9 Comments
Nov 5Liked by Jonathan Weiler

Did I miss the part where you said that if Trump wins you'll be evaluating the Dems strategies for claiming the election was stolen from them?

Expand full comment
author

You did not.

Expand full comment
12 hrs agoLiked by Jonathan Weiler

Bam, bam, bam-bam, B'bam, bam, bam-bam me too! I've been following this line of thinking (by you and others) and certainly hope that it will prove to be more than the wishful thinking that I so want to embrace.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

Expand full comment
Nov 5Liked by Jonathan Weiler

As always, just 100% spot-on on so many key points.

Expand full comment
Nov 5Liked by Jonathan Weiler

Thanks Jonathan. Harris has 2 hurdles. Interested to read your take on #9 and how we prevent/beat likely insurrection efforts.

Expand full comment
author

We'll cross that bridge...

Expand full comment

the subheading drew me in

Expand full comment
author

:)

Expand full comment

When it seems clear that in a two-sided election, when these parties are getting almost the same degree in voters' support, the most sensible thing would be for BOTH parties to help run the government. This necessarily would mean that on the relatively few topics where they disagree, nothing should be done. The logic here is that otherwise almost 50 % of the concerned population would be offended if action followed. But instead of a lot of time being wasted on the matters that they necessarily do share for the good of the whole country, there would be no need to compete and the right decision could more easily reached. Particularly on matters of foreign policy this would be beneficial and worthy of use.

Expand full comment