of it having been an easy win that nobody was paying attention to, like the farm bill, and things like the pandemic response being bigger than his administration. American Capital needed COVID assistance to keep workers alive just enough to not disrupt the cash flow. There isn't a single president who could have singlehandedly changed how it was handled at first.
His "what's in it for me?" Attitude towards foreign policy has moved leftism a couple of inches toward the goal of anti imperialism a couple of times. Even though it came from a selfish position. I have a hard time sussing out what the parties positions are anymore. Then I remember how it is entirely vibes based, and the parties will switch back and forth on support for big issues, but will keep moving full steam ahead to funnel all resources to the top, with bipartisan support.
There's a chance pandemic protections would have lasted longer. As far as I know, there were no plans on trumps end to stop them. Also, trump was the one that started the Afghanistan withdrawal. Trump also signed the bill that allowed hemp and weird cannabis analogues to be quazi legal. That's more movement on weed at the federal level than I've ever seen
I hope hexbear isn't trending toward the need for me to say I don't support trump, but federation and it's consequences have been brutal.
I think we’re all sensible enough to know that no one here supports Trump (or Biden, or the electoral system, for that matter). Being on the outside of that gives us the opportunity to look more clinically at the whole mess and point out things like you’ve mentioned. It’s not about being pro-Trump or even anti-Biden, it’s just that there are some things that are true, or at least can be said to be true based on the information available. A lot of it points to Biden being a hardline ideologue on a handful of substantial issues where Trump, having no real ideology beyond his own narcissism, could easily have a better position by accident, or as a result of inertia or blind opposition.
The one thing that makes Trump a potentially better harm reduction candidate, more than just by accident, is that his ability to implement policy i limited. Even where his positions are as bad or worse than Biden’s, his efforts are less likely to succeed and more likely to backfire. If there were more sunlight between the two of them then it would be easier to point to Biden as the superior option, but there isn’t much evidence of that, imo. If that’s the case, I’d rather see someone in the office who would be more likely to cause damage to the system that offered up such terrible options in the first place.
I agree.
When he accidentally does the right thing, it's likely more a result of it having been an easy win that nobody was paying attention to, like the farm bill, and things like the pandemic response being bigger than his administration. American Capital needed COVID assistance to keep workers alive just enough to not disrupt the cash flow. There isn't a single president who could have singlehandedly changed how it was handled at first.
His "what's in it for me?" Attitude towards foreign policy has moved leftism a couple of inches toward the goal of anti imperialism a couple of times. Even though it came from a selfish position. I have a hard time sussing out what the parties positions are anymore. Then I remember how it is entirely vibes based, and the parties will switch back and forth on support for big issues, but will keep moving full steam ahead to funnel all resources to the top, with bipartisan support.