I'm not sure about this. Trump's attempt to go full tilt at this is largely falling on indifferent or deaf ears as his allies - with the exception of the utterly pathetic Giuliani - drop him like the rotten hot potato that he is. Short of some still-possible court shenanigans, the vibe is that people seem to be accepting the results for what they are. But maybe that's 'cause I don't follow Q or Breitbart or whatever close enough. — StreetlightX

He has failed to rouse the rabble, partly because of Biden's statesmanlike patience and inclusiveness, partly too through there being no evidence. — Tim3003

I have been checking Fox and Breitbart in the past days. It looks like the large GOP donors have decided to let this one go, and not take up the opportunity. Perhaps it's because of the senate runoffs, or perhaps because they have gotten all they need out of Trump. This does not look like a failure to incite action. It looks like they aren't trying.

Yes, votes for Trump are fundamentally a rejection of the status quo political class. The evidence for this is Bernie Sanders, who represents the same kind of rejection on the left. Two very different candidates with two very different policies, united by their ability to speak to a loss of faith in the status quo. — Hippyhead

Not merely of the political class. It's part of the wider populist movement that decides societies into "the elites" and "the people".

The heart of the problem is that the accelerating development of knowledge is challenging us to look at ever more fundamental issues at an ever faster pace. And we're just not ready. — Hippyhead

I'm not convinced we're simply not able to cope. Rather, we just did not cultivate the right culture (including political culture) to deal with change. The "West" has almost entirely lost it's vision for the future. We're all focused on managing the status quo with as few bumps as possible.

Trump was always going to claim election fraud, no matter what the outcome was. He claimed fraud in 2016 when he won.

Now that he lost by a small margin the ‘stolen election’ propaganda will be potent with Trumpians.

Had the GOP run Jeb Bush in the last election... — Hippyhead

I watched some of the 2016 presidential debates, I don't know how Jeb looks up close, but from afar, he came across as a kindly suburban accountant type, devoid of anything resembling charisma, originality or wit. Unfortunately, perhaps.

with Trumpians.... — praxis

there is no 'Trumpism'. To create an -ism of any kind, even facism, you need principles. Trump has no principles, only wants and impulses, which he executes spontaneously, as they come to mind. He himself says this! He was asked once how he plans his day, he said 'I don't, I just see what happens'. How many times did we hear that from him in the last four years? 'Let's see what happens'. If Trump had written a Mein Kampf it'd be a different story. Trump is entirely a creation of the media, he only really lives on a TV screen, and there's no real identity hiding behind the mask.

What's driving this at a most fundamental level is the accelerating development of knowledge, which is driving social change at a pace faster than our ability to adapt. — Hippyhead

I'm not sure what you mean by this 'accelerated development of knowledge'. Technological progress? I agree with the sentiment, but in its place I'd claim globalisation is the driver. The established political classes really have no answer to the perils of globalisation for the blue-collar worker. If markets globalise jobs will migrate to whichever country can pay its workers least to produce the goods. This is the cause of the fear and growing xenophobia which manifests in working class voters. Trump's nationalism plays to this audience perfectly. Yes mainstream politicians have no answers, but in what ways are they corrupt?
Personally I think Biden may have hit a goldmine in pledging $2 trillion to fight global warming. This will mean jobs which cannot go overseas. Or are you going to import 10000 Chinese roofers to insulate houses? It should also allay some of the fears about oil/coal/gas jobs disappearing.

Furthermore, while I'm ranting, the insistence of SO MANY liberals on insulting rural and working class Americans is an act of pure stupidity. — Hippyhead

This insulting by the liberals like me is not what it may seem: nothing much can be done about human ignorance and emotionalism, so insults are pointless. The insult is aimed at the cynics like Trump who deliberately set out to exploit that ignorance and its consequent fear for their own ends. I'm not American, but the situation is just the same in the UK, where Boris Johnson has committed the same dirty deeds to get Brexit voted through, so I do understand how it works. As I said above, Biden seems to me to be making all the right noises so far to allay fears of job losses. I'm guessing that most of the fear of immigrants coming into the US is jobs based. Unlike the UK you have plenty of room to build to house incomers.

there is no 'Trumpism'. To create an -ism of any kind, even facism, you need principles. Trump has no principles, only wants and impulses, which he executes spontaneously, as they come to mind. — Wayfarer

Trump surely doesn't have an ideology, but the reason he was elected in the first place isn't a mystery. Call it simply populism: be for the ordinary people against the ruling elite. A deviation from the ordinary, what Trump presented, was enough to get the Republican candidacy and finally the elections. Once, with close race the second time.

There would be a huge demand for someone that a) goes against the ruling elites, b) would fight political corruption, c) go with protectionist trade policies and d) change mainstream US foreign policy. These issues mentioned could be followed by both leftist and right-wing populists. Then add doing something for the people in "fly over" country and their jobs, it's all there for anyone to take the torch from Trump. If you are a right-wing, add there the law & order scheme. If on the left, add a spice of criticism to the robber-baron capitalism and then there's the torch from Bernie.

I think Trump was a President his supporters simply believed to be more than he was.

they have gotten all they need out of Trump — Echarmion

Used him for the tool that he is.

Do vague platitudes count as lies or truths? Vague platitudes is the language of politicians and lawyers. When you learn how to twist words to mean almost anything, then you can always assert plausible deniability later. — Harry Hindu

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. But some people speak intentional lies, and Trump does it all the time. That's what sets him apart from other politicians. You cannot characterize what he says as "spinning the truth" because he speaks in outright lies.

I agree with the sentiment, but in its place I'd claim globalisation is the driver. — Tim3003

What's driving globalization (and automation) is the development of knowledge. Globalization and social insecurity are symptoms of the knowledge explosion. The faster we develop new knowledge, the faster society changes, and thus the less secure people can be in their situation, leading to political instability.

I watched some of the 2016 presidential debates, I don't know how Jeb looks up close, but from afar, he came across as a kindly suburban accountant type, devoid of anything resembling charisma, originality or wit. Unfortunately, perhaps. — Wayfarer

Yes, Jeb Bush does have a significant charisma deficit, agreed. I would describe him as a competent technocrat. Conservative, but reasonable and intelligent. None of the Bushes would have anything to do with Trump.

Oh, I’m well aware of that. I have plenty of criticisms of the Bush clan, although I’ve come to appreciate Bush snr’s lack of ego. I heard the other day that, as part of the standard protocols when he was President he had to approve a draft obituary which is kept on file in the event of POTUS’ unforeseen demise. He complained that it was too focused on himself! :-)

I'm not convinced we're simply not able to cope. — Echarmion

What we fail to grasp about the knowledge explosion is that it feeds back upon itself, resulting in an accelerating process of change.

Yes, everyone will claim they know this already, but we don't think through the implications of what 'accelerating' really means. Accelerating means faster and faster. So if social change is unfolding at 80mph now, that will become 100mph, which will become 150mph, which will become 200mph etc. Accelerating means that the shift from 100mph to 200mph may happen faster than the shift from 50mph to 100mph.

A notion that we will be able to successfully manage this process requires the assumption that human beings will be able to also change at an ever accelerating pace. That's not a credible assumption.

If you plot an ever accelerating growth of knowledge (and thus social change) against the (at best) incremental growth of human maturity you will see these lines diverging at an ever faster pace. We are ever more like the 10 year old boy who has been handed a case of booze, a loaded handgun and the keys to the car.

Thousands of hydrogen bombs, which bore us. Does that sound like coping to you?

although I’ve come to appreciate Bush snr’s lack of ego. — Wayfarer

Yes, Jeb is much like his father. Decent guy, competent at governing, but not such a great candidate. Anyway, the Bushes are over, so it doesn't really matter at this point.

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:
Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie.

You're not interested in the truth, only your ideology. But then, like I said, ethical/political truths are subjective. 71 million people thought Biden was more dangerous than Trump.

I was once Christian. But I began to question my beliefs. I actually had the humility in my late teens to consider that what I believed was wrong. I questioned my beliefs and eventually did a 180. I did something similar with my politics.

The problem today is that everyone thinks they are right and are unwilling to accept the possibility of being wrong. People are too emotionally invested in their political and religious beliefs.

I think Trump was a President his supporters simply believed to be more than he was. — ssu

It's called The Cult of Personality. People voted for him because they trusted him as one of their own. In the UK Nigel Farrage had the same appeal. He too came from outside the political establishment. Once Farrage left UKIP it floundered under several leaders. It is not as easy to replace these populist icons as it may appear. It's them, not their policies that voters trust.

It's called The Cult of Personality. People voted for him because they trusted him as one of their own. In the UK Nigel Farrage had the same appeal. He too came from outside the political establishment. Once Farrage left UKIP it floundered under several leaders. It is not as easy to replace these populist icons as it may appear. It's them, not their policies that voters trust. — Tim3003

I don't really buy the personality cult angle. Trump, Farrage, Bolsonaro, those are all not people known for their personal virtue, even among their supporters.

Quite to the contrary, their lack of virtue is often considered an argument in their favor, as they serve as conduits for the anger of their supporters. It's not who they are as people - it's what they stand for as figureheads. That's one reason why the obsession with Trump's personal failings on the part of the media and the left failed to have any impact.

The followers of populists actually care for the policy, not the person. They care so much about the policy that they're willing to put up with anyone who gets them closer to that goal. They'll go so far as to hail them heroes for channelling their anger and frustration.

The focus on simplified policy questions over "old fashioned" concern with the personal ability of the candidate to do their job is what has paved the way for populism.

The followers of populists actually care for the policy, not the person. They care so much about the policy that they're willing to put up with anyone who gets them closer to that goal. — Echarmion

Sorry but I can't agree with that. The followers of populists follow the person as much as the policy. It's been said many times that Trump was policy-lite. His basic stance was of simplistic anti-immigration anti-leftie anti-foreigners tropes that anyone could understand. His rise was echoed by Farrage in the UK. When he left UKIP and politics altogether it collapsed. At the last election he returned and formed the Brexit Party, which stood in the election with no policies at all, except to achieve Brexit. Millions voted for him. The idea of Brexit was agreed to by many others, but only Farrage was liked and trusted enough to get the poll ratings. (His party ended up being irrelevant because Boris Johnson removed any point in voting for him by copying his Brexiteer stance.) Populists appeal to voters who are bamboozled by the complexity of policy, and they keep it in simple primary colours. They are usually political outsiders - as the voters believe themselves to be. These voters will probably not vote at all but just moan about politicians in general until a charmismatic figure comes along to galvanise and organise them.
Where was Trumpism before Trump? His right-wing views were (probably secretly) held by many, but only when he came along as the new Messiah who spoke their black-and-white language did voters wake up and flock to him.

Quite to the contrary, their lack of virtue is often considered an argument in their favor, as they serve as conduits for the anger of their supporters. It's not who they are as people - it's what they stand for as figureheads. — Echarmion

It might be helpful to think of Trump as the lead singer in a rock band. Think Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones, almost the inventors of modern white rock n roll. Jagger's job is to channel the egos of the audience. Recall Jagger strutting around the stage and the faces he makes etc, all pure expressions of ego. The egos of we the audience have been beaten in to submission by centuries of social pressure. But our ego is still very much there and Jagger's job is to give it's real nature a public expression. We applaud wildly upon seeing our true self in the spotlight up upon the stage.

Channeling the egos of thousands of fans or millions of followers is a very heavy drug for the performer too. Jagger seems too smart to have been sucked in to actually believing the ego story he is weaving, but many performers do get sucked in and in one way or another overdose on all the ego energy they are channeling. They drink themselves to death, dope themselves to death, blow their brains out with a shotgun etc.

This is probably what's happening to Trump. Like many of us here on this forum, he's quite intelligent and very clever, but emotionally unsophisticated. And so when thousands of total strangers go wild for him at his rallies, he buys in to it, he takes the bait and believes the story. The first job of any successful salesman is to sell themselves to themselves.

At first I thought all this business about the election being rigged was just another one of Trump's games. Now I'm thinking he's probably having an ego meltdown, while his family works quietly behind the scenes trying to bring him back down to Earth. The concert's over, the lights came up, and everyone is leaving the auditorium, but Trump can still hear Keith Richards grinding the groove behind him, and he's just not quite ready to stop strutting.

I can't get no...
Fake news action!!!
No, no, no!

The followers of populists follow the person as much as the policy. It's been said many times that Trump was policy-lite. His basic stance was of simplistic anti-immigration anti-leftie anti-foreigners tropes that anyone could understand. — Tim3003

Policy-lite is still policy. That everyone can understand it makes it more likely that it was the reason for the success.

His rise was echoed by Farrage in the UK. When he left UKIP and politics altogether it collapsed. At the last election he returned and formed the Brexit Party, which stood in the election with no policies at all, except to achieve Brexit. Millions voted for him. The idea of Brexit was agreed to by many others, but only Farrage was liked and trusted enough to get the poll ratings. (His party ended up being irrelevant because Boris Johnson removed any point in voting for him by copying his Brexiteer stance.) — Tim3003

There is an alternative interpretation for the chain of events, which is that UKIP was elected by people wanting Brexit (=policy), and once that was achieved, support collapsed. Farrage, knowing this would happen, conveniently left beforehand.

So this doesn't strike me as strong evidence for personality being the deciding factor.

Populists appeal to voters who are bamboozled by the complexity of policy, and they keep it in simple primary colours. — Tim3003

Yes. But in doing so, they actually get people to care about the policy. It doesn't stop being a policy issue because it's simplified and sensationalised. The fears they play on are real.

They are usually political outsiders - as the voters believe themselves to be. These voters will probably not vote at all but just moan about politicians in general until a charmismatic figure comes along to galvanise and organise them.
Where was Trumpism before Trump? His right-wing views were (probably secretly) held by many, but only when he came along as the new Messiah who spoke their black-and-white language did voters wake up and flock to him. — Tim3003

What all the populists have in common is that they call for radical change, and usually change along some simplistic model of the world.

Trumpism before Trump was Obama's "hope and change". Obama was undoubtedly more charismatic than Trump, but that did not allow him to make a lasting change to his support base. Trump just offers his supporters what they always wanted: simple, easy to understand solutions that validate their existing views, especially their fears. Politics in the US and Europe has trended towards this outcome more generally. In that sense, Trumpism is another step in the populist trend both US parties, as well as many European political parties, are in.

What all the populists have in common is that they call for radical change, and usually change along some simplistic model of the world.

Trumpism before Trump was Obama's "hope and change". — Echarmion

I don't see how you can equate anything Obama believed with Trump's world-view.

I think populists don't call for change. Just the reverse. They surf the wave of the conservative's fear of change. Brexit was not a change but a reaction to the changing nature of the EU, a wish to hold on to a notion of Britain from the past, before immigration and those Brussels burocrats started trying to control our green and pleasant land. That's why the retirement age voters went for it and the young did not.

In the same way Trump didn't call for change either, just a reversion to an America-first view that would have been the only show in town a few decades ago. It's the fear of change, and especially that threatened by globalism and climate change, that populists thrive on. Their supporters are usually those with so little imagination they can easily bury their heads in the sand instead of considering the effects of their wall-building. The word 'conservative' isn't used for no reason..

There is an alternative interpretation for the chain of events, which is that UKIP was elected by people wanting Brexit (=policy), and once that was achieved, support collapsed. Farrage, knowing this would happen, conveniently left beforehand. — Echarmion

UKIP support collapsed as soon as Farrage left it, which was well before the Brexit deal was signed. There was however a Brexit supporting govt by then so he thought his fight was won. When Teresa May failed to get her deal through parliament he realised it might not be, so at the election the in-coming Boris was forced to call he formed the Brexit party to keep Boris honest. Voters flocked to Farrage and not to UKIP, which still existed.

At first I thought all this business about the election being rigged was just another one of Trump's games. Now I'm thinking he's probably having an ego meltdown, while his family works quietly behind the scenes trying to bring him back down to Earth. — Hippyhead

I said this back on Page 50. :wink:

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. But some people speak intentional lies, and Trump does it all the time. That's what sets him apart from other politicians. You cannot characterize what he says as "spinning the truth" because he speaks in outright lies. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

(I don't often get to agree with MU!) But we need invective somewhere on the sewer side of StreetlightX to properly limn Trump and his. Trump is an infantile Faustus and at the same time his own Mephistopheles. At some point he tears himself to pieces - far the better had someone else done it sooner!

A rant worth the hearing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0YTM8iO4_s

The amount of harm, chaos, destruction, etc that they cause is subjective, as is all moral and political truths. — Harry Hindu

Not always. Even if you just look at potential for harm, their are clearly some lies that are worse than others. Lying about ones merits vs. lying about how wearing masks save lives, for example.

I haven't bought into any system. I'm an atheist and an independent voter. I'm not the one that is indoctrinated into some system here. Atheists that are registered Democrats have simply swapped one Big Brother (god) with another(govt). Atheists that are Republicans are just confused. — Harry Hindu

I assume you’ve lived for some substantial amount of time, yet you’ve somehow remained untouched by the education system or culture you were brought up in? You’re also painting very broad strokes, as if atheists and democrats can only be one thing.

You are right about the cult of personality and populist movements. Populism has this fascination with strong leaders. You can see it also for example in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez (to give an example of leftist populism). Once the strong central figure disappears, a populist movement can be hopelessly lost.

It's contrary to a deeply ideological movements, for example libertarianism or the green movement, where many people can feel sympathy for the cause and the ideology, but have problems with odd leaders with the movement.

Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie. — Harry Hindu

Interesting that you use the word "bullshit" here when denying that the philosophical sense of 'bullshit' exists. TL;DR: a lie presumes you know and care that what you're saying is not true: you're trying to hide what is true behind a falsehood. Bullshitting is when you don't care (and so might not even know) whether what you're saying is true: if it is, how fortunate, but if not, no problem. They're different kinds of dishonesty.

Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie. — Harry Hindu

You are missing out on the best part of life if you think that everything spoken must either be the truth or a lie. You might also be missing out on the worst part of life, as well. Conclusion: your life must be very boring. What if I said to you: "Let's go run away together", how would you class this as truth or falsity? How would you class a question? How would you class rhetoric? How would you class diplomacy? I'm sorry to have to shatter your illusion Harry, but human relationships are not discussed in terms of truth and falsity.

(I don't often get to agree with MU!) — tim wood

Come on Tim, you know that deep down you really love me and agree with everything I say, as all lovers always agree on everything.

I have been checking Fox and Breitbart in the past days. It looks like the large GOP donors have decided to let this one go, and not take up the opportunity. — Echarmion

I see this a bit in Fox (though they still provide a platform for the fraud narrative, just hedge their bets both ways).

But Breitbart as of right now has the following front page headlines:

"""
CNN’S JAKE TAPPER WROTE BOOK CLAIMING BUSH PLOTTED TO ‘STEAL THE PRESIDENCY’ IN 2000

POLL: 70% OF REPUBLICANS SAY 2020 ELECTION WAS NEITHER FREE, NOR FAIR

AG BARR AUTHORIZES DOJ TO LOOK INTO VOTING IRREGULARITIES

RICHARD PILGER, LINKED TO IRS SCANDAL, RESIGNS DOJ POST OVER VOTER FRAUD MEMO
JOEL B. POLLAK

MOST OF BIDEN’S NET GAIN IN GA FROM 3 ZUCKERBERG FUNDED COUNTIES

Chip Roy Calls for Recount, Audit, and Full Review

‘Fewer than 100,000 Votes’ Separate Key Swing States

Ex-Michigan Dept AG Alleges Detroit Counters Assigned Fraudulent Ballots to Non-Voters

Graham to Urge McConnell to Probe Mail-In Voting
"""

Although it seems no one in the Trump team came up with the correct legal strategy that went along with their rhetoric of the last months: which would be to prepare filing motions to "stop mail-in vote counting" pending the Supreme court ruling on the legality of same-day mail-in ballots (which the SCOTUS had teased is "probably not ok" but they would only rule if it became relevant). The argument to go along with this is that it's "unfair to a candidate" to have votes counted that might not qualify. Had the vote counting been paused when Trump was still ahead, it would have fully mobilized his base and lent an "air of inevitability" to the SCOTUS handing him the election.

Apparently they simply never prepared this legal strategy even though an aid did understand it and tried to explain to Trump that calling for the vote to simply stop being counted would guarantee losing the election, whereas focusing on fraud and illegal votes and the count must be stopped pending making sure all votes counted are legal would have an actual chance.

It seems one consequence of anti-intellectualism is that your team (and yourself) are a fumbling bunch of complete morons. I imagine Trump saw on Foxnews that his administration had a "legal strategy and lawyers ready to go" and said to himself "great, I have a legal strategy and lawyers ready to go, that's taken care of, I'm amazing".

Be that as it may, the narrative that the election was stolen from Trump is essential to maintain "tribe unity" and for the base to come out with a vengeance in the next mid-terms.

It can't be stressed enough that Biden only looks good compared to Trump, once Trump is in the background all the Biden legitimate as well as insane delusional based criticism will ramp up to a thousand. The Hunter Biden stuff will return, and it definitely isn't something you want your leader to have as a weakness. If Fauci was running some sort of conspiracy working for Trump, how much more of a conspiracy will he be running working for Biden.

One can also note that corporate censorship has been fully normalized in this election cycle and will continue. However, in opposition the right will adapt to this and built their networks outside corporate control, whereas the average Democrat will happily be lulled back to sleep by the "liberal media" and not worry too much if "extreme" progressive voices have been suppressed in algorithms fighting "fake news".

The "liberal media" has, overnight, returned to what politicians are wearing as big news worthy of analysis. European leaders are lining up to bend the knee as predicted and "European influence" will return to being largely just about smiling and shaking hands with the US president.

From a progressive point of view, I would say the election is a disaster, the victory of the center this time will fuel even farther right victories down the road.

There is a chance that Democrats take the senate and then are essentially forced to pass progressive legislation to manage the pandemic, so maybe this happens; but it seems more likely Republicans will maintain the senate and ensure failure of weak centrist policies that aim for a "republican compromise" and then are negotiated down from there.

Likewise, the dominant Republican SCOTUS will thwart, in any case, any progressive legislation that passes or executive actions, if they threaten one dollar of corporate bottom lines. Biden's talk of appointing more SCOTUS judges is of course just talk and a GOP senate won't let that happen anyways, and even a Dem senate would likely "restore norms" and be completely beholden to the filibuster

Of course, Trump would have been a complete and unmitigated disaster for US citizens (as he has already been), but the collapse of US influence abroad may have breathed fresh air into global politics, in particular European. It's possible Trump has done "enough damage" for this momentum to continue, but I have my doubts. A Biden administration will bring back a somewhat coherent militarism, completely entrench large corporate gains of the pandemic, continue the US climate policy of pretending to negotiate to ensure no one else comes up with an effective and binding policy with a cost on non-signatories in the form of carbon tariffs, and so on.

In short, this election has strengthened the far right ideological bubble, while completely arresting the momentum of the progressive movement, and will bring back a tepid and meaningless policy framework that will be ineffective in solving any actual problems within the US or that we face globally. Biden will take the blame for the un-going crisis of the pandemic, and the next crisis in the pipes, be it financial, environmental, a novel Covid that restarts the pandemic, or otherwise. If a "competent Trump" arises (one who proposes a coherent ideology, inspires a truly loyal cadre of close bureaucrats at the top and brown shirts at the bottom, and has a grasp of the cogs of government), such a figure will easily defeat Biden, older and even less coherent and with all the same weaknesses as today, in 4 years time.

In short, this election has strengthened the far right ideological bubble, while completely arresting the momentum of the progressive movement, and will bring back a tepid and meaningless policy framework that will be ineffective in solving any actual problems within the US or that we face globally. Biden will take the blame for the un-going crisis of the pandemic, and the next crisis in the pipes. If a "competent Trump" arises (one who proposes a coherent ideology, inspires a truly loyal cadre of top level bureaucrats at the top and brown shirts at the bottom, and has a grasp of the cogs of government), such a figure will easily defeat Biden, older and even less coherent and with all the same weaknesses as today, in 4 years time. — boethius

Yep.

"Liberals" seem to believe that the right has lost and therefore learned something and have collectively come back to (the "liberal") reality, and yet nothing could be farther from the truth. It's so painful to watch.

I'm seriously questioning whether the current Biden win may in fact not be worse than a Trump victory - a judgement conditional on what happens from here on out. Trump's utter incompetence and obvious clowncar quality was - is - among the greatest advantages an organizing left can have. You could not ask for a better idiot against which to have to fight. The lesson the right will learn from his defeat is that the problem lay in the execution, not the programme. And the next executioner may well be far more effective.

Liberals, who are political illiterates, will indeed reckon - are reckoning, all over the place - that Trump's defeat equate to a defeat of the right. 4 years from now they will be wondering aghast at just how anyone could possibly vote for whichever new demagogue emerges to fill the void of Trump's absence. Still, my God, it'll be good to see the back of that fat, warbling fuck.