Sunday, November 08, 2020

My thoughts on the 2020 election

Here are my thoughts on the election so far:

1. The media has declared Biden the winner. However, that's not how our system works. The way it works is we vote. All the votes are in. Votes are counted. If there are discrepancies which warrant further investigation (e.g. voter fraud, irregularities that need to be reconciled), then independent investigations will be made. That's how we ensure the integrity of our elections. That's how we ensure future elections remain free and fair. This election isn't any different. We need to wait for the outcome, not accept what the media says - and arguably the media is saying Biden is the winner for malicious reasons (e.g. to foster the notion that Trump stole the election if he does win). In fact, isn't this what essentially happened in 2000 with Gore v. Bush?

2. However, even if Trump doesn't win the presidency, this election is an overall win for the GOP and conservatives in general:

a. Polls were predicting landslide victories for Democrats. They predicted a huge blue wave. But at best it was a blue trickle. Maybe not even that.

b. If Biden wins, he barely won. The presidential race was extremely close. One of the closest in American history. That doesn't give Biden any basis for a national "mandate" as president as I've been hearing leftists say. That means Trump and Republicans weren't at all "repudiated" as I've also been hearing leftists say. It was a super close race. On another day, it's quite possible Trump would have been victorious.

c. Even if Trump lost, consider how close he came despite all the powers that be stacked against him. For starters, this was in the middle of a pandemic. During a time of economic uncertainty. During tremendous social unrest by Antifa and BLM. Despite the mainstream media, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, the NBA, China, and many other powerful players openly campaigning on behalf of Biden and censoring Trump supporters. Massive mail-in votes which favor Biden. And so on and so forth. Yet the election was still super close.

d. Democrats were predicted to pick up as many as 7 Senate seats (net). To date Democrats have only picked up 1 Senate seat (net). They'll need to win the two Georgia run-offs to pick up 3 Senate seats, but this isn't guaranteed. If Democrats don't win the GA run-offs, then the GOP will keep the Senate. The GOP will retain Senate majority. Regardless, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, and several other GOP Senate races were expected to lose big. Indeed, Democrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to unseat McConnell and Graham alone. But McConnell and Graham prevailed. They all prevailed. Most of them prevailed quite easily too.

e. Democrats were predicted to pick up as many as 10-15 House seats (net). To date Democrats have lost 6 House seats (net) and perhaps more. GOP picked up many House seats when they were expected to lose big. At least 6 (net) or more. Democrats retain a majority, but it's the thinnest majority of any party in years or decades.

f. Tons of conservative women elected to Congress this election. Over 20 women! This should be historic for feminists. At least as historic as Kamala Harris as VP (though women like Geraldine Ferraro and even Sarah Palin paved the way for Harris). But feminists who are liberal don't seem to care about this big wave of (conservative) women in Congress. I wonder why! Surely it can't be because they're not women. I guess it's because they're not the right kind of women. Just like POC and other minorities who are conservatives aren't the right kind of black, Latino, Asian, etc.

g. In passing, since it's not an elected position, it should be mentioned the Supreme Court is majority conservative. Especially with the addition of Amy Coney Barrett. Thanks to Trump for doing so rather than caving to the left and holding off like perhaps some other Republicans would have done.

h. GOP picked up a state governor and hold the majority of state governorships as well as the majority of state legislatures. If I'm not mistaken, state legislatures are the ones in control of congressional redistricting. That's coming up for the 2022 midterms. Now, one can debate the ethics of gerrymandering, but the fact is both parties do it to benefit themselves in future elections. So the GOP could benefit from redistricting the majority of states in the hopes of better securing future elections for conservatives. Again, this may bode well for the GOP in the 2022 midterms.

i. Somewhat ironically, if Biden won, then Biden won thanks in part to white men, while Trump almost won thanks in part to minorities. Trump has left the GOP with increased support from the working class, POC, minorities, etc. The GOP can build on this. Trump increased support for the GOP from blacks, Latinos, Asians, even suburban women. Apparently he lost ground with white men. But his gains with minorities chip away at Democrats who depend on minorities far more than Republicans do. GOP doesn't need a majority of minorities to win, only enough to diminish Democrats.

j. By contrast, it seems to me Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of woke middle and upper class white people who think they know what's best for everyone else. A party led by hipster coastal elites whose knee-jerk reaction to the slightest slight is to be offended and whose default mood setting is outrage. Such as billionaire technocrats who meddle with people's lives because they think they're more intelligent and educated than the unwashed masses. Those who believe they're more worldly-wise than average Americans because they've traveled to and are familiar with places like London and Paris, Beijing and Shanghai, or Sydney and Auckland, even though they've never been to the Midwest or Deep South. Often they despise the populism and patriotism of their own fellow Americans, but wax nostalgic about foreign cultures and traditions over and against our American ones. It may be no coincidence woke Americans also wish to create a pan socialist movement across the globe. However, thanks to Trump and this election, all this is out in the open, and many Americans now stand more united than ever against wokism, leftism, socialism. Many Americans don't want to see their cities become another CHAZ.

k. If Democrats were smart, and they haven't been terribly smart over the last few years, they'd steer a course away from the leftists in their party, woke-ism, the culture wars, Antifa, BLM, etc. However, it doesn't help that Biden is a fair-weather liberal. He changes his positions with the changing political winds. That indicates Biden will do whatever those in charge of his party wish for him to do. In fact, I suspect that's one big reason why Biden was chosen by the Democrats over, say, Bernie Sanders. Biden can and will be whoever the Democrats want him to be. Furthermore, it doesn't help that Biden seems physically and mentally frail, and if he steps down, then his VP is one of the strongest leftists in the entire Democratic party. On the plus side, if Biden and/or Harris govern as leftists, then the 2022 midterms should be fun.

l. Meanwhile, if Biden governs as a leftist, the separation of powers and gridlock should be a backstop against the leftist agenda of radical social transformation. For example, see Scalia describe the separation of powers and the virtues of gridlock:

m. There may be many reasons why Trump lost if he does lose. I think one of the reasons is probably because of his perceived disreputable character. (Although I don't think Trump is any less disreputable than Obama, Hillary, or Biden. I'd argue Obama, Hillary, and Biden may be worse or far worse.) Anyway, two good things about Trump is he could speak to average Americans without sounding like a politician and he's a fighter. However, if they were smart, the GOP could learn from this, and improve on it, by getting a candidate who has a respectable character, who can communicate with average Americans without sounding like a politician, and who is just as much a fighter as Trump. I hope this candidate exists.

n. I don't know what to think about NeverTrumpers. Especially the ones who launched the Lincoln Project super PAC to make sure Trump isn't re-elected and Senate Republicans lose their races. These are the guys who supported John McCain, Mitt Romney, and George W. Bush (though I also mostly liked W.). The establishment Republicans. People like George Conway (Kellyanne's husband), John Bolton, David French, David Frum, Max Boot, etc. I suppose they think they'll be relevant in the GOP again post-Trump. I don't know, but I doubt it. Simply compare how well the GOP has done in both 2016 and 2020 (even if Trump loses the presidency) vs. how poorly the GOP did with McCain and Romney. I don't think conservatives and others are all that attracted to the GOP of McCain and Romney. So I don't see how they'll be able to be relevant in the future if they're the same.

o. I suppose if Trump really wanted to run again, he could try in 2024. He would be 77-78, which is the same age as Biden is now. But who knows if even Trump and Trumpism will still be relevant in 2024.

In sum, I think GOP and conservatives may have lost the battle for the presidency, but they may be winning the war in general, or at worst holding their own. If it was Mixed Martial Arts, this election would've been a good fight and worthy of a rematch. The 2022 midterms look promising to me. All in all, I think it's pretty good news for the GOP and conservatives in general, even if it's disapppointing to have lost the presidency (if it is lost).


  1. What annoys me is all the talk about Harris being the first black female vice president. Has anyone asked how Pence identifies? /s

    Point i is particularly amusing to me. Trump lost because all us white supremacist males didn't vote for one of our own, but more non-whites voted for the white supremacist this time around.

    1. Good points! :)

      On a related note, according to past-Biden, Kamala should be segregated when riding a school bus, Kamala is like an animal, and Kamala should be incarcerated in order to somehow reduce racism.

      Wait a second! I think I got it wrong: we're supposed to believe Biden when Biden denounces racism but disbelieve Trump when Trump denounces racism. I think that's how it's supposed to work.

    2. How can you say Biden was a small win when he won Georgia which hasn't changed since 1992? Also, Trump got 306 last time and called it a huge win. When it wasn't.

    3. John

      I've been away and I didn't see your comment until a friend notified me:

      1. You wrote this on 11/15/2020. At the time, Georgia hadn't certified the election results. At the time, you were just assuming what the mainstream media reported about the results in Georgia and across the US are correct. Yet that was the very point of contention. So you already started off on the wrong foot.

      2. In fact, much of the election is still debated today. It's still quite possible there was significant voter fraud. The question is still if there's sufficient voter to overturn the election?

      3. Maybe yes, maybe no, but an additional problem is proving it given the short window. I doubt Trump's legal team will be able to prove it. They're basically out of time now. It looks like his legal team is quite weak, which is something I've pointed out too. Ted Cruz, who for all his warts is nevertheless a sharp and cunning legal mind, warned Team Trump about getting better lawyers weeks ago. It doesn't look like Trump paid him any heed.

      4. Not to mention many Democrats are hypocrites about what Trump is doing. They've been telling Americans Biden won fair and square since Nov. 3rd, that Trump should concede, etc. In addition the mainstream media still acts like an arm of Biden's campaign or the Democratic Party. So, even if it's true that Biden won fair and square, millions of Americans won't believe it, because of how hypocritical leftists have been behaving.

      5. Trump may have lost, but Trumpism won. See this article from someone who is about as anti-Trump as you can get. In any case, even if Trump loses, the nation is still sorely divided. Yet it's amazing how close Trump got to winning despite all the odds stacked against him. He literally had big media, big tech, big pharma (e.g. Pfizer's COVID vaccine), Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, professional sports like the NBA, the coastal elite class, and many other major players doing everything in their power to oppose him, misinforming the public, attempting to hide pertinent information (e.g. Hunter Biden). Yet, still, Trump almost won! And Trumpism has already won.

      6. The real battle now is the two US Senate seats in Georgia. If the GOP loses both Senate seats in GA, the Senate will be 50-50. So it's still tied at worst. Of course, what's bad is Harris may be the tie-splitting vote. That would be disastrous. But even still it reflects a super close election.

  2. I would have thought America NEEDS radical social transformation. As for the media pronouncing Biden's win, that's based on the facts of the votes. Trump and his people have simply made accusations without actual evidence of voter fraud. Even if a court eventually agrees there was some fraud affecting a certain number of votes, it is highly unlikely to affect who has won or lost. So the media, including Trump's favourite Fox, were right to announce Biden as the winner. Time will tell how good a President he will be...

    1. 1. So you're another non-American telling Americans what we should think about our political system and process.

      2. No idea why you think "America NEEDS radical social transformation". Only your unargued "thought" that we do need it.

      3. Well, "the facts of the votes" aren't all in. For example, several states have overseas and military ballots that haven't been counted. Not to mention provisional ballots. There's evidence of illegal ballot harvesting in multiple counties in GA. There's video evidence PA actively disallowed observers from Team Trump even though PA courts ordered observers to be admitted. There's the issue of "curing" deficiencies in ballots (e.g. signing signatures on ballots when ballots didn't arrive with signatures). Two of the five contested states (GA and WI) are already automatically going to have a recount. That's not Team Trump's doing, but just because that's the rules. It'd be the same if it was Biden. And so on and so forth.

      4. Of course, the real question is not whether there is voter fraud. It's obvious voter fraud exists. The question is if there's sufficient voter fraud to grant Trump a victory over Biden. Personally, I'm skeptical, the gap seems too wide to overcome, and I do suspect Biden will prevail in the end, but I don't know for sure.

      5. Fox's problem wasn't "announc[ing] Biden as the winner". Fox's problem was calling AZ way too early. That arguably affected the course of the race. But even if it turns out Fox is right about AZ, it was still wrong for Fox to have called AZ at the point they called AZ because there wasn't enough information to know at that point.

    2. If it weren't for unargued assertions, there'd be almost no political discussion at all! I don't believe there was some golden age of political discourse, but just assuming/asserting one's position seems a bit too popular. I wonder if it's because differences are so large that that's all people know what to do, or people are just that sloppy thinkers. Or both. That's always an option.

    3. Thing is, Trump doesn't need to prove that there was enough fraud to change the election. He needs to prove that there was enough to confound the election result (which I think there was). If he succeeds in doing this, I suspect that the vote for the states in question will be done by the state legislatures, who will most likely vote for Trump.

    4. Good point, CharlesD! From your lips to God's ears. :)

      Coincidentally I read this post by a Christian lawyer. It also makes several good points which may be hopeful for Trump (along with links to other posts that offer a legal analysis etc.). I think it's worth reading.

    5. CharlesD - 'He needs to prove that there was enough to confound the election result (which I think there was)' - what actual evidence is there of that?

  3. Hi Hawk,
    I was wondering if you, or if another blogger on here, comment on or critically interact with notion of double consciousness from WEB Dubois and its recurrence today? (I.e. "lived experience")

    1. Hi Trent,

      Regrettably I don't know much about this. About all I know is it undergirds much of the modern discourse on critical theory, intersectionality, etc. I know DuBois is critical of Booker T. Washington. Afaik, their clash of visions reverberates until today in the black community. Someone like Jeremy Pierce or Neil Shenvi would know far more than I do. For example, Shenvi has written in passing about it here. And there's the SEP article on it that might be helpful. Sorry I don't know much more! :(

  4. I use the Jaws analogy. Trump is like Quint the skipper of the Orca. He nasty, appalling and a wretch. Yet without him Brody couldn't finish off the monster shark. The shark is the Biden/Harris Dems. They've actually just eaten Quint/Trump. But if the GOP can find a Brody in say, Nikki Haley she can and will finish the job that Trump started and kill the Shark. Sorry about the extended metaphor, l heard Victor Dav i d Hanson describing Trump as a John Ford Western gunslinger so I immediately thought of Jaws!

    1. Thanks, Real Deal! You could be right, though hopefully Trump hasn't been eaten yet. :) Hopefully there's still hope that he can arise Phoenix-like despite being declared dead and gone by the media. CharlesD's comment above and the Christian attorney I linked to in my reply might offer some hope.

      I suppose Trump is indeed in the vein of VDH's "savior generals". Like a William T. Sherman or a George Patton. Trump arrived at a time when the GOP and conservatives thought we were destined for defeat by Democrats and the left, just as the savior generals arrived at a time when it looked like the war was lost. Indeed, Democrats and the left were loudly and triumphantly celebrating this fact in 2016 when it was Hillary vs. Trump. Like Sherman & Patton, Trump is an outsized ego, bombastic, coarse, surly, foul. He rubs many people the wrong way. He tweets wild and inappropriate things. Yet, he's not like the supposedly noble Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Or even George W. Bush whom I mostly like. The GOP establishment. Those who prefer to be civil and gentlemanly toward the left, even as the left is anything but toward conservatives, and even though it means losing national elections and relegating the GOP to "demographic destiny" where supposedly white people (I'm not white) and places like the Rust Belt are no longer relevant. Nor the message that the US was destined to fade away like the UK after World War 2, while China was ascendant and would lead the new world hegemony. Trump didn't care about the silk gloves, he didn't buy into the "demographics is destiny" or "Asian pivot" that the left assumed would happen, he only cared about MAGA, and his first term has mostly been victory after victory for conservatives. Trump has accomplished most of what the GOP establishment have said they wanted for years but never could accomplish because they didn't want to get their hands dirty as it were. So even if Trump loses, he's already changed the GOP and given conservatives far more hope than we had back in 2016. Yet, in this respect he's like VDH's savior generals too, because the American public turned against men like Sherman, Patton, & Ridgeway because they couldn't accept their uncouth personalities despite their amazing victories in the war.

    2. At least Trump doesn't think he's a reincarnation of famous leaders like Patton...right? I'd grudgingly agree. I wish he could shut up and say something coherent a few times a week...but what's the point of well mannered, well thought out arguments against someone who's starting position is "you're a bigot because you disagree with me". You're not dealing with people who have much desire to discuss things in a marketplace of ideas (Marxists aren't fans of markets, after all).

      Nikki Haley would be fun. I'm interested in seeing what the left would use when they're dealing with a female Indian. I'd put money on her being called sexist and/or racist somehow.

      Hawk, you're not white? You're a bird of a different feather? I'll see myself out.

    3. Lol, TheFlyingCouch! You're too witty and I have no response. You've rendered me speechless. :)

      I often wished Trump would just shut up too. I think if Trump had dialed down his rhetoric by even 10% (let alone much more!) he would have been appealing enough to have decisively won this election. I know politically conservative, libertarian, and moderate women who are turned off by Trump the man and won't vote for him despite admitting his policies are reasonable. Perhaps this is in part because many women tend to be more holistic thinkers rather than able to neatly compartmentalize like many men can. Also, perhaps this is in part because many women simply don't like belligerent personalities whereas most men enjoy a good fight. (On another note, I wonder if these are related to how some women might dislike Steve Hays' apologetics, though I think Christian men generally respected and appreciated Steve, though he could also rankle some men.)

      That said, I'm not sure if we can divorce Trump's bombastic egoistic self from Trump the fighter. I guess that's the same with someone like Patton. He often couldn't keep his mouth shut, he didn't have to slap hospitalized soldiers, etc., but if he had been a more temperate and civil personality, would he still have been Patton? I don't know. Same with Trump.

      Even if Trump loses, one question is whether we could have a candidate who is as much of a fighter as Trump is but who isn't uncouth like Trump is. Maybe a Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton, but they have significant weaknesses too. So again I don't know.

      I suppose the dilemma with Trump is, if the following are the only available choices, whether it's better to have a good general who is a bad person or a bad general who is a good person. Or something like that.

  5. I do think we need to be cautious about using the phrase "majority conservative" for the SCOTUS. That is the way the left characterizes it because the left (including the media) counts any justice as a "conservative" whom they want to complain about. Usually on the basis of who appointed the justice, regardless of the justice's rulings. This is all the easier for them to do when that justice is relatively new and they esp. hate the president who appointed him. Eventually they came to refer to Kennedy as a swing vote or a moderate even tho' he was appointed by Reagan, but if he'd been appointed by Trump or Bush more recently they'd still be calling him a "conservative" in order to worry dramatically about the overturn of Roe, even if the handwriting were already on the wall that he would do no such thing. I believe that's exactly the situation we are in regarding Roberts, for sure. Gorsuch's ruling in Bostock was shockingly bad, making it very questionable as to whether we should call him a conservative. And Kavanaugh has sent signals that make me quite dubious that he would vote to overturn Roe. If anything, the monstrosity of Obergefell seems even more secure than Roe. I very much doubt that Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Roberts would vote to overturn it. *Maybe* Alito and *hopefully* Barrett, though her abject apology for saying anything that would offend the LGBT community (even though the complaint was wholly manufactured) during her hearing is perhaps a bad sign in this regard.

    Yet Obergefell is a very recent ruling and just as constitutionally fantastical as was Roe.

    So I just don't see that we can regard the current court as majority conservative or majority originalist.

    1. Excellent points, Lydia! And I definitely agree, including your helpful correction regarding my use of "majority conservative". Much appreciated.

    2. Almost *anyone* would have to be considered "conservative" compared to RBG, so there's that.

    3. Why do you think that is? Is it that there aren't any conservatives to put in? That to try to get candidates in, more center of the road justices are put forward? That the justices want to be seen in a positive light, so they follow the culture and now the law? It is a bummer, it seems the best that can be done with the Supreme Court by the right is to slow things down...a little.

    4. CD - true! Lol.

      TFC - I'm not Lydia, of course, and I'm sure she'd have a much better answer than I would. I hope she offers an answer because I'd be interested too.

      I only have a general answer: I suspect one reason may be due to their jurisprudence, viz. originalism vs. constructionism. Afaik, originalists tend to prioritize the text of the Constitution above their own beliefs when making judicial decisions, whereas constructionists ("living Constitution") don't. In fact, I suspect those who adhere to constructionism may be more inclined to judicial activism. In any case, originalism may lead originalists to decisions which sometimes favor political conservatives or political liberals. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me constructionism much more often seems to favor whatever the constructionist justice's politics happen to be. I realize this is just a sketch or outline at best. But maybe it's too simplistic.

      In addition, I think there's some debate over Roberts as chief justice. I think he has often been motivated to "protect the Supreme Court". I think that colors his decisions. I've read some legal scholars say that if Roberts wasn't chief justice, maybe he would have ruled more conservatively. Just another thought.

  6. "That the justices want to be seen in a positive light, so they follow the culture and not the law?"

    TFC, I'd say that's a big one. Very likely influences Roberts.

    I honestly don't fully understand it, though. It's so bad that it's a kind of curse. It's like they have to prove that they *aren't* conservative so they do things that are not originalist.

    Justice Scalia understood this far, far better. He didn't care what anybody called him. He knew quite well that he was a principled originalist, he knew what that implied, and it didn't matter if that got called "conservative." He had a fully worked-out jurisprudence, and he also knew quite well that it was fine to overturn ridiculous precedents. He didn't buy the tortured logic that a precedent becomes set in stone within a couple of years, no matter how outrageously wrongly-decided it might be. Clarence Thomas knows this too.

    I was shocked at what Gorsuch did in Bostock. I still don't understand it.

    I just pray the curse doesn't fall upon ACB.

    Btw, let me also add: A big part of the problem in *selection* is that the president has to find everything out indirectly. He isn't allowed to ask directly, "Would you overturn x precedent if you could?" If he did that, it would come out in questioning and the person would never be confirmed by the senate. So it's a big guessing game based on hints from groups like the Federalist Society. And apparently they aren't giving such great advice anymore. A lot of people don't know that--that the president can only find out indirectly what the person would rule and by guessing. Reagan and every rep. president have been hampered by that. It means no matter how much the president wants to get true originalists he's very hampered in finding out who really is one.

  7. Thanks to Hawk and all the commenters for an interesting discussing. I'm in Australia and am finding all the discussion fascinating. Most of our local media and politicians think that Trump should just concede. Up until yesterday I thought that too. But as each day goes by I'm less sure about that. Trump is so unconventional. I wish he would be more measured and statesmanlike. However, Covid aside he did a good job. I am more concerned of overseas conflict with Biden/Harris than I am with Trump.

    1. Thanks for your words, Real Deal! Much appreciated. I guess most of the mainstream media around the developed world probably stands against Trump. I suspect most of them are cut from the same cloth. Such as degrees from leftist journalism schools. Perhaps this helps explain the hive mind in opposing Trump.

      In addition, I think Trump shook up a lot of the powers that be. As the saying goes, one can tell a lot about a person by their enemies. Trump's enemies are the mainstream media whom he rightly revealed to be fake news and highly partisan. The coastal elites including Wall Street who see Trump as a traitor to his own class. Big tech companies who want to play both sides but ultimately hate Trump for (among other things) disrupting their money making schemes with China. Big pharma like Pfizer who want Trump's money to support their research for a COVID vaccine, but hate Trump just like other coastal elites. And so on and so forth.

      I don't like Trump's personality and character either, but Trump has done tremendous good around the world. He was winning the trade war against China until the pandemic. This was in light of the fact that most of the political class thought that Asia and China in particular was going to be the future in the 21st century while the West and especially America would gradually fade away into a secondary power. Remember Hillary and Obama's "Asian pivot"? We were meant to pivot to Asia in deference to China (an evil nation if there ever was one) as the future global power. Trump changed that. Trump curtailed China's upward trajectory to becoming the future superpower of the world. Otherwise China continue threatening its Asian and other neighbors including Australia. Of course, with Trump seemingly out of power soon, China will probably starting threatening its neighbors again.

      Contrary to what the mainstream media reports, Trump also stymied Putin and Russia. This was in contrast to Obama's administration which pursued a reset policy with Putin including removing missiles from near Russia's borders. Did Putin thank Obama for his "reset"? No, Putin invaded and took over Crimea as well as the eastern portion of Ukraine. Trump redressed this when he came into power and Putin couldn't do much more than bark during Trump's administration. However, who knows what will happen with Russia if Biden pursues Obama's old strategy again.

    2. Trump brought far more peace to the Mideast than either Obama or Bush. Trump defeated ISIS, whereas Obama had allowed ISIS to take over huge swathes of the Mideast. Trump killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as well as Qasem Soleimani. Both evil men. Both responsible for tremendous terrorism around the world. Trump brought moderate Muslims to make treaties with Israel. Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, which past Republican presidents had kept promising to do, but never did. Trump ended the horrible Iran deal which basically fed billions of dollars to Iran so Iran could pursue terrorism in the sorely naive or misguided view that Iran could be appeased. Today the evil Iran regime is tottering on the brink of collapse. It would be a huge mistaken if Biden resurrected Iran. And Trump took the focus off the Palestinians when our political class thought that the Palestinians were central to any peace in the Mideast. It turns out no one really needs the Palestinians to be involved! Again, let's hope Biden doesn't return to making the Palestinian issue central to Mideast politics, which would be a sore mistake.

      I'm old enough to remember when North Korea was threatening to test and lob nuclear tipped missiles toward the West Coast of the US as well as other nations including Australia back in 2016. I haven't heard North Korea make much of a peep anymore. Of course, everyone knows North Korea is simply China's lap dog, who does China's bidding, when it's useful for China to pretend they can't rein in North Korea.

      And many people wanted open borders with Mexico and other nations around the world despite all the problems that would bring. But Trump called for a wall which is being built.

      In short, Trump has done a lot of good for the world. If Biden is president, let's hope he doesn't wreck what Trump has done for the rest of the world.